[SciFiRory]

(Original post by Morgsie)
And it is the same Party that introduced Section 28

quite...

[tufc]

(Original post by SciFiRory)
I seem to recall a certain Chris Grayling saying that it was okay for B&B owners to refuse to serve gay people. that's a clear example of a prominent Tory being homophobic.

That's not being homophobic, that's protecting others' right to be homophobic. Put it this way: If I were to defend the BNP's right to spout racist drivel, would that automatically make me a racist?

[SciFiRory]

(Original post by tufc)
That's not being homophobic, that's protecting others' right to be homophobic. Put it this way: If I were to defend the BNP's right to spout racist drivel, would that automatically make me a racist?

refusing someone service because of their sexuality should be illegal imo.

using racist language is already illegal even so im not sure I even see what point you are making here...

defending a kind of discrimination/bigotry that's illegal (or should be) would make you racist/homophobic yes.

[PierceBrosnan]

Aye!

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by Morgsie)
And it is the same Party that introduced Section 28

And the same Conservative Party with more Gay MPs than any other party, more Gay members than any other party and is proposing legalising gay marriage.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
And the same Conservative Party with more Gay MPs than any other party, more Gay members than any other party and is proposing legalising gay marriage.

The Lib Dem's are also proposing equal marriage

What has Theressa May done in her role as Equalities Minister??
Lynne Featherstone has done an outstanding job regarding LGBT rights. A conference speech she made springs to mind.

EDIT: found it.

Lynne's Speech

[thunder_chunky]

Obviously an aye. I suppose this would exonerate Oscar Wilde. (He was tried for lewd behaviour including homosexual practices wasn't he?)

[LETSJaM]

Nay. Trying to brush past mistakes under the carpet is a bad thing; as it serves as a testament to future generations. However those who were criminalised should be pardoned.

<3 x

[tufc]

(Original post by SciFiRory)
refusing someone service because of their sexuality should be illegal imo.

using racist language is already illegal even so im not sure I even see what point you are making here...

defending a kind of discrimination/bigotry that's illegal (or should be) would make you racist/homophobic yes.

Defending someone's actions is very different from defending their right to take those actions.

[tufc]

Having records deleted is silly. They should be amended.

[Matthew_Lowson]

Very well then, are we going to quash any 'illegal' abortion convictions while we are at it?

And what of the future. A parliament comes along and it makes it legal to commit murder? Do we quash any murder conviction handed out by a jury today?

I've said this in the Government's forum and I'll say it here. This motion is pointless, because it isn't actually doing anything at all. Name anyone who currently has an unspent conviction because of the laws surrounding this?

[eff01]

Aye. I think this House widely agrees that gay/lesbian sex is not a crime, thus historic convictions for consensual sex should be removed from the records. Out of interest can the government inform the House of how many such convictions exist till date?

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Very well then, are we going to quash any 'illegal' abortion convictions while we are at it?

And what of the future. A parliament comes along and it makes it legal to commit murder? Do we quash any murder conviction handed out by a jury today?

I've said this in the Government's forum and I'll say it here. This motion is pointless, because it isn't actually doing anything at all. Name anyone who currently has an unspent conviction because of the laws surrounding this?

This. It is not our job to sit here and deliberate upon the decisions made by the criminal justice system decades ago. It is all very well for us to say "it shouldn't have been a crime", and that is true - but many things should not have been crimes. We cannot pardon people for breaking the law in the past, even if the law was bigoted and discriminatory by today's standards. We should learn from our past errors, not rectify them retrospectively.

[SciFiRory]

(Original post by tufc)
Defending someone's actions is very different from defending their right to take those actions.

in this situation it's pretty obvious that the latter was only done because they didn't want to admit to doing the former.

I really don't see how you can pretend that defending refusing people service based on their sexuality is anything other than defending homophobia...there is no justification for refusing someone service on that basis beyond your own narrow minded prejudice, frankly people who refuse people service for reasons like that aren't fit to be providing that service in the first place.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Very well then, are we going to quash any 'illegal' abortion convictions while we are at it?

And what of the future. A parliament comes along and it makes it legal to commit murder? Do we quash any murder conviction handed out by a jury today?

I've said this in the Government's forum and I'll say it here. This motion is pointless, because it isn't actually doing anything at all. Name anyone who currently has an unspent conviction because of the laws surrounding this?

My Right Honourable Friend, the Lib Dem Leader said Oscar Wilde and I previously mentioned Alan Turing both convicted under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.

[TimHuak]

No

They broke the law.

[tufc]

(Original post by SciFiRory)
in this situation it's pretty obvious that the latter was only done because they didn't want to admit to doing the former.

I really don't see how you can pretend that defending refusing people service based on their sexuality is anything other than defending homophobia...there is no justification for refusing someone service on that basis beyond your own narrow minded prejudice, frankly people who refuse people service for reasons like that aren't fit to be providing that service in the first place.

I'm not defending it! I'm defending their right to do it! The difference between the two is epic in scale...

I don't 'defend' what Nick Griffin says; it's poisonous, racist nonsense. What I do defend, however, is his right to say it, as do most normal, non-racist people. It's extremely unfair of you to try and second guess Chris Grayling's motives for doing so - can you provide any evidence that he agreed with the B&B owners, apart from "HURR DURR HE'S A TORY!!!"?

[MacDaddi]

aaahhhh the hate speech v free speech argument again.

[JPKC]

(Original post by tufc)
I'm not defending it! I'm defending their right to do it! The difference between the two is epic in scale...

I don't 'defend' what Nick Griffin says; it's poisonous, racist nonsense. What I do defend, however, is his right to say it, as do most normal, non-racist people. It's extremely unfair of you to try and second guess Chris Grayling's motives for doing so - can you provide any evidence that he agreed with the B&B owners, apart from "HURR DURR HE'S A TORY!!!"?

He wasn't defending their right to voice an opinion, he was defending their discrimination policy. Big difference. It's the equivalent of saying that we should still allow racists to have "No Blacks, Dogs, or Irish" signs in their shop windows. Utter nonsense.

[tufc]

(Original post by JPKC)
He wasn't defending their right to voice an opinion, he was defending their discrimination policy. Big difference. It's the equivalent of saying that we should still allow racists to have "No Blacks, Dogs, or Irish" signs in their shop windows. Utter nonsense.

He wasn't defending their discriminatory policy, he was defending their right to have a discriminatory policy. The recording of him speaking that made the news is here - all he says is that people have the right to have their own consciences. He doesn't defend the policy at all, merely claiming that people have the right to decide what happens in their own home. I'm quite astonished nobody can see the difference.