Bristol gay couple win Cornwall B&B bed ban case

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what a pair of prats

[Smithy]

£1800 thats one expensive ass B&B :o

[Vicky.]

Good, stupid prejudiced b&b owners. People pay for the rooms, its up to them what they do in them.

Its a bit like a vegetarian working in burger king, selling someone a meal but telling them they cant eat the meat in the burger :bored:

[Niamh.]

exactly Vicky. If running a B & B interferes with their beliefs then they shouldn't do it, full stop.

[MTVN]

In fairness to the couple owning the B&B their policy was against married couples, not those who were specifically gay. And it is their home, I do think they have a right to uphold their beliefs under their own roof.

[arista]

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what a pair of prats


Yes but they (the bible freaks) can still appeal
so it may not be over for them

[Vicky.]

In fairness to the couple owning the B&B their policy was against married couples, not those who were specifically gay. And it is their home, I do think they have a right to uphold their beliefs under their own roof.

Even so though, if people are paying them for the room, they should be able to do what they like in it.

Hmm, I wonder if the gay couple had been 'married' would they have had a problem then...

[arista]

In fairness to the couple owning the B&B their policy was against married couples, not those who were specifically gay. And it is their home, I do think they have a right to uphold their beliefs under their own roof.



But the Gay blokes were as good as married under the law.


They are Out of Date

Thats why
this gay couple went there
to set them up.

[Vicky.]

Hmm, I wonder if the gay couple had been 'married' would they have had a problem then...

Ohhh, didnt read the civil partnership part properly.

So in the eyes of the law, they were married(as such), so yes, it was discrimination against gay people, not just being general prudes.

[MTVN]

Even so though, if people are paying them for the room, they should be able to do what they like in it.

Hmm, I wonder if the gay couple had been 'married' would they have had a problem then...

You could flip that on it'e head though and say that if people are providing service, shouldnt they be able to decide the terms of that said service?

[arista]

Even so though, if people are paying them for the room, they should be able to do what they like in it.

Hmm, I wonder if the gay couple had been 'married' would they have had a problem then...



The Judge
said they are as good as married under the law.


Other gay couples went to another Hotel.

This is a set up.

[MTVN]

But the Gay blokes were as good as married under the law.

They are Out of Date

Thats why
this gay couple went there
to set them up.

Yeah, that is true I suppose

[Jack_]

I'm glad. Twats.

[Vicky.]

You could flip that on it'e head though and say that if people are providing service, shouldnt they be able to decide the terms of that said service?

Not when its direct discrimination...no...

Would it be ok if, say, they were turning away all black customers? After all, they dont like them, so its part or the terms of the service...

Hypothetical situation...

[MTVN]

Not when its direct discrimination...no...

Would it be ok if, say, they were turning away all black customers? After all, they dont like them, so its part or the terms of the service...

Hypothetical situation...

Yeah I suppose so, seeing as like Arista says they were essentially married.

I think if the policy was just one against married couples, and didnt discriminate against sexuality, it should be allowed though.

[Vicky.]

Its a stupid policy to have anyways. How do they know if people are married? Do they ask that all people booking a room with them bring along their marriage certificate to prove it? :laugh2:

[Crimson Dynamo]

2 troublemakers who have a chip on their shoulder. they should get a life, couple of weirdos

[arista]

Not when its direct discrimination...no...

Would it be ok if, say, they were turning away all black customers? After all, they dont like them, so its part or the terms of the service...

Hypothetical situation...



They would not
as many are also Bible Freaks.


There Bible says Gays are Illegal
Thats what this is about.

[arista]

2 troublemakers who have a chip on their shoulder. they should get a life, couple of weirdos


what the Bible Freak owners?

[Vicky.]

They would not
as many are also Bible Freaks.


There Bible says Gays are Illegal
Thats what this is about.

Was a hypothetical question. Im not saying these people are against black people. But essentially its the same thing :/

[Vicky.]

2 troublemakers who have a chip on their shoulder. they should get a life, couple of weirdos

I agree. The owners of the hotel should be ashamed. Bloody religious nutsjobs.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I agree. The owners of the hotel should be ashamed. Bloody religious nutsjobs.

no, i meant the 2 gay boys

the b and b couple are just silly but harmless

[Vicky.]

no, i meant the 2 gay boys

the b and b couple are just silly but harmless

How are they trouble makers? This should be interesting... :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

what the Bible Freak owners?

no

the Bible says gays are wrong-uns so they were just being true to their black book of hate

[Crimson Dynamo]

How are they trouble makers? This should be interesting... :laugh:

going to court?

just get another b and b

couple of publicity hungry hysterical mary queens

[Vicky.]

going to court?

just get another b and b

couple of publicity hungry hysterical mary queens

You honestly blame them for being pissed off?

