Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


William Hague says Chris Graying will not seek law change for B&B owners

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Grayling NEVER said he wanted it changed. All this crap is a storm in a teacup. It was his personal opinion that was secretly recorded. Can anyone here say they fully support everything their employer does? How would you feel if something you said in the toilets to a mate about your firm got recorded and issued on a company email?

    People should listen to the actual recording, transcripts always seem to put the accents on the wrong parts:

  2. And what is Mr Hague’s view on the subject of B&Bs (and that of the Tory front bench for that matter)? Would be interesting to know.

  3. one cant lie for so long in so many issues and for so many people unless the crowds are ignorant self hatred self homophobic and self- morbid.
    enough with lies and deception,
    secret opinions of hostility reflect the true nature of right wing and always grow for the worse when they are executed once in reign.
    be awere and stop it.onely social democracy for equality,justice and benovelence.

  4. Be aware .
    stop it.
    only social democracy for equality,justice and benevolence.

  5. @1: William Hague is probably even more homophobic than Chris Grayling. Willy got all his MPs to vote against all Gay rights legislation – and even sacked those of his own MPs who wouldn’t vote against. Largely, he is responsible for the hidious voting record of the Tories. See: http://mygayvote.co.uk/

  6. Well said Rob_N but unfortunately, one’s personal opinion is indeed who he/she is. And if Grayling supported a law he does not believe in, how on earth would anyone believe he wont change it if he gets into a position that allows him to? Rationality is also a virtue too… Your positing that not everyone “fully support everything their employer does?” is too feeble to be compared to this. He was not under oath to vote it & if you work for an employer you dont agree with, its best to challenge it if you have any dignity intact.

    I support Labour & would stand up to truth if something wrong is said… or shut up. Trusting Chris G by anyone affected will be a big risk. Little drops (opinions) of water do fills a bucket indeed. And David Cameron’s shadow cabinet’s ever-changing and self-countering policies indicates they never mean what they say. Because they think their audience are fools indeed.

    And I listened to the original recording. it wasnt muddled at all and he nor his party has argued such point.

  7. Re the My Gay Vote website I noticed it doesn’t take the recent amendment to allow faith schools to teach sex education according to their religious ethos. The only party which voted against that was the Lib Dem party. If that vote was included then ‘My Gay Vote’ would surely go to the Lib Dems rather than to Labour.

  8. But it does beg the question – why was Grayling so willing to express his support for breaking the law, when he was at a private, secret function, yet would not do so in public.

    Why the secrecy and double standards.

    If Grayling wants to return Britain to the 1960’s and allow people display signs saying ‘No Blacks, No Irish, No Gays, No Dogs’ then this needs to be questioned loud and clear.

    The comments he made about gay people and B&B’s is the type of think you expect to hear from a fascist like Nick Griffin.

    It is quite clear from Grayling’s comments and the Tories refusal to condemn his comments, that Grayling and the Tories have neo-fascist sympathies.

    No surprise there.

  9. Mihangel apYrs 7 Apr 2010, 12:48pm

    (1) politicians are never “in private” unless everyone present takes the oath; they are always on show, always talking to the microphone.

    (2) even if (1) didn’t hold generally, just before a general election any utterances by politicians are grist to the mill (or non-showers in Cameron’s case). One has to be on the ball and on message: anything less suggests either a deliberate mis-speak, a freudian slip, or a depth of innocense or stupidity unbecoming a politician

  10. “He added that Mr Grayling had explained his remarks to colleagues ”

    Sorry – that is an entirely inadequate explanation.

    I want a proper explanation as to why Grayling will vocalise his support for law-breaking in private but pretends he does not support law-breaking in public.

    Which is it Grayling – you deceitful, bigotted, neo-fascist scumbag.

    This Grayling person belongs in the BNP. His comments about B&B’s would be condemned as vicious hatespeech if the likes of Nick Griffin uttered it.

  11. William Hague has a terrible record on gay rights and why can’t Grayling speak for himself? It’s a bit like his glove puppet leader, all mouth and someone else’s fingers.

  12. Sister Mary clarence 7 Apr 2010, 1:11pm

    “I want a proper explanation as to why Grayling will vocalise his support for law-breaking in private but pretends he does not support law-breaking in public.”

