Militant gay couple win £1,800 each in damages

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8266776/Gay-couple-awarded-damages-You-dont-have-to-agree-with-the-hotel-owners-views-to-be-concerned-by-the-ruling.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Gay-couple-win-1-800-Christian-hotel-owners-refused-double-room.html

Gay couple awarded damages: You don't have to agree with the hotel owner's views to be concerned by the ruling

You don’t have to agree with Peter and Hazelmary’s traditional beliefs about marriage to be concerned by today’s ruling.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01784/hotel_1784659c.jpg
Peter and Hazelmary Bull, owners of the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion



The guesthouse is not just the Bulls’ livelihood, it’s their home. Surely they should be allowed the freedom to live by their own values under their own roof. Everyone benefits from these important liberties, and everyone suffers when they are eroded.

The case brought by a homosexual couple against Mr and Mrs Bull was paid for by the Government-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). They won their case but the judge ruled that his decision does affect the Bulls’ human rights and forces them to act against their genuine beliefs, so he has given permission for an appeal.

The Commission is responsible for defending everybody’s human rights, including the rights of Christians to live and work in line with their faith. This case raises sensitive issues of competing rights. It is a finely balanced and complex case. Yet the EHRC put its substantial weight, and taxpayers’ money, behind one side of the argument. Christians are left to feel that, when it comes to equality, they are on the outside looking in.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/18/article-1348207-0CD00362000005DC-380_634x348.jpg



In a chillingly Orwellian comment, the EHRC’s John Wadham said: “This decision means that community standards, not private ones, must be upheld.” And so the power of the state is brought to bear against a Christian couple aged 70 and 66 who believe in that most pernicious of institutions, marriage.

And the march of militant homosexuality and the big brother state continues. Private home? forget it, the state is involved. Private business? forget it, the state is heavily involved. Liberty, freedom of thought and speech? just forget it in a world eerily matching 1984 as each day passes. This is another ridiculous decision by the equality Nazis and the likes of this gay couple who tell everybody else to be tolerant but they dont have to be tolerant of you and your views, infact they'll take you to court for having views they don't approve of. As usual, tolerance is shown to be a one-way street.

There are also hints that the group 'Stonewall' set this up as a deliberate trap in which to take Mr and Mrs Bull to court as Stonewall sent them a letter only a month before criticising their policy. Stonewall; preachers of tolerance and freedom yet Nazi in style and outlook. Wouldn't it be nice if people could make their own decisons concerning their own private businesses/homes and think their own thoughts without fear of being taken to court?

Thoughts?

[Jordy]

From what I can see they're running a business so I don't see what grounds they have to turn down gap couples. If they're opening up their home to strangers to facilitate their business then they have to deal with them however they are. If they feel that strongly about it, perhaps they should of told the gap couple before they turned up, utterly embarrassed them and ruined their plans? I know they weren't to know it was a gay couple booking but I think they should of pointed out they don't allow gay couples just as a matter of business and courtesy.

I don't see what the gay couple has done to suggest they're militant either.

[-:Undertaker:-]

From what I can see they're running a business so I don't see what grounds they have to turn down gap couples. If they're opening up their home to strangers to facilitate their business then they have to deal with them however they are. If they feel that strongly about it, perhaps they should of told the gap couple before they turned up, utterly embarrassed them and ruined their plans? I know they weren't to know it was a gay couple booking but I think they should of pointed out they don't allow gay couples just as a matter of business and courtesy.

I don't see what the gay couple has done to suggest they're militant either.

And if it is their business? so what? would you like me to tell you how to run your household?

If they [the Christian couple] don't want to allow gay couples as it conflicts with their beliefs then so be it, it is their private business, private home and building. In the end they lose out financially, but thats their choice surely in a supposed free country? as for the gay couple, taking this to the courts is their miltant action - along with suspicious links with Stonewall.

The gay couple need to learn that firstly they don't own the business and secondly that quite a lot of people disagree with their lifestyle - and that in a free country with supposed free speech people are allowed to air those views. Afterall freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular speech.

[FlyingJesus]

To be fair their policy isn't an attack on gays - they also refuse double rooms to unmarried straight couples. I don't know what the legality of the situation actually is, but I'd have thought if they want to harm their own business that's their own problem

[Technologic]

They were the ones that chose to turn their home into a business. Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2007 discrimination in the provision of of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation is unlawful. If they do not want to follow the law then let them be treated like any other criminals today.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They were the ones that chose to turn their home into a business. Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2007 discrimination in the provision of of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation is unlawful. If they do not want to follow the law then let them be treated like any other criminals today.

There's a difference between real criminals and victims (I don't see free choice as a crime) of a politically correct law.

[Technologic]

There's a difference between real criminals and victims (I don't see free choice as a crime) of a politically correct law.

The law is the law, discrimination is discrimination. If they refused to provide a room for a black couple would you still be defending them?

[-:Undertaker:-]

The law is the law, discrimination is discrimination. If they refused to provide a room for a black couple would you still be defending them?

I would yes, similarly if a black couple refused service to a white couple or if I myself were refused service.

I defended the muslims who burned the poppies, we may not like it but in a free country you have to accept views you do not like.