I would have done the same tbh. Not that I'd be in that situation, but I can understand why they took it further :/

[_Seth]

no

the Bible says gays are wrong-uns so they were just being true to their black book of hate

The bible says you can't wear two material woven together.

[KG.]

Was it really a surprise?

I mean come on, with a name like Hazelmary I'm surprised they didn't give her life imprisonment.

[Vicky.]

Anyway, its a good thing it went to court.

Might show other people that religion isnt to be used as an escuse for prejudice...

[Crimson Dynamo]

The bible says you can't wear two material woven together.

well done

can you tell us what part of the Bible and what context and what does the passage as whole convey?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Anyway, its a good thing it went to court.

Might show other people that religion isnt to be used as an escuse for prejudice...

It is total waste of court time and money, just so these 2 grown men could make a pathetic point.

It is evident that they dont have families/responsibilities to look after as they have time to do stupid things like this

[Vicky.]

It is total waste of court time and money, just so these 2 grown men could make a pathetic point.

It is evident that they dont have families/responsibilities to look after as they have time to do stupid things like this

In what way is their point pathetic?

[cub]

In fairness to the couple owning the B&B their policy was against married couples, not those who were specifically gay. And it is their home, I do think they have a right to uphold their beliefs under their own roof.

Not if they're running a business. Doesn't matter if it's their own roof or not, they have to adhere to the law - and the law clearly states that they cannot discriminate.

If that conflicts with their religious beliefs then they shouldn't have that type of business.

[_Seth]

well done

can you tell us what part of the Bible and what context and what does the passage as whole convey?

That's from Lextivius or w/e. And who cares, the bible clearly says all sorts of dumb contradictory sh!t - being gay is wrong (when it can't be helped) it one of those things. You're an idiot for believing something you can't help is wrong.

[Angus]

I don't think a B&B should be classified as if it were a hotel - it is after all a person's OWN home from which they let out rooms so surely they are entitled to decide who they have under their roof as their paying guests?

[Crimson Dynamo]

That's from Lextivius or w/e. And who cares, the bible clearly says all sorts of dumb contradictory sh!t - being gay is wrong (when it can't be helped) it one of those things. .

"You're an idiot for believing something you can't help is wrong"

I dont think it is wrong?

It is rare but not wrong.

[Vicky.]

I don't think a B&B should be classified as if it were a hotel - it is after all a person's OWN home from which they let out rooms so surely they are entitled to decide who they have under their roof as their paying guests?

Again, I bring the random point...

So should it also be ok for them to turn away all ethnic minorities?

Disabled people?

People with children?

Etc. etc.

Just on the basis that they do not want them there?

[Stephanie]

I don't think a B&B should be classified as if it were a hotel - it is after all a person's OWN home from which they let out rooms so surely they are entitled to decide who they have under their roof as their paying guests?
i agree with this.

[Stephanie]

Again, I bring the random point...

So should it also be ok for them to turn away all ethnic minorities?

Disabled people?

People with children?

Etc. etc.

Just on the basis that they do not want them there?
some places don't allow people with children or disabled though.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Again, I bring the random point...

So should it also be ok for them to turn away all ethnic minorities?

Disabled people?

People with children?

Etc. etc.

Just on the basis that they do not want them there?

It is ok and happens every day in the UK

"sorry we are full"

clever owners use a little tactics to deter who they do not want. just like bouncers do on doors of clubs and pubs (gay ones too)

[MTVN]

some places don't allow people with children or disabled though.

Yeah you'll find a fair few pubs which dont allow children in

[_Seth]

"You're an idiot for believing something you can't help is wrong"

I dont think it is wrong?

It is rare but not wrong.

What's rare? You being right? Yeah. :)

[Vicky.]

some places don't allow people with children or disabled though.

Children I say is a fair point actually. As they could wreck the rooms. Disabled people...possibly they dont have the amenities that a disabled person would need...Ie starilifts or whatever.

I was just thinking of random examples :p

[Stephanie]

Children I say is a fair point actually. As they could wreck the rooms. Disabled people...possibly they dont have the amenities that a disabled person would need...Ie starilifts or whatever.

I was just thinking of random examples :p
yo need some better examples gurl :elephant:

[Crimson Dynamo]

What's rare? You being right? Yeah. :)

no, homosexuality is a rare occurrence in the world - the fact that many flock to entertainment industry and forums like this skews peoples perception but it is very small percentage.

[Vicky.]

yo need some better examples gurl :elephant:

OK then, use the minorities example then :tongue:

[_Seth]

no, homosexuality is a rare occurrence in the world - the fact that many flock to entertainment industry and forums like this skews peoples perception but it is very small percentage.