    What are you talking about?

    When has he pretended anything.

    The story is about him expressing a personal view on an issue, with no reference whatsoever to him supporting law breaking.


  13. “William Hague has insisted that Chris Grayling will not try to change the law to allow bed and breakfast owners to discriminate against gay couples”. did haige actually admit it is discrimination?

  14. well they can kiss arse all they like , Im voting labour

  15. “What are you talking about?
    When has he pretended anything.”

    Grayling made the following statement at the private function: ” “I personally always 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.” ”

    So he’s saying in private that people who have commercial businesses should be entitled to discriminate against people they don’t like in terms of the provision of goods or services.

    However now William Hague is saying “”He supported the law then and he supports the law now and he will support it in future. He’s made clear that he’s not looking for a change to the law.” ”

    Grayling is lying. It is not possible to on the one hand support neo-fascist discrimination based on someone’s sexuality; yet on the other hand pretend to support equality.

    And even more worrying – why is that homophobic scumbag Chris Grayling declaring his support for neo-fascist discrimination in private but claiming not to in public.

    And why have the Tories not reprimanded him?

    Oh yeah – because the Tories are a pack of liars. Under their leader – professional liar David Cameron they will tell whatever lies they think they can get away with.

    Chris Grayling has made statements about gay people which are just as bad as the racial comments made by the BNP.

    Why are the Tories condemning the BNP, when Chris Grayling demonstrates how similar the 2 parties are.

    The BNP is racist. The Tories are homophobic. Why are the Tories any better than the BNP?

  16. Does Hague want us to be grateful that Grayling would not be allowed to act on his homophobic views if, heaven forbid, he were to become Justice Secretary? Hague – who has his own deeply homophobic agenda – refuses to discipline Grayling for his homophobia, just compliments his bigoted colleague who is clearly highly esteemed in high Tory circles. I suppose Hague, Grayling et al do not have to use B&Bs – with their houses in the country. I wonder what they would feel like if the tables were turned… http://www.dailyshame.co.uk/2010/04/satire/gay-bb-owners-demand-right-to-refuse-conservative-mps/

  17. vulpus_rex 7 Apr 2010, 2:46pm

    Calm down Simon.

    The BNP support the renationalisation of British Rail – so does Dennis Skinner – does that mean that Labour and the BNP are secretly one and the same – I think not.

    And you are incorrect – as far as we know Chris Grayling hasn’t advocated breaking any laws – he has on the other hand strongly implied that he thinks it is bad law – very different.

  18. Well there you have it folks. The PinkNews caucus of the Tory Party have explained ONCE AGAIN how we should disregard the latest Conservative anti-gay “accident”/”misspeak”/”oversight”/”misunderstanding”/”misinterpretation”/etc., etc., etc.

    Pay no mid to the man behind the green curtain. VOTE TORY!

    PinkNews has become a shameless mouthpiece for all things Tory.

  19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FnmnuDiVno

    David Cameron exposed (YouTube). Hillarious. I’m voting Monster-Raving-Loonies if they’re still going.

  20. BrazilBoysBlog 7 Apr 2010, 3:07pm

    I have to agree. To have that raging homophobe Hague making ANY pronouncements on gay rights and equality laws is laughable!

    I totally understand him defending his shadow cabinet colleague though… Birds of a feather and all that!

  21. Oh the interesting double standards just go on and on and on!!! Interesting the Tory Central Office intervened to get a B&B owner and prospective parliamentary candidate in Northern Ireland DUMPED for expressing the same views as Grayling!!!! Cameron & Co can promise all they like now … just don’t be too surprised when the promises come to absolutely nothing on May 7th – if they win.

  22. He did say he wouldn’t change it and he did vote for it. Good on him!

  23. @22: He did, and he didn’t vote for it. From twitter:

    LabMP: Is grayling still in his job? He tried to derail civil partnerships, he’s incited b&b owners to turn gays away. But he’d be Tory home sec!

    @xxx He voted to make it apply to siblings – which was the tombstone group way of derailing it.

    @xxx He voted 2 amend CPs to derail them, voted 4 CPs, voted 4 ban on discrim but now says he thinks people shd be free to ban gays!

