Friday, February 02, 2007
Bias in The Times?
Following on from the well publicised defeat for the Catholic Church and it's failure to secure an opt out from the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), we have the not so well publicised unintended consequences.
Yesterday in The Times page 14 (not apparently online oddly enough) we have a report that "Gay tourist hotels fear equality law". Contrast this approach with a story on the 10th of January "Church group challenges new law banning discrimination of gays" online here. The two stories are virtually identical, the only difference being who is complaining. So The Times are happy to report about objections to a "liberal" law when they come from the usual suspects, but downgrade a story if a "favoured group" is objecting. Clearly they're employing too many ex-BBC types.
Anyway the story tells us there are hotels who cater for an "exclusively gay" market, odd that this wasn't reflected in the stories about the Scots hotelier who wouldn't give a gay "couple" a double bed. These gay hotels (and let me be quite clear I have no objection to them at all, and fully support the stance they're taking) are concerned over likely loss of business: "... a ban on "gay only" advertising could put them out of business" also: "... some heterosexual couples might be unhappy if they unwittingly booked into a gay hotel...". Best quote comes from a John Bellamy who runs a Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth: "... This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays."
Another hotelier points out: "When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didn't behave as naturally as they would." I might on another occasion take issue with his wording, but with the concept I'm sure he's right.
Another quote, which could have come from the Franco handbook on property: "At the end of the day this is our home and as a landlord we have the right to refuse entry to anyone without giving a reason." Well mate it might come as a surprise to you and the rest of the country, but not any more you don't!
Stonewall the "gay rights group" is quick to disassociate itself from (by side-stepping and ignoring) these nasty views: "What gay people gain through having an equality law is much more than whether we can just run gay hotels." Yes well the point is you won't be able to run "gay only" hotels anymore.
Personally, I don't think you'll find you gain anything, but I'll leave you happy with your law. As regards Catholic adoption agencies, well there's 21 months in which anything can happen. In the worst-case scenario if they transfer abroad they might be able to circumvent the law anyway.
Yesterday in The Times page 14 (not apparently online oddly enough) we have a report that "Gay tourist hotels fear equality law". Contrast this approach with a story on the 10th of January "Church group challenges new law banning discrimination of gays" online here. The two stories are virtually identical, the only difference being who is complaining. So The Times are happy to report about objections to a "liberal" law when they come from the usual suspects, but downgrade a story if a "favoured group" is objecting. Clearly they're employing too many ex-BBC types.
Anyway the story tells us there are hotels who cater for an "exclusively gay" market, odd that this wasn't reflected in the stories about the Scots hotelier who wouldn't give a gay "couple" a double bed. These gay hotels (and let me be quite clear I have no objection to them at all, and fully support the stance they're taking) are concerned over likely loss of business: "... a ban on "gay only" advertising could put them out of business" also: "... some heterosexual couples might be unhappy if they unwittingly booked into a gay hotel...". Best quote comes from a John Bellamy who runs a Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth: "... This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays."
Another hotelier points out: "When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didn't behave as naturally as they would." I might on another occasion take issue with his wording, but with the concept I'm sure he's right.
Another quote, which could have come from the Franco handbook on property: "At the end of the day this is our home and as a landlord we have the right to refuse entry to anyone without giving a reason." Well mate it might come as a surprise to you and the rest of the country, but not any more you don't!
Stonewall the "gay rights group" is quick to disassociate itself from (by side-stepping and ignoring) these nasty views: "What gay people gain through having an equality law is much more than whether we can just run gay hotels." Yes well the point is you won't be able to run "gay only" hotels anymore.
Personally, I don't think you'll find you gain anything, but I'll leave you happy with your law. As regards Catholic adoption agencies, well there's 21 months in which anything can happen. In the worst-case scenario if they transfer abroad they might be able to circumvent the law anyway.
Tags: liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
