Are the Tories still homophobic?

No matter the tons of concealer and foundation: the debate kickstarted by the Shadow Home Secretary's unfortunate remarks is reminding us that too many Tories are still bigots.

Grayling was referring to a recent case where a gay couple was turned away from a guest house in Berkshire on the grounds of their sexuality.

This is what he said: "if you look at the case of 'Should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from their hotel?' [...] That individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home".

Amazingly, though, many right-wing commenters are already attempting to turn the whole issue on its head.

They tend to cling onto anything or argue the toss and its flipside again over the semantics of the word "liberty" or other abstract notions without clocking that, in practice, they will always side with the knuckledraggers and - in the process - still go against the most vulnerable people's basic rights.

Let's have a look at the amount of remarkably weak stuff that is circulating online in support of Grayling's views and beyond.

- "A B&B is a private business and the state should not tell them what to do".

Not quite. Businesses that are open to the public are required to adhere to certain industry standards. Think of fire regulations, health & safety, food hygiene. No B&B owner could justify the presence of live wires in the bathroom on the grounds that "it's my own private business and I do what I want with it".

Somehow though, you will never hear a Tory complaining about the breach of civil liberties when the state tells you how to implement fire policies. Instead, they get their knickers in a twist when active discrimination is targeted.

- "You should have the right to choose who you let into your own home".
Yes, which is why most put up signs such as "we reserve the right to refuse admission". It happens all the time. Think of dress codes in clubs or certain pubs not allowing football tops in. Think of aggressive types, pissheads or other iffy situations. But that is a whole different kettle of fish.

There are certain inalienable rights, which are intrinsic to the person and the law currently sets out to protect them from discrimination and harassment, and rightly so. You cannot discriminate or refuse services on the grounds of race, disability, gender, religion or sexual preference.

Also, the moment you decide to open a B&B you take into account that you may offer services to people who are not exactly your cup of tea. If that bothers you, fair enough, but then you're probably in the wrong line of business.

- "Grayling was only referring to B&Bs. He later stated that hotels shouldn't be allowed to turn gay people away".
And how on earth would that work then? Would he change the law into some weird formula saying that "a building with a capacity of up to 12 beds is allowed turn people away on the basis of their sexual preference"? Why only for sexual preference? Doesn't that really give the game away? Because: how exactly would society improve with something like that? Would that seriously make Britain a better or more civilised place in any way?

- "Nothing good can come out of the state sticking its nose into such matters".
Well. Simply think of the alternative. The "freedom" these people are advocating consists of shops and business premises freely sticking up signs such as "no Blacks", "no Gays", "no Jews", "no Asians", etc.

That would instantly throw us back to an era we finally thought was long buried. What possible good can come from that? Can you imagine the impact on social cohesion? Is it really the kind of world so called 'libertarians' want?

- "Minorities are increasingly imposing their views upon the majority".
This is the Big Man's view. Typically white, middle-class, male. The Richard Littlejohn or Jeremy Clarkson types deluding themselves that, because they hold certain opinions, then inevitably the whole world does. Except that it doesn't.

Poll after poll indicates that a clear majority of Britons are increasingly in favour of equal rights for homosexuals. A 2009 poll showed that "61 per cent of the public want gay couples to be able to marry just like the rest of the population, not just have civil partnerships", while 68 per cent of the public back "full equal rights" for gay men and lesbians.

And yet, for decades, the most humiliating anti-gay measures (including the Conservatives' own Section 28, which David Cameron recently apologised for) where repeatedly justified on the grounds of a supposed "moral majority".

But even if it was true that equal rights for homosexuals where supported by a minority only, would that justify discrimination? Slavery was once commonly viewed as normal or even good. Would that make it right?