Please just kill yourself. :laugh3:

[cub]

I don't think a B&B should be classified as if it were a hotel - it is after all a person's OWN home from which they let out rooms so surely they are entitled to decide who they have under their roof as their paying guests?

If you run your home as a business, it's a business. It's their choice whether they live there or not - it makes no difference. You have to run your business within the guidelines of the law.

Do you think if they lived elsewhere they would then accept this gay couple? I think their atittude would be no different.

You can't descriminate against gay people any more than you could black people. It's as simple as that.

[Angus]

Again, I bring the random point...

So should it also be ok for them to turn away all ethnic minorities?

Disabled people?

People with children?

Etc. etc.

Just on the basis that they do not want them there?


It wasn't just on the basis that they didn't want them there, it was because it was a major conflict of their christian beliefs, and I do not believe for one moment that if the B&B owners were muslims, that this gay couple would have won their case - after all Islam also does not condone homosexuality - more so even than Christianity - or are you suggesting that only Christians should have to compromise their beliefs?

As regards disabled people, people with children and ethnic minorities, there is nothing in Christianity that says any of these groups are anathema to a Christian God.

[MTVN]

Please just kill yourself. :laugh3:

Gay people do make up a small percentage though :conf2:

[Vicky.]

It wasn't just on the basis that they didn't want them there, it was because it was a major conflict of their christian beliefs, and I do not believe for one moment that if the B&B owners were muslims, that this gay couple would have won their case - after all Islam also does not condone homosexuality - more so even than Christianity - or are you suggesting that only Christians should have to compromise their beliefs?

As regards disabled people, people with children and ethnic minorities, there is nothing in Christianity that says any of these groups are anathema to a Christian God.

Dress it up however you like...it was just prejudice.

You said 'I don't think a B&B should be classified as if it were a hotel - it is after all a person's OWN home from which they let out rooms so surely they are entitled to decide who they have under their roof as their paying guests?'

So under that...people would be able to turn away guests for ANY reason. So my point still stands D:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Gay people do make up a small percentage though :conf2:

1.5% at best

[_Seth]

Gay people do make up a small percentage though :conf2:
His other point was so unbelievably stupid, though.
1.5% at best
I'd say about 15%. That silly survey is way too inaccurate.

[Crimson Dynamo]

His other point was so unbelievably stupid, though.

I'd say about 15%. That silly survey is way too inaccurate.

your sample size is dwarfed by theirs i am afraid

you lose

[Stephanie]

His other point was so unbelievably stupid, though.

I'd say about 15%. That silly survey is way too inaccurate.
there's no way it could be that high.

[Crimson Dynamo]

there's no way it could be that high.

he is trying to improve his chances in 2011 after a nil point 2010

lol

[MTVN]

His other point was so unbelievably stupid, though.

I'd say about 15%. That silly survey is way too inaccurate.

Well this forum does have a disproportionate number of gay people on

[Vicky.]

Cant be as low as 1.5%...practically half the people I know are gay/bi D:

[Angus]

If you run your home as a business, it's a business. It's their choice whether they live there or not - it makes no difference. You have to run your business within the guidelines of the law.

Do you think if they lived elsewhere they would then accept this gay couple? I think their atittude would be no different.

You can't descriminate against gay people any more than you could black people. It's as simple as that.


No, it is NOT as "simple as that" and if you don't see the difference between a strongly held religious belief and pure, out and out prejudice, then that isn't my problem.

Incidentally, I abhor all forms of discrimination, but commonsense and understanding should be applied when it comes to a case like this - after all the B&B owners could now appeal on the grounds that they are being persecuted and discriminated against for their religious beliefs.

[_Seth]

he is trying to improve his chances in 2011 after a nil point 2010

lol

I am attracted to men, can you give me step-by-step instructions on how not to be, please?

[Angus]

Dress it up however you like...it was just prejudice.

You said 'I don't think a B&B should be classified as if it were a hotel - it is after all a person's OWN home from which they let out rooms so surely they are entitled to decide who they have under their roof as their paying guests?'

So under that...people would be able to turn away guests for ANY reason. So my point still stands D:

So you are in favour of religious discrimination being subordinate to other forms of discrimination? Isn't that discrimination per se?
Clearly you believe the B&B Owners have to respect this gay couple, yet they have shown absolutely no reciprocating respect for the B&B Owners' religious beliefs?

[MTVN]

Cant be as low as 1.5%...practically half the people I know are gay/bi D:

That was according to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629

The data was collected on peoples doorsteps or over the phone though, and as people are asked more regularly they're more likely to be truthful and say they're gay apparently so it probably is more than that. I'd say 3 or 4%

[arista]

no, i meant the 2 gay boys

the b and b couple are just silly but harmless


The 2 Gay blokes
Set this all up.



