The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Don't forget Grayling's comments on gay couples

The new Justice Secretary argued that B&B owners should be allowed to turn away gay couples.

By George Eaton Published 04 September 2012 11:23

New Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. Photograph: Getty Images.

Conservative Chris Grayling has been promoted from employment minister to Justice Secretary. Photograph: Getty Images.

After Chris Grayling's promotion to the cabinet as Justice Secretary, it's worth recalling why he was left out in the first place. It was because in April 2010, the then shadow home secretary, was revealed to have defended the right of B&B owners to turn away gay couples. At a meeting of the Centre for Policy Studies, he said:

I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences. I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.

Grayling subsequently apologised but was left out of David Cameron's first cabinet, instead becoming employment minister. That Cameron now believes it appropriate to make such a man Justice Secretary reveals much about his government's shift to the right.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Chris Grayling David Cameron Conservatives Coalition

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

20 comments

Thu, 2012-09-06 13:03 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

Maybe the use of Gay ought be prohibited unless in connection with the original meaning of the word

I see too may Gay people bashing the (w)*hit out of each other, and if you area male on your way to meet a wife or female partner are liable to be screamed at as a "bitch" because you do not want to sleep with them.

Mind you it all started with businessmen and politicians that did not want to make a women pregnant, or 'would have ruined their image'.

Mind you I would sooner pay for my child, or the partner than have the state pay for my free medication - whilst cancer sufferers are refused on the same cost grounds as those that carry contagious disease of their own volition and cause - long after the 1980's initial scare. Seems they have the right brown cigar in their mouths unlit.

Wed, 2012-09-05 23:16 — harryhart (not verified)

As a committed Tree Worshipper I have never let a lumberjack into my house.

Anthony (Little Englander and Proud)'s picture

Wed, 2012-09-05 22:09 — Anthony (Little Englander and Proud) (not verified)

Don't worry letting fags bum at the altar is still on the agenda !

Wed, 2012-09-05 21:41 — plain john snith (not verified)

1. Realistically, if you were an out of work bar manager who sent your c.v to a gay establishment in the West End, and included on your cv the fact that you were married with 2.5 kids and were a member of an Evangelical Church, how likely would you be to get the job?

2. Realistically, how many white folks have you ever noticed working in a curry restauarant?

3. Realistically, how many Indians have you ever noticed serving in a Chinese takeaway?

4. How many female firefighters have you noticed in the last five years?

5. How many straight male flight attendants have you met?

6. What do you reckon the % of straight female prison officers is?

7. If you, like me, are able to remember the days when Kilburn was an Irish ghetto in the 80s, how many barmen with English accents did you meet? ( I met one Englishman but he was trying to do an Irish accent.)

The laws which are pouring out of the EU simply do not recognise human nature, or the realities of the small family business, where you employ your son before your cousin, your cousin before the neighbour.

Wed, 2012-09-05 20:11 — Pavlova

A B&B is somebody's home too.

When you rent a spare room out in your home should you be allowed to discriminate over who you have live with you or accept whoever comes to the door?

What's wrong with letting B&B owners set up businesses that cater for niche markets? They aren't publicly funded core services, they are private leisure facilities, if you only want to provide services to married couples or Christians or VW van owners or gay people then why is it anyone else's concern? If you don't approve of an owner's preferences then you can exercise your right to be a discriminating customer and not give them your business.

Wed, 2012-09-05 10:43 — dave roberts (not verified)

I'm curious - if I'm a racist, should I be allowed to not allow black people into my restaurant? After all, it's a matter of my conscience.

Wed, 2012-09-05 20:20 — Pavlova

They didn't refuse to let the gay couple stay, they refused to let them stay in the same room. They were discriminating against behaviour they didn't approve of under their own roof. Similar to how they might have enforced a rule against drinking or smoking in the building or a dress code. I stayed at a health hotel where I had to abide by a long list of rules which included not having sex and being in bed by 9pm. If you don't like an establishment's rules of behaviour don't stay there.

Wed, 2012-09-05 13:33 — plain john snith (not verified)

If it is your business, then there is a libertarian argument that, yes you should be allowed to discriminate as to who enters your property. In practice, you would be foolish to turn clients of any race away if they have the money to buy your goods or services and behave themselves while on your property - the latter part is in my experience a big if with blacks, but that's a different debate.

The point here is that Evangelical Christians object to any sexual activity outside marriage (as do practising Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Moslems, and indeed the adherents of most world religions: and do not wish to facilitate such on their property. Until the sixties (and a lot later in parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland) a lot of heterosexual couples woulda been turned away from a B and B for not having a wedding ring. Up until fairly recently, most people in the UK paid lip service to sexual morality, even if they were not practicing or regularly churchgoing Christians.

