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

Well I hope she gets no business then :bored:

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'.

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

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

Thanks for that interesting piece though.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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

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......

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.

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!

Courts Judgement.. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...l-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:

and the lesson is

when 2 gay blokes arrive at your b and b

tell them "sorry we have no rooms available"

sorted

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?

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/arti...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:

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

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

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.

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?

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