It was no accident they picked that crap hotel
with the nutty Bible Freaks

[Vicky.]

So you are in favour of religious discrimination being subordinate to other forms of discrimination? Isn't that discrimination per se?
Clearly you believe the B&B Owners have to respect this gay couple, yet they have shown absolutely no reciprocating respect for the B&B Owners' religious beliefs?

What the hell are you on about?

I hardly think tis classed as discrimination to expect a couple who run a business do NOT discriminate against people.

Maybe if they cant take people of different walks of life being around them, they should open a little church store or something.


And this bit is just ridiculous

'yet they have shown absolutely no reciprocating respect for the B&B Owners' religious beliefs?'

What should they do? Just...stop being gay? Just to please a couple of bigots? I dont think so.

[arista]

So you are in favour of religious discrimination being subordinate to other forms of discrimination? Isn't that discrimination per se?
Clearly you believe the B&B Owners have to respect this gay couple, yet they have shown absolutely no reciprocating respect for the B&B Owners' religious beliefs?


No they can Close


As they are Bible Freaks


This is 2010


The Judge has the power

[Crimson Dynamo]

Cant be as low as 1.5%...practically half the people I know are gay/bi D:

That mean little when talking about % of population. sample size of 1 is no sample.

Most people in the UK do not know or are friends with any gay person. fact

[Jack_]

I'm not entirely sure [and I should be...I do Business Studies], but I believe there are discrimination acts which prevent businesses from not employing staff/refusing to serve customers on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation, amongst other things. In which case they are indeed breaking the law. There's no 'oh it's their home they can do what they want' about it. It's a business. They have to adhere to rules.

[Angus]

What the hell are you on about?

I hardly think tis classed as discrimination to expect a couple who run a business do NOT discriminate against people.

Maybe if they cant take people of different walks of life being around them, they should open a little church store or something.


And this bit is just ridiculous

'yet they have shown absolutely no reciprocating respect for the B&B Owners' religious beliefs?'

What should they do? Just...stop being gay? Just to please a couple of bigots? I dont think so.N


How about just going elsewhere? After all why would you want to stay somewhere you were clearly not welcome? Again, I reiterate this is their OWN home, and you will find there is a lot of controversy over this issue, and they may very well win their case on appeal. You refer to the B&B owners as "bigots" instead of committed Christians trying to follow their deeply held religious beliefs. I am being the devil's advocate in this thread, pointing out that the B&B owners have every right to appeal against the decision on the grounds that they are being religiously discriminated against.

The Human Rights legislation in this country is inequitable, since someone's human rights are ALWAYS going to be infringed because another's is favoured.

[MTVN]

I'm not entirely sure [and I should be...I do Business Studies], but I believe there are discrimination acts which prevent businesses from not employing staff/refusing to serve customers on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation, amongst other things. In which case they are indeed breaking the law. There's no 'oh it's their home they can do what they want' about it. It's a business. They have to adhere to rules.

Yeah but the question was whether the policy targetted gay people specifically or all married couples as was the official line. The judge ruled that seeing as they still didnt allow those who are gay and in a civil partnership that the policy did discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

I think if it was a gay couple who were not in a civil partnership then they would not have been prosecuted

[Vicky.]

[/B]N


How about just going elsewhere? After all why would you want to stay somewhere you were clearly not welcome? Again, I reiterate this is their OWN home, and you will find there is a lot of controversy over this issue, and they may very well win their case on appeal. You refer to the B&B owners as "bigots" instead of committed Christians trying to follow their deeply held religious beliefs. I am being the devil's advocate in this thread, pointing out that the B&B owners have every right to appeal against the decision on the grounds that they are being religiously discriminated against.

The Human Rights legislation in this country is inequitable, since someone's human rights are ALWAYS going to be infringed because another's is favoured.

Religion is often used as an excuse for discrimination.

Yes, they COULD have gone elsewhere, but why should they have to?

Even though it is their own home, it is still classed as a business. I could open a shop in my living room and refuse to serve certain people citing my 'religion' as the reason...but it would still be breaking the law :)

[Vicky.]

Yup e

I think if it was a gay couple who were not in a civil partnership then they would not have been prosecuted

Yup exactly.

The 'rules' were against non married couples. This couple was married yet still refused.

[Niall]

Good for them. They deserve to win. I hope that intolerant cow who turned them away in the first place was sacked aswell. :bored:

[MTVN]

Good for them. They deserve to win. I hope that intolerant cow who turned them away in the first place was sacked aswell. :bored:

She cant sack herself :p

[arista]

Good for them. They deserve to win. I hope that intolerant cow who turned them away in the first place was sacked aswell. :bored:


No its there Home/Hotel.