    @xxx I’m happy to admit it – but he also voted to derail them. Your piece on him was right. He is a major liability for you.

    @xxx whole point of CPs was they were equivalent of civ marriage. Those who wanted to derail them voted for siblings to be added.

    xxx = Tory blogger who knows.

  24. dave wainwright 7 Apr 2010, 3:26pm

    Is this the same William Hague who also say that Lord Ashcroft would be paying tax if he got a seat in the house of Lords? how can anyone believe a word that comes out of his mouth , he is a proven liar and not a word he says can be trusted .

  25. When will call me ‘Dave’ get around to answering the questions he asked us for?


    Or is it a case of a lack of substance from ‘Dave’ and Tories? He never had any intention of answering us, he just wanted to be seen doings something LGBT related!

    Tories promise you the world but intend to give you nothing!

  26. Chris Grayling did vote for it and he did say he wouldn’t change that law. Thank you very much. Don’t go changing events to suit yourself now.

  27. dave wainwright “Is this the same William Hague who also say that Lord Ashcroft would be paying tax if he got a seat in the house of Lords? how can anyone believe a word that comes out of his mouth , he is a proven liar and not a word he says can be trusted” Snap

    Hey trolls any response to this?

    (Report comment)

    Comment by — April 7, 2010 @ 15:26

  28. @26: He did vote for it, but originally tried to scupper it. Politians often try to do this – just the same as in the US Health Care bill the republicans tried to get almost 100 amendments (the pork barrels) added. The Tory party tried to derail Civil Partnerships, but failed, so had to, grudingly, reaffirm their vote for it. It’s hardly a ringing endorsement.
    These are all facts, you can see them in several news web sites, and it’s a matter of public record on theyworkforyou. I’m only pointing out the actual truth, rather than letting a lie be propogated. Please don’t shoot me down for bringing the truth out in to the light. Thanks.

  29. Mind you, law itself contains an opt out in Regulation 6 to the Equality Act 2007:
    Regulation 4 [which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation] does not apply to anything done by a person as a participant in arrangements under which he (for reward or not) takes into his home, and treats as if they were members of his family, children, elderly persons, or persons requiring a special degree of care and attention.
    It woulld appear that Grayling’s view is captured nicely in the law, and that’s why the Police would not sue.

  30. @29: Yep, well, that’s the election week for you. It all goes tits up. The Tories forced the Government to water down various parts to get it through – otherwise it was in danger of not going forward. This has not happened in several places.
    Hopefully Lab/Libs will get in and put that right.

  31. dave wainwright “Is this the same William Hague who also say that Lord Ashcroft would be paying tax if he got a seat in the house of Lords? how can anyone believe a word that comes out of his mouth , he is a proven liar and not a word he says can be trusted” Snap

    Hey trolls any response to this?

  32. John(Derbyshire) 7 Apr 2010, 6:29pm

    Has no one ben present at Mr Hague`s after-dinner speaking engagements? His anti-gay remarks about Peter Mandelson on these occasions have been widely reported. Also- what does all this tell us about the sttitudes of theman who will be our next home secretary? Do YOu have full confidence that a man with THESE views-albeit in private-will actually be in charge of our police force?

  33. @Niki – Many people do seem to believe that the regulation does not apply to B&B owners because of the ‘own home’ exemption. This view is quite wrong.

    Please get the message out – the ‘own home’ exemption does _not_ apply to people who make accommodation in their home openly available to the public. The exemption _only_ covers people renting a room who select a tenant through an interview process (i.e. people taking in lodgers). If you’re renting the kind of room where people expect to have to meet you, talk to you about their circumstances, and wait for you to make a decision, you are currently allowed to discriminate. If you’re renting the kind of room where people expect to be able to hire the room provided you have space available (e.g. a B&B), then you’re not allowed to discriminate. The law is quite clear on this, and the Government’s notes on the implementation of the law specifically state that B&B owners _are_ covered by the regulations.

    The reason the police did not intervene is because the Equality Regulations are a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Should the couple recently turned away from the Swiss B&B wish to pursue the case in the civil courts, there is no defence in law which the owners could offer; their only defence would be to argue that the law itself is illegal or inadequately drafted.

