Nick Griffin and "heterophobia"

[BabyJayne]

You might have seen in the news today that BNP leader Nick Griffin has tweeted the address of two gay men who won a legal battle against a B and B owner who refused them a double room because of her religious views.

The couple say they made a reservation and paid a deposit - and so are as entitled to a double room as anyone else.
Nick Griffin says it is up to the person who owns the B and B who they have staying there.

One of his tweets read: "So Messrs Black & Morgan, at (their address). A British Justice team will come up to Huntington & give you a...

"...bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle. Say No to heterophobia!"

Here is the full story taken from Sky News for those who want to read it:

Spoiler

BNP leader Nick Griffin has defended comments made on Twitter about a gay couple at the centre of a landmark legal ruling.
The MEP published the address of Michael Black and John Morgan on the social networking site and called for a demonstration to be held outside their home.
Cambridgeshire Police said on Thursday it was investigating the incident and Dyfed-Powys Police said it was liaising with the force.
The tweets, under the username @nickgriffinmep, followed Mr Black, 64, and his 59-year-old partner Mr Morgan's win against the owner of bed and breakfast accommodation who refused to let them stay in a double room because of her religious views.
The couple, from Brampton in Cambridgeshire, sought damages from Susanne Wilkinson after she turned them away from the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire, in March, 2010, even though they had made a reservation and paid a deposit.
One of the tweets read: "So Messrs Black & Morgan, at (their address). A British Justice team will come up to Huntington & give you a...
"...bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle. Say No to heterophobia!"
Mr Griffin told Sky News: "I was very angry in the way in which left-wing political activists and a minority of gay activists are working with left-wing judges to use the Human Rights Act to persecute ordinary people, especially Christians.
"I most definitely didn’t post a menacing message and there’s nothing inciteful, I said that we’d be holding a demonstration on behalf of everybody including gay people to decide who they have and don’t have in their homes.
"I don’t think that could be described as menacing.
"I only regret that we haven’t so far found the address of the judge who made that outrageous judgement because when we do we’ll be looking at a demonstration somewhere near that."
Mr Morgan said the tweets had made him feel "uncomfortable".
"We live in a reasonably small village and I don't think either of us expect a mass demonstration but we might be wrong."
Mr Black said Mr Griffin had misunderstood the law on discrimination.
"Nick Griffin has missed the point that the difference between what he’s saying and the law is that if somebody opens a B&B that is offering a service to the public, it’s a business, it’s not a private home.
"Whereas everyone has the choice as to who to admit to their own home, if you’re offering a service to the public you have to abide by the laws."
A Cambridgeshire Police spokeswoman said: "We have received a number of calls in relations to the tweets and are looking into the complaints we have received.
"Officers will also visit the men mentioned in the tweets as part of our inquiries."
The case at Reading County Court concluded the couple had suffered unlawful discrimination.
At the time, Mr Black, an exams consultant and writer, protested at their treatment but the owner refused to allow them to stay as it was "against her convictions".

So, what do you think?

I think the courts were exactly right. You cannot run a business and then exclude people from using that business/service based on their gender, race or sexual preference. If I was gay and was refused a room with my partner I would be incensed. I wonder if this religious woman who runs the B&B would also refuse unmarried couples a double room?

I also think Nick Griffin is a raging tosspot. I think I actually hate him. He is a vile creature who spouts nothing but absolute bullshit day in, day out. I think his tweet was disgusting, and as it says in the article, completely missed the point. It's scary that a man as educated as he is can have such backward thoughts and views. I was a journalist for a number of years and dealt quite a lot with the local BNP faction. It would always break my heart when I had to ring this particular guy (he was contesting a seat on the local council) and his children would answer. They were so polite and well mannered, and it just pained me to imagine what biggoted views they were being brought up around.

Anyway - there's my view. All opinions welcome

 

[Eternal]

Seems strange that's been passed! Seems very wrong, however, If someone was renting a room of their house to someone, it would seem more ok, I mean, If I rented out a room here I would be particular at who I would have live with me.

But as a business then I think it's wrong.

 

[BabyJayne]

The gay couple won their discrimination claim and were awarded about £3k compensation. I agree if you are renting out a room at your home for someone to live in, then it is up to you who you rent that room out to. But yes, as you say, refusing someone a double room in a B&B because they are gay is discriminatory.

 

[robinator]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

 

[AP]

I agree with babyjayne

I think it's crazy. They are discriminating people because of their attraction to the same sex. That's it. No difference to liking a football team or music act rather than the one the business owner follows.

And I'm sorry but it's not really any of their business whether they are gay or not, just give em the room key and move on?! It's not like they are more capable of trashing a room

 

[BabyJayne]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

 

[louandivy]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

Exactly my thoughts. I am so glad the couple won the case. I am on my phone so can't read properly but did nick griffin really say 'hetereophobia'?!!!! That is literally one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. The fact that this idiot is leader of a whole political party is really indicative of the mental level of its members.