They should Close

Or more Set Up
Gay blokes will go there to piss them off

[arista]

"What should they do? Just...stop being gay? Just to please a couple of bigots? I dont think so. "


Yes Vicky Correct
There Bible tells them Gays are Evil.


They will have to Close
or sell up.

Sign Of The Times.

[Niall]

She cant sack herself :p

Oh I thought she was just the receptionist or something :laugh2:

Well I hope she gets no business then :bored:

[Stu]

Most people in the UK do not know or are friends with any gay person.

I find that a bit hard to believe. That said Philip hardly does 'the movement' any favours by loudly stomping into any thread with the word 'gay' in the title, handbags at the ready to dish insult after insult to those evil homophobes.

'A woman today was momentarily shocked when her son came out as g -'

'KILL URESELF U IGNORANT ***** LOL. IGNORRRAAAANNNCEEE'.

[arista]

No Stu
they can Sell up
and move to America with the rest of those Bible freaks

[Stu]

Great, Arista. What you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

Thanks for that interesting piece though.

[cub]

Yeah but the question was whether the policy targetted gay people specifically or all married couples as was the official line. The judge ruled that seeing as they still didnt allow those who are gay and in a civil partnership that the policy did discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

I think if it was a gay couple who were not in a civil partnership then they would not have been prosecuted

Er, why?

Equal rights means that - no more no less. It doesn't mean heterosexual couples have any rights above homosexuals. What part of 'equal' are you having a problem with?

[Vicky.]

Er, why?

Equal rights means that - no more no less. It doesn't mean heterosexual couples have any rights above homosexuals. What part of 'equal' are you having a problem with?

Because even a heterosexual couple would have been turned away according to their policy (which I find it hard to believe though tbh)

So a gay unmarried couple should be turned away if heterosexual unmarried couples are too.

However, this gay couple WAS married. Hence the problem ;)

[cub]

No, it is NOT as "simple as that" and if you don't see the difference between a strongly held religious belief and pure, out and out prejudice, then that isn't my problem.

Incidentally, I abhor all forms of discrimination, but commonsense and understanding should be applied when it comes to a case like this - after all the B&B owners could now appeal on the grounds that they are being persecuted and discriminated against for their religious beliefs.

Good luck with that. And yes, the law is quite clear on the matter. You obviously do not believe gay people have the same rights as a straight couple or that religious belief is - somehow - above the law.

[joeysteele]

I think there are 2 issues here,the first is that when booking, perhaps to avoid problems like this,make sure you say you are booking a room for 2 men or 2 women etc.
If there is a follow on question to that then problems of being turned away could be minimalised.

Once accepting the booking and the 2 men there, the coouple should have accepted them and honoured the booking so the judgement today is right.

The 2nd issue is,while its accepted this couple say its their home, they have chosen to make part of their home a business to generate income,the fact that income comes from direct dealing with the public on the premises leaves no argument for discrimination of any kind.
Had they said in their advertisements or literature that they would not accept gay couples etc then an argument for their stance may have had some substance.

In my view if you are operating a business dealing face to face with the public and then discriminate for any supposed reason(I don't accept being Christians as grounds for discrimination,far from it,it should remove any discrimination), then you should face consequences for that,as these did.

Maybe they should be advised to operate a more less direct business from part of their home than full public contact, where being more selective who you deal with could be easier.

[MTVN]

Er, why?

Equal rights means that - no more no less. It doesn't mean heterosexual couples have any rights above homosexuals. What part of 'equal' are you having a problem with?

You missed the point. Have a read of the article and you'll see that the official rule is that couples who are not married cannot book a double room. This was their justification for turning away the gay couple, saying it was not discriminating on the basis of sexuality. Although seeing as a civil partnership was ruled essentially the same thing as marriage, they were deemed to be acting unlawfully.

It was not their policy against unmarried couples that was the problem, it was that all homosexuals supposedly fell into that. Marriage is a choice unlike your sexuality, and married couples are treated differently to unmarried couples - legally, socially and financially - so it would not be illegal to treat them differently when booking a hotel room

[bananarama]

The owners have a right to their religious beliefs but by putting those beliefs into practice they were imposing their religion onto someone else.......That cannot be right........

As others have said if the owners felt that strong about their beliefs they should not be in the business of sharing their home for financial gain if they cannot comply with discrimination laws......

[InOne]

They were stupid about it, they could've just made up some excuse. But then again I guess they didn't expect this whole song and dance.

[MrWong]

Aw diddums. The poor ickle Chwistians are not allowed to discriminate. :bawling:

Thankfully this ruling shows that religious beliefs can't 'trump' the law and rightly so!