  34. I understand the deal is the Hague and Ian Duncan Smith puppet ‘Dave’ will step down and hand Hague and IDS control of the country within two years of the next parliament. David Cameron is just the wooden horse to get the party in power. Afterwards ‘Dave’ just becomes firewood for the Tories and the right wingers will get in power without an election.

    Vote ‘Dave’ and get IDS and Hague and a fascist state!

  35. Godwyns: “I support Labour & would stand up to truth if something wrong is said… or shut up.”

    Do you seriously think that any politician fully supports his party on all issues? That’s what the whips are for. The day everyone turns into “Yes” men is the day politics is finished. Politicians of any persuasion should be allowed to vote based on their own individual consciences, and not forced to just follow their party’s line, otherwise they don’t even need to be there.

  36. SimonM: “The comments he made about gay people and B&B’s is the type of think you expect to hear from a fascist like Nick Griffin.”

    You really do talk a load of lefty reactionary SH!TE sometimes.
    A guy voices his opinion about trying to balance Christians versus gays, and you immediately label him slightly right of Heinrich Himmler. Get some perspective, you f_ckwit.

  37. well Haige lied about Ashcroft so why should anyone believe him now?

  38. @RobN There is no equivalence between gays and Christians, any more than there is equivalence between Muslims and left-handed people. You need to internalise this. Soon.

    Groups of people who have some attribute at birth are not equivalent to groups of people with chosen ‘religious’ views.

  39. why does rob_n stick up for homophobes? you are obviously a profound homophobic f_ckwit.
    no one is saying this tory politican cant have his own opinion. simon is just saying the guys a homophobe. why do you try and claim he isn’t. he is. and you are defending him. pathetic.

  40. rob n squidgy and Mary clarence are bnp trolls.

  41. Rev Laurie Roberts 7 Apr 2010, 10:09pm

    A nasty homophobic anti-gay party leadership. Vote for them ? You must be joking.

    I still remember Thatcher, the Miners Strike and Section – bollox forgot the number — but we all remember its toxic consequences for schools young people and teachers.

  42. Jean-Paul Bentham 7 Apr 2010, 10:29pm

    In all fairness, RobN is not BNP.

  43. YouGov’s daily poll in the Sun has topline figures of CON 37%(-3), LAB 32%(nc). The other day YouGov gave CON a 10 point lead.

    Section 28 did not only apply to schools – it sent a message throughout the UK which ment that it got applied in all sorts of area – such as sexual health, counselling, support group – support groups felt like they got caught by it and weren’t able to give support. Councils stopped funding legitimate support groups because they were worried they would be caught by the legislation. So it didn’t only apply to schools. There was nothing good about Section 28 except it made bigots feel good about kicking a defenceless minority group for no reason.

    Section 28 was insidious: 
    1.intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.
    2.stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.
    3.operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.


  44. Still no answer from the Tory trolls who masquerade in here as LGBT people to the most basic question – these reassurances from Wm Hague that Grayling won;t seek to remove anti-discrimination protection from gays: is that the same Wm Hague who is known for his strong record of voting agains tgay equal rights ? Is that the same Wm Hague known for his vile, homophobic after dinner speeches ? Is that the same Wm Hague who has – at the very least- prevaricated about the tax status of his paymaster Lord Ashcroft, quite probably deliberately deceived the nation ?

    And if so, why should we believe one word he says on the subject of gay rights ? Grayling hopes to be Home Secretary and says he personally would like to take protections away from us – why shouldn;t we believe he plans to do exactly that, given the chance ?

  45. Mihangel apYrs 7 Apr 2010, 10:48pm

    I’ve come to the conclusion Rob_N (while not liking gay men) also likes lobbing “intellectual” grenades into discussion.

    Some of what he says is of interest, a lot comes over as plain nasty. Let’s appreciate the grenades and ignore the invective

  46. The site “My Gay Vote” is by Stonewall, who have always been close to the Labour Party. I’d check up on the actual votes behind the statistics, though the Tories don’t do fantastically either way.

    For example, in the Equality Bill, Stonewall wanted incitement to homophobic hatred to work the same way as racial hatred – with no need for intent. This legislation has been criticised by the person who drafted it as being “unworkable” because of the lack of an intent clause. The Lib Dems wanted the legislation to be the same as incitement to religious hatred, which is better drafted law which is more enforcable in court.

