Sunday, 4 April 2010

Oh the Drama!

Once again, I see a pair of old cunts has turned away a pair of pooves from their B&B.

I'm very ambivalent about this. I'm pretty sure that someone who harbours one bigotry probably harbours many and such people are not nice people. But I don't buy into this thing of "if they want to take money from the public, they aren't allowed to discriminate."

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you have the right to do business with whoever you want to. Back in a former life, I had a right old bag of a customer. She was extremely irritating, was never happy with anything, always wanted stuff at the drop of a hat, was rude, surly and unpleasant to deal with. After a while, I just couldn't face it any more and politely severed the business relationship. I now make it a point of not doing business with surly, miserable old bags. In exchange for that, I forgo the income I might get from dealing with surly old bags.

So, I pay a direct price for my discrimination against surly old bags. Should I also endure legislative action and the opprobrium of the intermong for my discrimination? I don't think so.

Frankly, I am entirely unconvinced that any business should not be able to choose who they do business with. I don't care if it's an hotel that doesn't want gays, a restaurant that doesn't want fatties, or a tobacconists that doesn't want smokers.

They are the ones taking a direct hit by not accepting the cash of the people they're bigoted against. Go somewhere else. Tell your friends to boycott the place. The market will sort it out.

But stop making out that it's fucking homophobic oppression, for fuck's sake. It's a weekend out, not fucking gas ovens in Dachau.

Update: Fuck me. Maybe I need to reconsider my opinion.

Update 2: Legend. Is there no beginning to this man's talents? And more.

Update 3: Tim Carpenter weighs in.

Update 4: Got back from the pub and found everybody on twatter trying to outgay each other. Cumbuckets full of faux outrage and claims of hate speech. They were all trying to be "cornholier than thou".

Cunts.

Update 5: The loveliest of lovelies weighs in on the side of the cunts.

Update 6: The UK Libertarian has a different angle and a handy cut-out-and-keep guide.

19 comments:

Mike said...

good points, well put. The law states that you can request that a person vacate your property without reason. So the problem for these people was that they did not exercise their rights not that gays, black, whites or any other flavour of politically correct definition was forced on them. They gave thier reasons instead of just saying, thanks but no thanks and good bye.

The minute people learn that they can just say no without having to attach their own opinion as a cause the world will run a lot more smoothly.

So, gays 1, opinionated b&b owners 0, remember opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Jock Coats said...

Actually, I take the opposite point of view - for me the most important issue is that if these businesses/employers are not permitted to tell me they'd really rather "my sort" were all in a special part of hell with a personal devil each massaging our colons with hot sulphur, then I am really being forced to spend my money on or work for someone I'd not normally want to see succeed in life or business!

But the fact that the state is deciding how one may dispose of one's privately accumulated capital is just more evidence of our serfdom.

J Demetriou said...

Cheers for the 'h/t' you Clown cunt.

Good article and well discussed.

I was kind of waiting for you to attack me for the old row I generated about private property rights regarding blogs and blog posts, but you didn't. I'm waiting and willing if you fancied going down that path.

Anyway, well said and this is a fight worth taking to the wets and the sops. People like Dale who pretend to be conservative but are far from it.

Vladimir said...

JD, it reminded me of that too. I have been thinking about how it's different, as I am sure it is. Probably something to do with the nature of the contract - how in this case, a deal has to be made explicitly in order to hire a B&B room or buy something from a shop. And nobody should be compelled to make a deal they don't like. Whereas my presence in somebody else's "open to the public" shopping mall doesn't really imply my absolute acceptance of their rules.

J Demetriou said...

I find it terrifying that there are so called 'conservatives', who are people who generally observe the individual's right to private property and self-determination, who believe the state has the right to dick all over people and force them to do business with others.

It's not a 'gay ban' at all. It is a positive right for people to choose who they carry out contracts for goods and services with.

It's that simple. Let truth dictate and people will be informed. I WANT to know peoples' true colours and who I am dealing with, that way I am better informed. I don't want to deal with scum bags, only to not know it because the law has made them keep quiet about their values and ideas.