[MrWong]

The 2 Gay blokes
Set this all up.



It was no accident they picked that crap hotel
with the nutty Bible Freaks


Courts Judgement.. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hall-preddy-bull-judgment.pdf




14. There was a suggestion in the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants were "set up" by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall. If this were true then while it would not of itself defeat a discrimination claim it would very materially affect the issue of damages. I can see why the defendants might have thought that this was so but I am quite satisfied on the evidence of the claimants that this is not the case and, in fairness to the Defendants, let me make it clear that their counsel, Mr James Dingemans QC, did not seek to run the case on this basis.



I'll trust the judge on this (he's seen all the evidence afterall) rather than these rumours of a 'set-up' that are being spouted. :cool:

[Crimson Dynamo]

and the lesson is

when 2 gay blokes arrive at your b and b

tell them "sorry we have no rooms available"

sorted

[cub]

They were stupid about it, they could've just made up some excuse. But then again I guess they didn't expect this whole song and dance.

They've created all of this themselves. If you want to discrminate you you want onto your business premises, or who you want to do business with, you make an excuse or you grin and bear it.

You cannot just have the atittude that you are above the law and use your faith as an excuse. But of course a lot of this type are living in the past and think they can do as they wish with no consequences.

It will be sad for them to lose their home, but who else can they blame but themselves?

[Crimson Dynamo]

They've created all of this themselves. If you want to discrminate you you want onto your business premises, or who you want to do business with, you make an excuse or you grin and bear it.

You cannot just have the atittude that you are above the law and use your faith as an excuse. But of course a lot of this type are living in the past and think they can do as they wish with no consequences.

It will be sad for them to lose their home, but who else can they blame but themselves?

and why is it different from a club that turns away ugly folk?

[MrWong]

Loving the photo of the idiots outside court supporting the Bulls, holding up their 'It's Their Home' banners. No you idiots, it's their business and as such they are required to run it within the laws.

Fail Daily - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Christian-hotel-owners-Peter-Hazelmary-Bull-penalised-turning-away-gays.html

[Crimson Dynamo]

Loving the photo of the idiots outside court supporting the Bulls, holding up their 'It's Their Home' banners. No you idiots, it's their business and as such they are required to run it within the laws.

Fail Daily - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Christian-hotel-owners-Peter-Hazelmary-Bull-penalised-turning-away-gays.html

and the fact that the two "gay" men seem to think

1. not shaving looks cool
2. dressing the same looks cute


:joker:

[MrWong]

and the fact that the two "gay" men seem to think

1. not shaving looks cool
2. dressing the same looks cute


:joker:


I think the photo of the ignorant christians is funnier. :joker:

[cub]

and why is it different from a club that turns away ugly folk?

Legally they can't is the answer. It's up to the discrimated to challenge that, as these two men have.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Legally they can't is the answer. It's up to the discrimated to challenge that, as these two men have.

I would have turned them away due to their clothes

[cub]

and the lesson is

when 2 gay blokes arrive at your b and b

tell them "sorry we have no rooms available"

sorted

Yes, these bigots should have made an excuse up. If I was running a B&B and two undesirables came to my door I'd make up a story - 'we've had a leak, someone has taken the last room, we're redecorating', anything - but of course as Christians they were upfront and honest about it.

Unfortunately they are not very good at business if they neglected to think they could be above the sexual discrimination law.

[Angus]

The fact that sexual discrimination is seen as worse than religious discrimination is in itself discriminatory:rolleyes: It seems some people in this country are MORE equal than others.

[MrWong]

The fact that sexual discrimination is seen as worse than religious discrimination is in itself discriminatory:rolleyes: It seems some people in this country are MORE equal than others.

Religion is a choice. Are you saying sexuality is a choice?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Religion is a choice. Are you saying sexuality is a choice?

It is a choice to talk about it or act upon it.

[Jack_]

The fact that sexual discrimination is seen as worse than religious discrimination is in itself discriminatory:rolleyes: It seems some people in this country are MORE equal than others.

Of course it's worse. Race, gender and sexuality are all things that cannot be chosen. Religion can.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Of course it's worse. Race, gender and sexuality are all things that cannot be chosen. Religion can.

Wishful thinking

sexuality is unknown in terms of when it kicks in - it does not belong with race or gender I am afraid

[Angus]

Of course it's worse. Race, gender and sexuality are all things that cannot be chosen. Religion can.

Many cultures indoctrinate (or should we say brainwash) their offspring from the day they are born - so it is NOT a matter of choice for very many people. Furthermore, the jury is STILL out on whether or not homosexuality is innate or a learned behaviour and until that little matter is empirically proven (which to date it has not been), one could argue that gay people have no particular right to preferential treatment over other minority groups.