  47. @46: I’ve done a whois lookup and can’t figure out how you know that it is Stonewall. But, if it is Stonewall, what better organisation to bring us the truth. Would it be better if we asked CCHQ to run a similar site? I’ve checked on some of the MPs and it’s clear that the results do appear to be in line with the results. I think I checked about a dozen MPs – so obviously didn’t check those 600. But do you think it’s wrong?

  48. The Stonewall data is available at:
    You can take the Word doc, then put in to Excel, then crunch the numbers. I haven’t done so yet.

  49. OMG. The Chris Grayling issues has just been asked on Question Time. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  50. 45Mihangel apYrs Says:

    42Jean-Paul Bentham Says:

  51. Don’t forget to laugh (it could all be a dream!)

  52. William Hague is even more homophobic than Chris Grailing. What he says through his teeth will never match his attitudes and voting record.

  53. The Tories are already setting the tone of their possible mandate. They will simply tolerate homophobia. That will translate down to the local level. For example, Councils placing a person’s ‘religious beliefs’ above another’s sexual orientation can be common place. Police officers deciding to ignore reports of homophobic incidents is another example. People will become just apathic and complacent, if not complicit.

  54. Tory homophobes, under the guise of religious belief, will cover each other’s arses, and the others will just look the other way, will not get involved, imposing lots of barriers to the victims to reach justice.

  55. dave wainwright 8 Apr 2010, 1:57am

    I thought that David Milliband addressed the Grayling incident on Question time with great decorum and substance , well worth a watch if you missed it , (bbc iplayer ), Milliband has gone up in my estimation , has the makings of a great statesman.

  56. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/im-voting-labour-founder-of-tory-gay-rights-group-says-1938700.html

    I’m voting Labour, founder of Tory gay rights group says.
    Grayling’s B&B gaffe provokes revolt against Cameron

  57. Patrick James 8 Apr 2010, 3:01am

    At last real action against homophobia from a (former) LGBT Conservative as reported in the Independent.

    LGBT Conservatives can retain their dignity and do some good for LGBT people by doing as Anastasia Beaumont-Bott has done.

    LGBT Conservatives are simply being conned and used by Cameron.

  58. david wainwright ” Milliband has gone up in my estimation , has the makings of a great statesman”. steady on, sometime he speaks from the heart but too often he slips into soundbites like blair he’s not trustworthy and he stabbed brown in the back. a treachorous mr bean.

  59. vulpus_rex 8 Apr 2010, 9:57am

    If for some reason I were to find myself stranded in central east London I might have reason to book into a Muslim or Jewish B&B, organised according to either halal or kosher law.

    Whilst staying as the guest of the proprietors should I demand my right to tuck into bacon sarnies followed by the sea food special or should I perhaps think I could live without it for one night?

    What a thorny problem – respecting others religious beliefs versus my right to eat a perfectly legal item of food.

    Isn’t it a shame that any discussion of this problem of clashing cultural vs religious rights can only be discussed in terms of shrill, hysterical extremism where anyone daring to even pose the questions must immediately be denounced as a Nazi who secretly wants to send one party back to the stone age?

  60. Sister Mary clarence 8 Apr 2010, 9:57am

    Blimey Jonathon, she’s resigned from something else …. again.

    I’m sure she’ll pop up somehwere else within a day or two.

  61. Bobbet:-

    Thats a hypocritical statement. There was a news story on here some months ago if I remember which involved the police. I remember a number of threads commenting how gay people are ignored by the police and that it wasn’t worth bothering with, so what you saying is things won’t change?

    I know that when I needed help from the police I went out of my way to find the correct person, a gay liaison officer. That won’t stop as there are too many gay, lesbian etc people working within the force to stop it.

    So what you actually saying is that under the Tories it won’t be any different then…

  62. as were discussing discrimination I was wondering if what the b&b owners did is similar to ads on gay dating sites that have comments like no fats blacks asians, fems or White. (not all in one ad obviously) surely it’s also discrimination no?

  63. Has that disgusting, dishonest bigot Chris Grayling been fired yet?

    Of course not.

    This means that official Tory policy supports commercial businesses breaking the law and denying goods and services to gay people.

