Baby-steps, Tories. That’s right.
We should soon get to the point where the proprietor of a private commercial enterprise is free to admit, or not, whomseover he wishes. Whether that be on the basis of gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, smell, nationality, dressing like a chav or driving a Volvo.
I don’t care – each should be free to choose and let the market decide.
AJ
UPDATE: John Demetriou adds weight to the argument, with his… err customary diplomacy.
Iain Dale minces round like someone’s stolen his Jimmy Choo handbag.
Old Holborn wins best use of a broccoli metaphor.
UPDATE: The comment by Roger Thornhill, replying to Iain Dale is just too good not to reproduce in full here.
I strongly disagree with you, Iain.
What you are basically saying is someone has no right of refusal.
If someone turns up for business not of the business owner’s liking, you are saying they must be forced to do business with them. That is absurd, authoritarian, totalitarian. It makes the individual lose the right of self determination. A business becomes just a cog at the whim of the state, of thought police and the mob.
You are tramping over not just property rights but the freedom of association, the freedom of self determination.
Forcing someone to work against their will is slavery.
If an employee of a hotel took it into their hands to refuse, then the compliant is between owner and employee as much as rejected customer, in terms of breach of (employment) contract.
But is it the role of the State to intervene? No.
This is not a case of "Tory Nasty Party", but if does seem a case of irrational, collectivist, illiberal, Authoritarianism, forcing people to be slaves.
Btw I would boycott a place that rejected gays, but that is my choice and i am using my freedom of (dis)association to exercise it, not mob rule.
What he said.
Oh and the ever erudite Devil is on the case too.
UPDATE: A gay libertarian speaks.
Al Jahom's Final Word 
Agreed, mate.
Sadly, pretend conservatives and pretend centre-rightists don’t agree. They think the liberal social democratic state has the right to tell people what to do in this regard.
A depressing day for Britain, where the so-called Tories are quivering at the hip in case they are called ‘nasty’ or ‘bigoted’ – for what? For daring to believe that individuals, not the state, has the right to choose?
Fucking pathetic. Have you seen Iain Dale’s article on this? This country is finished. Cheers Blair, cheers Cameron, cheers intellectually weak minded feeble wet Tories.
If they really intend to begin repealing Acts that legislate on matters of conscience, then maybe….
Nah….
The useless Tories won’t repeal, they’ll add to the burden that is the overblown legislative menu.
Oh, and commenters on Dale are saying this is one up for the Tory ‘homophobic vote’. How badly can people miss the point here? This isn’t about bloody homophobia, the arrogant bastards! It’s about choice!
Good post Al, ta for the ‘linky love’
The interesting point, Demetriou, about many of the comments in favour of choice, including my own, is that the writers state that they personally would have no problem with a gay couple staying in their home.
Homophobia? Don’t think so.
Great. The economy is fecked. Infrastructure crumbling, ongoing wars, bloody criminals in power and we’re all worrying about rampant todgers and fluffy bunnies. FFS I wish society would wise up to Mandy’s news manipulation. Can I get a large order of I don’t give a flying feck about this trivial stuff..to go please.
Pingback: Bans, discrimination and jerky knees « Al Jahom's Final Word