 

[robinator]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

Actually, yes. Remember the old signs, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It is their business and they make the rules.

We don't have to agree with it, it doesn't even have to be morally right, but they are the owners. Ultimately what they decide to do will profit them or hurt them.

 

[summer rain]

I believe UK laws differ from those in the US. They certainly don't have signs like that in any UK establishments or shops xx

 

[robinator]

Oh. They do here.

 

[BabyJayne]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

Actually, yes. Remember the old signs, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It is their business and they make the rules.

We don't have to agree with it, it doesn't even have to be morally right, but they are the owners. Ultimately what they decide to do will profit them or hurt them.

There used to be similar signs - things we had here were "No travellers" (gypsies etc). And back in the dark ages there would probably be signs that refused entry to people of a certain race or even gender. I would be horrified to see such a thing now.

They are businesses, but they are operating (and profiting) within the laws of the land, and the law of this land says you cannot discriminate against someone for their sexuality/colour etc.

 

[robinator]

I agree - if they break the law they get sued and lose.

That is what I said- they can still make their own policies, even though it may ultimately hurt them.

 

[Purpular]

Not that it's right in any way to discriminate against people for their sexuality but the couple who own the B&B used the fact that they don't allow unmarried couples to book double rooms at all as their defence. Does that mean they discriminate against the unmarried? I'm not sure whether the men involved were in a civil partnership or not but, for me, if they were then not treating them as they would a married couple would show discrimination. If they make this policy known before the time of booking then it seems less personal and maybe the case would have gone a different way.

As any private business I think you can turn away anybody's custom without a reason. It's very old fashioned of the B&B and can't make good business sense either way.

 

[Kess]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

Actually, yes. Remember the old signs, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It is their business and they make the rules.

We don't have to agree with it, it doesn't even have to be morally right, but they are the owners. Ultimately what they decide to do will profit them or hurt them.

So in America a shop or something could refuse to serve a black man, just because he's black? Or a woman who's not wearing modest enough clothes? Or an elderly person? Really?

 

[robinator]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

Actually, yes. Remember the old signs, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It is their business and they make the rules.

We don't have to agree with it, it doesn't even have to be morally right, but they are the owners. Ultimately what they decide to do will profit them or hurt them.

So in America a shop or something could refuse to serve a black man, just because he's black? Or a woman who's not wearing modest enough clothes? Or an elderly person? Really?

Yep, they could. They'd be stupid to, and would get their asses sued, but it'd be their prerogative.

It's not like this sort of thing is common, but it happens on rare occasion.

 

[Miss Wright]

I'm so glad the couple won their case. This kind of bigotry has no place in modern, civilised society. And don't get me started on Nick Griffin....

 

[Kess]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

Actually, yes. Remember the old signs, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It is their business and they make the rules.

We don't have to agree with it, it doesn't even have to be morally right, but they are the owners. Ultimately what they decide to do will profit them or hurt them.

So in America a shop or something could refuse to serve a black man, just because he's black? Or a woman who's not wearing modest enough clothes? Or an elderly person? Really?

Yep, they could. They'd be stupid to, and would get their asses sued, but it'd be their prerogative.

It's not like this sort of thing is common, but it happens on rare occasion.

But if they're getting sued, surely that means it's against some law or other? You can't sue someone unless they've broken the law can you? (At least civil law)

 

[Ozzieshunni]

If a business in the US does that, they get reported to the Better Business Bureau. They also get their asses sued and their business in the news and they lose business. So I don't think many would dare do that.

 

[robinator]

Discriminatory, yes, but within their rights as business owners.

Would they then be right to refuse someone on the grounds that they were black, purely because they are business owners? Would a shop be right to refuse to serve someone because they were disabled, just because they were business owners?

Actually, yes. Remember the old signs, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? It is their business and they make the rules.

We don't have to agree with it, it doesn't even have to be morally right, but they are the owners. Ultimately what they decide to do will profit them or hurt them.

So in America a shop or something could refuse to serve a black man, just because he's black? Or a woman who's not wearing modest enough clothes? Or an elderly person? Really?

Yep, they could. They'd be stupid to, and would get their asses sued, but it'd be their prerogative.

It's not like this sort of thing is common, but it happens on rare occasion.

But if they're getting sued, surely that means it's against some law or other? You can't sue someone unless they've broken the law can you? (At least civil law)

Not necessarily. Remember that old lady who dumped hot coffee on herself and sued McDonald's?

 

[pinklizzy]

I think the court's decision was correct, there was a lot made of the fact that the B&B owners should be allowed to decide who stays in their 'family home' but surely by running a business from that home they should be governed by the same equality laws as any other small/large business.
As for Nick Griffin,he makes my skin crawl, vile vile man. He lives near us and I quite often see him around