    The Tories remain the homophobic scumbags they always have been

  64. every time I see an image of this aged bald-headed foetus-face or hear his voice, I shudder

    he has the same arrogant superiority as Thatcher had

    stir it up, everyone, on every internet forum, phone-in, TV programme, and newspaper that you can!

    Who do the Tories support?

    A. “The Great Ignored” who want the right to slam the door in the faces of gay men, lesbians, and transgenders?


    B. we gay men, lesbians, and transgenders? and therefore the Tories must NOW make it absolutely clear to “The Great Ignored” that slamming the door in our faces will NOT be tolerated and that they, the Tories, intend to FURTHER the protection of LGBT people.

    In other words, whenever you get the chance, make every the Tories declare out loud to “The Great Ignored” so that ALL of “The Great Ignored” can HEAR it that slamming the door in our faces will NOT be tolerated and that they, the Tories, intend to FURTHER the protection of LGBT people.

    Push it, people. Unmask these hypocritical Tories for what they are.

  65. Zeke you are so right.

    “The PinkNews caucus of the Tory Party have explained ONCE AGAIN how we should disregard the latest Conservative anti-gay “accident”/”misspeak”/”oversight”/”misunderstanding”/”misinterpretation”/etc., etc., etc.”

    PinkNews is pushing the Tories. PinkNews is probably linked to LGBTory.

  66. Remember that GayTimes video last week which showed Cameron has NO deeply-held beliefs supporting gay lib?

    One of the things I noticed and surely you guys must have noticed it too was that Cameron was completely thrown by the handsome and self-confident gay Martin Popplewell.

    Cameron was like “Sh*t, this Popplewell is speaking to me as if I was his equal!”

    Popplewell said to Cameron, “Why should we vote for you, if you’re not going to vote for us?”

    Cameron was completely flummoxed. For Cameron it’s an us/them situation. In other words, the gays and lesbians are “out there”, separate from him and the core of Tory philosophy. For Cameron it’s all about how best to appease the gays and lesbians and hopefully get some of their votes.

    Make no mistake, Cameron, Hague, and Grayling are NOT 100% behind us!

    To put it another way: not one of them would have the likes of us sitting down to Christmas Dinner with them!

  67. Abi @ #34, thanks for the thought of that distinct possibility. It hadn’t occurred to me before. I think it’s one that we all ought to consider very very carefully!

    Call-Me-Dave is willing to run around with his sleeves rolled up, being the slick Super Salesman, and giving the impression that he’s the lead contender on “The Apprentice” . . .

    . . . but if he gets the job, then, yes, slash, out come the pure-blue Tories, the big arch-conservative guns like Hague, Duncan-Smith, Grayling, et al., who will push all that shiny trendy window-dressing out of the way and return this country to the value system that is held by “The Great Ignored”.

    Anyone watching telly? Anyone noticing the horrendous sea of blue on those maps of the UK they’re showing? That’s where “The Great Ignored” are.

    The trouble with the Gay Tories who post on these threads is that they all live in the small red areas which are the major cities. They have no idea of the hatred of gays, lesbians, and transgenders out there in the ocean of blue that is beyond the cities!

  68. I guess if the Conservatives get in and start trying to repeal the Gay rights laws that we could hope that the EU will take them on. We can always start using Gay Pride in the ‘old’ way again. I still have my original Gay Pride march badges – and it might be fun if 250,000 Gays march down parliment again – with Boris and Ken, hand-in-hand, leading at the front :-)

  69. I’ve changed my name to Jonathan2 as there are now two Jonathan’s on here (@68). I agree with the post made @68, but just for clarify. And Post @69 is mine.

  70. We’ve had a Tory mayor who wasn’t the disaster they all made it out it was going to be. He’s do Very well and will be getting my vote if he stay.

    He seems to have actually got more done. He does that because unlike Ken he doesn’t have the confrontational attitude but puts peoples back up.

  71. EXTRAORDINARY that Anastasia Beaumont-Bott, the first chairman of LGBTory, has now gone on record as saying that she wishes to reverse her previous encouragement to all of us gays to vote Tory!

    She has said that SHE will now vote Labour.