As someone once said, homosexuals appear to have gone persecuted to persecutors in the space of a few decades: from the love that dare not speak its name to the love that won't bloody shut up: If a small two peron business declines to take your money for moral reasons, there are lots of other businesses who will: this is just gay lobby bullying. As I said, I suggest they try it at a Moslem owned establishment.

Wed, 2012-09-05 15:10 — jankaas (not verified)

"homosexuals appear to have gone persecuted to persecutors in the space of a few decades"

yet scum like you take every available opportunity to insult and denigrate homosexuals. and blacks, and women, and foreigners for that matter. so do pull the other one Plain, this pretense at being reasonable is transparently pathetic.

it is exactly because of the likes of you that anyone in the minority needs to be on their guard. you would gleefully harm them if you had the balls and the opportunity.

am i right or am i right?

"As I said, I suggest they try it at a Moslem owned establishment. "

ok then Plain, so where is your favourite Muslim owned B&B?

Wed, 2012-09-05 21:25 — plain john snith (not verified)

"ok then Plain, so where is your favourite Muslim owned B&B? "

Personally, I would rather pull out my own toenails than spend a night in any Moslem owned establishment: wouldn't wanna give em my money - but, that's just me. Is there a constitutional right to be a bigot?
.

Wed, 2012-09-05 15:52 — plain john snith (not verified)

Not sure whom I am denigrating with any argument here: I agree with the earlier post saying gay establishments should not be forced to hire striaght people or Evangelical Christians if they don't want to (though any Evangelical should wish to work in a gay bar is unlikely)

Philip Hensher, in the impeccably liberal Independent wrote an article not long ago saying he was fed up with all the straight female hen parties clogging up "his" gay bars, and wished em to be banned. I do not remember any leftists expressing shock and outrage here. Again, as the previous poster points out here, you have to make a distinction between the public and private sector : if is your enterprise, your shop or bar or B and B, why should you not have the right to decide who is let in and who is not? The right of association is relevant here as well.

Wed, 2012-09-05 16:55 — jankaas (not verified)

"Not sure whom I am denigrating with any argument here:"
it's more your relentless aggression aimed at all minorities that i was referring to. you post your fear and loathing of all minorities with tedious regularity on the NS boards.

"I do not remember any leftists expressing shock and outrage here."
really? you expect "leftists" to campaign on behalf of hen parties that haven't in reality been banned from anywhere based on their sexual orientation? in other words; nothing to see there. well how unfair is that eh.....?

"you have to make a distinction between the public and private sector "
a commercial venture such as a B&B is subject to specific laws including anti-discrimination. to pretend this is private property in the sense of my or your home is demented.

Tue, 2012-09-04 18:52 — plain john snith (not verified)

white Christians are fair game for the left cos they can bully em without fear of crazy people with beards coming round to their house and stabbing em.

Tue, 2012-09-04 17:01 — tory troll (not verified)

Somehow, I cannot imagine the left getting this worked up if the B and B owners had been fundamentalist Moslems.

Tue, 2012-09-04 18:04 — Lucidus (not verified)

You have a limited imagination.

Tue, 2012-09-04 16:13 — jankaas (not verified)

"That Cameron now believes it appropriate to make such a man Justice Secretary reveals much about his government's shift to the right."

surely part of our liberal progressive legal system is the concept of reforming ones character? he certainly appears to have been punished to some degree.

this man may well have learned from his error and gone from being an odious turd to a valuable member of society, moreover one who can appreciate crime, punishment and rehabilitation. does he not at the very least deserve an interview where this question can be aimed at him?

Tue, 2012-09-04 14:17 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Just another hint that Cameron is not the moderate progressive he claims to be. He is seriously right wing and unpleasant and has surrounded himself with people of similar mind

Tue, 2012-09-04 12:54 — Mr Bingham (not verified)

I would not be surprised if public floggings, beheadings and people going missing becomes part of the justice system now. Once this Tory Led Coalition has away with our human rights anything will become possible.

Soon all legal aid will be cut to the bone so that only the very few will be granted it. Anything is possible once this dictatorship Government in suits get their dream of taking away our human rights, because that is what they have planned and will take away in the not to distant future. Soon you will not even have employment rights.

Tue, 2012-09-04 12:03 — storeyinstitute (not verified)

This is all fine and dandy, provided that gay resorts have the right to refuse Christians or heterosexuals. Gay couples should be free to associate with whomever they like, including each other in marriage contract. But, the right to associate should include the right to not associate. Lesbian clubs should not be required to hire straight male bartenders, etc. Provided the business is not a government enterprise, allow them to choose and allow the rest of us to boycott them if we dislike their choices.