Dale's position is all the more worrying because he is a 'Tory' and therefore supposedly on the centre right.

He is not centre right, he is a statist, a wet, a liberal and dull compromiser, a so-called 'centrist' and someone who reacts angrily and abusively to anyone to the right of him - hence the ad homs and tiresome hark-backs to things like dark old days nasty party Tories.

No, Dale, this isn't about homophobia, this is about giving people the power to act freely and people being informed as a result.

GROW UP YOU OLD CHILD.

Jock Coats said...

Absolutely JD - I cannot understand why "my fellow hommers" cannot see this. And the very fact that the legislation has therefore got negative consequences for the very people it is supposed to "make equal" as well as a gross invasion of private property rights, means that it is not even two wrongs making a right, it is just two wrongs period.

JuliaM said...

"Dale's position is all the more worrying because he is a 'Tory' and therefore supposedly on the centre right. "

Eh..? Not iDave's NuTories, oh dear me no...

J Demetriou said...

For me, Dale sums up everything that is disastrously wrong with Britain's mainstream centre-right.

It is arrogant, dismissive, rude, ad hominem in its methods, wildly wet and liberal-leftist in outlook, and completely abandoning of anything that sniffs of principle and consistency.

Dale ought to be parachuted in to a safe seat by Cameron, because the bloke is just like him - a total sell-out and a social democrat.

Mitch said...

Surely the point is that if the customer has a choice then the shopkeeper/hotelier has an equal right of choice as to who they deal with.
Would such a fuss have been made if the owner was a Muslim and objected on religious grounds?

Anonymous said...

Worry about the polish cleaners ?
spunk-spunk or fish-spunk?
at least it´s not 4 pairs of stinking socks and brown bed butterflies!

In the morning the second one comes down(after paying and bags packed) says "By the way we´ve just shit the bed" after sharing a digs nothing surprises!
pigeons and bricks

Antisthenes said...

This is an intractable problem as it stands because of government legislation. The right to do business with whoever you choose is perfectly correct and to discriminate by sex, race, age, etc is wrong. Presumably market forces is the solution, the more people you refuse to do business with the less likely that your business will prosper. It is certainly not up to government to be the arbiter only totalitarian states do that. However government can guide and inform and then it is up to the individual.

microdave said...

I'm wondering how old you are Obo - the last person I heard use the term "Pooves" was Willy Rushton on Kenny Everets Naughty Joke Box. And that was donkeys years ago....

Anonymous said...

The suggestion that the Dale
idiot is a Tory is lamentable.
He's just a limelighting Bloomsbury
crony well up the BBCs pecking list.




Richthofen iii

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Microdave, I'm certainly old enough to remember Cupid Stunt.

opinion prole said...

Why do homosexuals have to keep droning on about tbeir sexual preferences? I don't see masturbators agonising in public about their rights to have sex with large items of tropical fruit, inflatable corpses, electrical stimulators, bicycles and so forth. Those who enjoy sex with sheep seem to keep it quiet enough. Adherents of three-in-a-bed romps try to keep it out of the News of the World.
Perhaps it's the constant attention-seeking and look at me I'm a poofter that puts people off rather than the actual act of stuffing their dicks in places not intended by nature?
As for the greatest philosophical issue of our times - B&Bs - I have a suspicion that there are such places that cater only for poofters and have developed not-so-subtle ways of keeping heterosexuals away.
And what about gay bars? Isn't that discrimination writ large? Come on you gays, give it a rest, just live and let live.

Trixy said...

Not excessively! I'd still rather fish my toothbrush out of a shit filled loo than vote for them. You know how you have to encourage children when they do something a bit right...?

Mitch said...

Why do "pooves" want special treatment then? that's the issue here....they want the world to say its OK to do what they do because THEY AREN'T SURE.

Uncle Marvo said...

How do you know that poof takes its plural from hoof, rather than roof?

J Demetriou said...

Where the fuck has Obo gone?