[cub]

The fact that sexual discrimination is seen as worse than religious discrimination is in itself discriminatory:rolleyes: It seems some people in this country are MORE equal than others.

There should not be any religious discrimination, I agree, as long as it doesn't affecting the rights of others. I am quite happy that the beliefs of others are upheld until it affect the law. The law must always be a priority and must be fair to all. If it is in a person's religion to ban gays, blacks, other religions, women and so on then that is at odds with the law.

[cub]

Wishful thinking

sexuality is unknown in terms of when it kicks in - it does not belong with race or gender I am afraid

I think you will find it does in the modern world.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think you will find it does in the modern world.

unfortunately that makes no sense

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/video-christian-owner-of-bb-reacts-to-court-ruling/

check the title of the you tube video from the page above (mouse over it)

oops

[arista]

They were just on ITV1

[lgejonson]

[QUOTE=LeatherTrumpet;4061113]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A STING BY ACTIVISTS! WHY DO HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS WANT MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE?

[_Seth]

A STING BY ACTIVISTS! WHY DO HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS WANT MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE?

We don't want more, we want EQUAL rights. That Christian couple would allow a straight married couple to stay there but not a gay married couple.

[MrWong]

[QUOTE=LeatherTrumpet;4061113]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A STING BY ACTIVISTS! WHY DO HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS WANT MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE?

:conf:

More rights??? Don't be silly.

They want equal rights.

[MrWong]

The bigoted bint is still whinging in the press about the courts ruling.
Putting blame for her financial woes on this court case with no mention that her case was funded by the christian institutute. Her appeal will be funded by them aswell.

They've helped lots of other homophobes too.

Lovely bunch. :sleep:

[lgejonson]

Is it right to persecute a harmless old couple for staying true to their faith?
Is there anyone with the political courage to stand up to Stonewall?

[MrWong]

Is it right to persecute a harmless old couple for staying true to their faith?
Is there anyone with the political courage to stand up to Stonewall?

Is it right to persecute a harmless couple for being gay?
Is there anyone with the political courage to stand up to the christian institute?

[MrWong]

It's funny how this bigoted couple follow what the bible says on homosexuality yet totally ignores what the bible says about working on the sabbath. :rolleyes:

[dannyboy]

Very true, wong. They're using their faith to try and to justify their bigotry towards gay people, they're full of contradictions. They're attempting to present themselves as this well meaning couple with firm christian beliefs trying to make an honest living. When in fact they're homophobic hypocrites who need to get a grip, and pull themselves out of the early 20th century!

[arista]

The Christian hotelier found guilty of gay bias looks set to lose her home and asks: So who's really being persecuted?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1349489/The-Christian-hotelier-guilty-gay-bias-looks-set-lose-home-asks-So-whos-really-persecuted.html#ixzz1BmRZp8Ti

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/21/article-1349489-0CDBAFAC000005DC-918_233x423.jpg


Someone on the comments
tells her to move to Iran.

[arista]

Is it right to persecute a harmless old couple for staying true to their faith?
Is there anyone with the political courage to stand up to Stonewall?



They should have let the gay couple stay.

this is 2011.

[MrWong]

Very true, wong. They're using their faith to try and to justify their bigotry towards gay people, they're full of contradictions. They're attempting to present themselves as this well meaning couple with firm christian beliefs trying to make an honest living. When in fact they're homophobic hypocrites who need to get a grip, and pull themselves out of the early 20th century!

Yep and now they are trying to garner sympathy by blaming this court ruling on their financial woes. Whilst keeping it on the down low that all their court costs were payed for by the christian institute - a vile organization imo.

[cub]

[QUOTE=LeatherTrumpet;4061113]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A STING BY ACTIVISTS! WHY DO HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS WANT MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE?

Why is equal rights seen as 'more rights'?

[dannyboy]

Yes, it's all very manipulative.

I don't see how they can convincingly claim to only book out rooms to heterosexual married couples. If myself and a female friend booked a double room (cos all the twin rooms were taken, for example), then there's no way would they tell us we can't because we're not married. It's absolute rubbish!

... Unless they have refused double rooms to all unmarried couples, regardless of their sexuality and gender (aye right!). Though that might explain why their business is doing so badly...! Lol.

[Shaun]

Is it right to persecute a harmless old couple for staying true to their faith?

In short, yes. And they're hardly harmless if they're discriminating.

Is there anyone with the political courage to stand up to Stonewall?

please stop substituting 'bigotry' with terms like political courage, you sound like Nick Griffin.

