'Tolerance'

The most ridiculous story over the weekend, which was loyally hyped up by the BBC, was the controversy over Chris Graylings remarks about whether B & B owners should be allowed to choose whom they allow in their establishments. His opinion was that whilst it would be unacceptable for a hotel to bar gay couples, B & B owners should be allowed to. This seems unexceptional to me for the following reason:

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FUCKING HOUSE

Whilst I can understand that some people view the matter differently there surely cannot be anyone who doesn't understand the point that Grayling was making there is a fundamental difference between how a purely commercial establishment operates and how a private house operates, Even if they decide that the discrimination laws should be applicable to both equally no one can be so dense as to not understand that it's a dilemma.

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FUCKING HOUSE

Incredibly the BBC said it would raise questions over the Tories commitment to 'tolerance'. Does tolerance have some new meaning that I've missed? Tt seems obvious to me that whatever the merits of not allowing establishments to select their clientele 'tolerance' is not an argument that bolsters the case. I wouldn't object to gay people sharing a bed in my home, although I do have a strict no fisting rule, despite what the computer shop may happen to find on my computer. Enforcing the state's standards of morality is intolerant, whether it is a necessary level of intolerance is a matter for debate. Personally I don't believe that it is, in fact I think B&B owners would be perfectly entitled to deny someone entry for wearing mixed fibres if it conflicted with their beliefs.

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FUCKING HOUSE

If gay couple want to open B & B's and exclude bible reading on their premises that is also ok.

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FUCKING HOUSE

I don't recall the BBC lambasting the Conservatives for intolerance when shadow minister Alan Duncan threatened to murder US beauty queen Carrie Prejean for respectfully expressing the view that marriage is between a man and woman when asked. Ironically her response was almost identical to Barack Obama's answer to the same question, so if Obama comes to visit Cameron in Number 10, we could well see the first presidential assassination since 1963, if Alan Duncan is in the government. So threatening to murder someone isn't intolerant but saying that people should be allowed to choose who enters their home is.

I've lost a lot of sympathy for gay rights activists over the last 12 months to be honest, they often compare their fight to the civil rights struggle, but they've already won equality in the Western world and are now trying to hype up non issues into major grievances. If a comparison to the civil rights movement is to be made then the activists are more Al Sharpton than Martin Luther King.

The gay rights movement obviously has serious work to do in the 3rd world such as Uganda, where the government wants to introduce the death penalty for homosexuality, but in the West the "civil rights" struggle seems to consist of demanding entry into people's homes, launching hate campaigns against beauty pageant contestants and genarally demanding a right not to be offended in any way.

When Graham Norton can be officially rebuked for homophobia isn't a sign that things have gotten a little bit crazy.