    SHE has seen the truth of the Tory lie, and good for her for having the GUTS to change course immediately!

    Where’s young Matthew Sephton? I exhorted him to do the same weeks ago. He seems to have gone very quiet. When will HE too have the GUTS to quit the Tories and join one of the other parties?

    The same goes for all members of LGBTory. Follow your ex-leader people.

    See whole story at:


    And spread the above URL around amongst every gay and lesbian you know!

  72. @71: Squidgy, do you ever watch Major’s Question Time on BBC Parliment? He is very confrontational – and I’m sure it was the same with Ken. It’s just like Prime Minister’s Question Time. That is the only politics that politicians know. As for being Major – he’s a baffoon, but in a sort of lovable way – that’s more about his off-hand manner, constant gaffes and floppy blond hair. You know what they say about dumb and blonds. He scrapped the proposals on Oyster card changes which would have made a real difference to peoples’ lives travelling around London. How do they put it…. he’s not completely inept.

  73. dave wainwright 8 Apr 2010, 12:34pm

    I thought David Milliband spoke excellently about the Grayling faux pax on BBC Question Time last night, if anyone missed it I suggest you watch it on BBC iplayer , he was amazing and has gone up in my esteem , he will make a great statesman .

  74. i agree. milliband would make a great PM. better than cameron or brown. i wish he were labour leader. they’d deffo get back in power.
    a question for all those sticking up for graylings homophobia –

    if a b and b had a sign in the window saying ‘no blacks’, or ‘no jews’, would that be acceptable?

    because this B and B may as well have a sign in their window saying ‘no gays’. the B and B are homophobic. there is no place for homophobia in this country.

    if you are gay and defend this graylings position you are defending homophobia. which would be like a black person defending the rights of the klu klux klan. or a jew defending the NAZI’s. its masochistic. brain hacked. stupid. brainless. not thought out. stupid. homophobic.

  75. Poor Tory councillor, she can’t even buy ball gowns with charity money – what is the world coming to.


    The great thing about this country is that, increasingly, you can’t get away with anything without it leaking out somewhere. The fact that Herr Grayling hadn’t seemed to notice was his downfall.

  76. Philip: “Groups of people who have some attribute at birth are not equivalent to groups of people with chosen ‘religious’ views.”

    That is quite true. However, what gives you the, (excuse the pun), God-given right to expect preferential treatment? Everyone on here is constantly spouting this “equality” word, but somehow you see it as “gays are more equal than Christians because they were born like it”. I am not supporting the Christian views, but they are voting, tax-paying citizens of this country just as much as any LGBT person. It should be a level playing field and everyone should have an equal opportunity to have their say.

  77. Jay:”why does rob_n stick up for homophobes? you are obviously a profound homophobic f_ckwit.
    no one is saying this tory politican cant have his own opinion. simon is just saying the guys a homophobe. why do you try and claim he isn’t. he is. and you are defending him. pathetic.”

    Jay: I would have thought it was pretty obvious that even a cretin like you could understand: Grayling stated that there was a ‘dividing line’ between B&Bs and Hotels, and that was his opinion. How you suddenly take this monumental leap from concern for B&B owners to rampant homophobe, I cannot see. The man was all in favour of gay equality, but felt there should be an opt out. And as for me, I’m not homophobic, I just can’t abide ranting little lefty shirtlifters like you that think everyone hates them. Maybe in your case, they do. ;)

  78. so queer bashers really are all closeted

  79. Jonathan2 8 Apr 2010, 5:00pm

    Rob_N. I don’t think anyone is asking for more rights for Gay people than than str8 ones. We are asking to be treated equally. In the case of Goods and Services nobody should have a right to reasonably refuse them to anyone based on race, gender, sexuality, faith, etc. It’s a blanket ban. The whole point – apparently lost here – is that it applied to all sections and groupings in society. There’s can be any opt outs or we might as well not have a law. As they say, Gays are made that way (scientific proof available) and bigots choose to be like that – whether they are bigots using race, gender, sexuality, etc.

    We have the same practice for employment discrimination.

    We’re trying to become a more cohesive, inclusive society – and there is statistical evidence that shows that cohesive, include, happy societies are more productive and therefore more wealthy as a whole – so it’s in everyones’ interests to get along.