[dannyboy]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1349489/The-Christian-hotelier-guilty-gay-bias-looks-set-lose-home-asks-So-whos-really-persecuted.html#ixzz1BmRZp8Ti

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/21/article-1349489-0CDBAFAC000005DC-918_233x423.jpg
.

I was getting quite concerned reading that article, and even more concerned by the comments and whether the comments got a thumbs up or down. The general consensus on that article was poor B&B owners, evil spoilt pair of sinners.

Then I saw 'dailymail.co.uk and became far less surprised.

[MrWong]

I replied to that article ages ago but my comment hasn't been accepted (yet?) basically asking why the couple are trying to shift blame onto the gay couple for their financial woes when the christian institute covered all of their court costs. I then pasted a list of other homophobes that this institute has defended.

If my comment is accepted i expect to get hundreds of red thumbs down. :D

[dannyboy]

Well, I went to the 'worst rated' comment and, surprise suprise, it summed up exactly what I thought of the situation. Lolness.

[lgejonson]

I replied to that article ages ago but my comment hasn't been accepted (yet?) basically asking why the couple are trying to shift blame onto the gay couple for their financial woes when the christian institute covered all of their court costs. I then pasted a list of other homophobes that this institute has defended.

If my comment is accepted i expect to get hundreds of red thumbs down. :D

Why does anyone who has an opinion on any situation to do with homosexuals labeled a homophobe. Yet homosexuals and lesbians expect to be able to insult anyone regardless?::pat:

[dannyboy]

Why does anyone who has an opinion on any situation to do with homosexuals labeled a homophobe. Yet homosexuals and lesbians expect to be able to insult anyone regardless?::pat:

Umm. No they don't! What kind of generalization is that?

Ps Homosexuals and lesbians? Lesbians are homosexuals. Just a pernickity sidenote.

[MrWong]

Why does anyone who has an opinion on any situation to do with homosexuals labeled a homophobe. Yet homosexuals and lesbians expect to be able to insult anyone regardless?::pat:

The christian institute support homophobes imo. You think the following quote is "just having an opinion on any situation to do with homosexuals"?....

The Institute has supported many homophobic individuals in the past, including Ake Green, a Swedish pastor charged with inciting hatred against homosexuals when he compared homosexuality to paedophilia in one of his testimonies; the Bishop of Chester who said some gays can ‘re-orientate’ through therapy; and Lynette Burrows, who during a radio interview disagreed with gays being allowed the right to adopt and described the idea of a young boy with to gay men as “a risk.”

Do you think this lady is "just having an opinion on any situation to do with homosexuals"

Recently the Christian institute backed the views of Iris Robinson, the MP wife of the First Minster of Northern Ireland, who said that homosexuality is disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile and claimed gay people can be “cured.”

They're not only homophobes but dangerous too.

[lgejonson]

There has always been a distinction between lesbian and homosexual, until the word 'gay' was hijacked from the dictionary and the meaning changed for their benefit, to make them more 'fashionable' and acceptable? When, and by whom I don't know, but they seem to have got away with it. It's the same with a lot of minority groups they get equality but then have to want more!

[Stu]

Hide your dictionarys, the queers are coming!

[cub]

Imagine if it were a black or asian couple they had refused...

Reading some of the comments on here it's obvious equal opportunity still has some way to go yet.

[joeysteele]

Is it right to persecute a harmless old couple for staying true to their faith?
Is there anyone with the political courage to stand up to Stonewall?

Nobody is trying to persecute a couple for their faith,but rather the couple are ramming their faith down the throats of those with differing views to them while making a living from a business they have set up to make money from by setting aside part of the building they own for the purpose.

They can be Christians, but the true essence of Christianity is understanding, tolerance and forgiveness, this couple showed none of those attributes.

They opened a business,that is what part of their former home has become,its no longer fully just their home, it makes them money and since it involves dealing with the public face to face and the publics needs, then there is no place at all for discrimination of any kind.

That is what people are getting at this couple for, for discriminating against certain legitimate members of the public,not for being Christians.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Imagine if it were a black or asian couple they had refused...

Reading some of the comments on here it's obvious equal opportunity still has some way to go yet.

I would imagine black and asian people get turned away all the time, as well as young blokes.


sorry we are full

[cub]

Is it right to persecute a harmless old couple for staying true to their faith?
Is there anyone with the political courage to stand up to Stonewall?

Even 'harmless old couples' are not above the law. Why should there be an exception made based on age?

If they'd have said "Sorry we've made an error with the booking" or "There's been a leak and in accordance with H&S we cannot let that room" or, yes, "We're full" there wouldn't have been a problem other than a bit of inconvenience. But to be so smug and 'holier than thou' about it has cost them dearly.

[Patrick]

September 2008...

It's abit old, init?