    We want equal rights (which, I think, we’re nearly at) not greater rights.

  80. Jonathan2: “In the case of Goods and Services nobody should have a right to reasonably refuse them to anyone based on race, gender, sexuality, faith, etc. It’s a blanket ban.”

    I totally agree with your argument, and I (and Grayling), never said otherwise. He said it as a passing comment in private, not as Tory manifesto. He said in his comment he wouldn’t change it, he just voiced his personal beliefs.

    Going on what you say though, I see nobody commented on Vulpus Rex’s comment (60) about maybe eating a bacon sandwich in a Muslim or Jewish B&B. What is good for the goose is equally sauce for the gander. I very much doubt the government would enforce the same caveats if it upset one of them.

    I stated back in comment (1) and I reiterate: This is all a storm in a very small teacup. (Like the kind you might find in a cheap bed and breakfast).

  81. dave wainwright 9 Apr 2010, 2:30am

    Rob_N , I have to disagree with you , this is not a storm in a tea cup, it is a very serious issue , can you imagine how that poor couple felt, when after having booked a break they were so cruelly humiliated and told they were “unacceptable” to the person offering the service , not since the treatment of black persons in the early 1960’s has this kind of thing been acceptable , it is in fact a form of apartheid with religion being used as a weapon to bludgeon us into submission, this is very much a big deal , it confirms that our human and civil rights are less acceptable than others , if we choose to allow them to treat us as second class human beings , that our feelings , emotions and humiliation do not matter and if we accept this we put ourselves up as fair game to continue to allow ourselves to be victims and scapegoats for society , it is totally unacceptable to any human being with a modicum of self respect .

  82. dave wainwright:
    If you had Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking at your front door, would you invite them in for tea and a chat?

    It’s not that I don’t like the people, but I don’t like their opinions. Simple as that. It’s my right to turn them away. Where I feel it is wrong to segregate on a commercial basis, I think everyone should be allowed to have personal like and dislikes for any reason. What grayling was saying was that there is difference in a commercial hotel, and what is effectively, somebody’s home. It is still a common law of the land that ANY landlord can refuse to serve someone for whatever reason. (And they don’t have to declare a reason either) – That is their legal prerogative. You can’t be all things to all men, and some people are never going to like you, that’s life. Live with it.

  83. dave wainwright 10 Apr 2010, 12:51am

    Rob_N, my parents having both been licensed victuallers , I am well acquainted with the law regarding licensed premises which has everything to do with the sale of alchohol and the volatility of those consuming it , the law allows the licensee to make a judgement without having to provide a reason . It is why when applying for a license persons need to demonstrate good upstanding character, they are licensed by law to make such judgements.
    This has nothing whatsoever to do with prejudice and discrimination and persons being able to use religion as a weapon to humiliate and discriminate , under the act governing services and their provision they are not allowed to discriminate , it is against the law , this couple have broken the law , it’s quite simple , and I am happy to live with it , and so should you be, that is the law of the land , Live with it . Mr Grayling seems to be happy with the law as it stands , or so he would have us believe , not that I ever believe a word that most politicians utter , unless their name is David Milliband .

  84. “What grayling was saying was that there is difference in a commercial hotel, and what is effectively, somebody’s home”

    It ceases to become their “private” home if they are charging people for a service and to be there. It becomes a place of business, and a purveyor of a service to the general public, and as such they have to obey the law as a sole trader business entity.

    Trust you Rob to get to arseways again. Rather than teenager angst statements like “Live with it”, perhaps familiarising yourself with business law would be more beneficial.

    The simple solution if for them to close, then it returns to a private domestic dwelling, and there is no more issue, THEN they can do what they want.

    Very simple really.

  85. BrazilBoysBlog 10 Apr 2010, 11:16am

    @87 Will, “The simple solution if for them to close, then it returns to a private domestic dwelling, and there is no more issue, THEN they can do what they want. Very simple really.”

    No, you forget that they have one other option.. They could always elect a Tory government. Politicians who have ´sympathy´ with their religious beliefs. Politicians who will water down legislation so they are free to discriminate according to their beliefs in some fictional sky-pilot.

  86. BrazilBoysBlog, yeah, I suppose that’s the easiest option all right.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.