[Jordy]

To be fair their policy isn't an attack on gays - they also refuse double rooms to unmarried straight couples. I don't know what the legality of the situation actually is, but I'd have thought if they want to harm their own business that's their own problemWhat a way to run a business. I never said anything or gay rights etc, just that it's unfair on them (regardless of their sexuality).


And if it is their business? so what? would you like me to tell you how to run your household?

If they [the Christian couple] don't want to allow gay couples as it conflicts with their beliefs then so be it, it is their private business, private home and building. In the end they lose out financially, but thats their choice surely in a supposed free country? as for the gay couple, taking this to the courts is their miltant action - along with suspicious links with Stonewall.

The gay couple need to learn that firstly they don't own the business and secondly that quite a lot of people disagree with their lifestyle - and that in a free country with supposed free speech people are allowed to air those views. Afterall freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular speech.Running a business is dealing with the public, running a household is private and entirely up to you. If they privately hold these views then by all means conduct them privately, but don't just randomly accept bookings from members of the public and then enforce your private views on them. Private and Public shouldn't be mixed. They've been messed around tbh and had every right to go to court, just as much as an unmarried straight couple.

What on earth is a free country anyway? That's just utopia.

[Technologic]

I would yes, similarly if a black couple refused service to a white couple or if I myself were refused service.

I defended the muslims who burned the poppies, we may not like it but in a free country you have to accept views you do not like.

Expressing your views and refusing a service because of those views are two different things under the law.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What a way to run a business. I never said anything or gay rights etc, just that it's unfair on them (regardless of their sexuality).

Running a business is dealing with the public, running a household is private and entirely up to you. If they privately hold these views then by all means conduct them privately, but don't just randomly accept bookings from members of the public and then enforce your private views on them. Private and Public shouldn't be mixed. They've been messed around tbh and had every right to go to court, just as much as an unmarried straight couple.

What on earth is a free country anyway? That's just utopia.

Why should they conduct them privately? it is their own private business.

As for utopia, no I think you'll find these PC-laws are only a recent trend.


Expressing your views and refusing a service because of those things are two different things under the law.

Both are linked, private property and private business are direct links of freedom of thought, speech and view.

The state shouldn't discriminate at all as the state is there for everybody and is owned by everybody, a private business on the other hand is different - it is private property and is not owned by the state. It is like selling a car you've revamped yourself that you cherish, would you sell to somebody who is going to run riot with it and ruin it? no you wouldn't. That is a choice, just as this is a choice on religious grounds.

[Catzsy]

Where does it say they are a 'militant' gay couple, Dan? Just because they feel aggrieved doesn't make them 'militant'. This is difficult one though as the proprietors have their beliefs. From what I understand the ruling was because they did not advertise their restrictions as to who could have a double room in their establishment on the webiste and it was booked via that. On the other hand if they refused a couple based on the colour of their skin then it would be racist. I think this one will run and run tbh.

[Technologic]

Why should they conduct them privately? it is their own private business.

As for utopia, no I think you'll find these PC-laws are only a recent trend.



Both are linked, private property and private business are direct links of freedom of thought, speech and view.

The state shouldn't discriminate at all as the state is there for everybody and is owned by everybody, a private business on the other hand is different - it is private property and is not owned by the state.
So in your perfect world people could put signs up in the windows of their businesses informing the public of their preferred Clientele?

Segregation was sooooo 50s

[-:Undertaker:-]

Where does it say they are a 'militant' gay couple, Dan? Just because they feel aggrieved doesn't make them 'militant'. This is difficult one though as the proprietors have their beliefs. From what I understand the ruling was because they did not advertise their restrictions as to who could have a double room in their establishment on the webiste and it was booked via that. On the other hand if they refused a couple based on the colour of their skin then it would be racist. I think this one will run and run tbh.

It doesn't say militant anywhere because you've obviously read it and come to the conclusion that I added the word militant, which I did - which they are. This gay couple have links with Stonewall it appears (could even have been a setup) and seemingly cannot accept that some people do not agree with their lifestyle. I don't agree with the Christian couple, but its their opinion and their choice and they have a right to it.


So in your perfect world people could put signs up in the windows of their businesses informing the public of their preferred Clientele?

Segregation was sooooo 50s

You really think people would do that do you? I doubt it very much, and many would boycott businesses if they did so. But yeah, if people/a business did wish to bar people from their premises then thats correct - if somebody refuses me service because i'm gay or have black hair then i'm perfectly fine with that. I might not agree with them, but they own the business and they have a right to that viewpoint.

[Catzsy]

It doesn't say militant anywhere because you've obviously read it and come to the conclusion that I added the word militant, which I did - which they are. This gay couple have links with Stonewall it appears (could even have been a setup) and seemingly cannot accept that some people do not agree with their lifestyle. I don't agree with the Christian couple, but its their opinion and their choice and they have a right to it.



You really think people would do that do you? I doubt it very much, and many would boycott businesses if they did so. But yeah, if people/a business did wish to bar people from their premises then thats correct - if somebody refuses me service because i'm gay or have black hair then i'm perfectly fine with that. I might not agree with them, but they own the business and they have a right to that viewpoint.

Well you did add the word 'militant' then :P Well in that case we could call the proprietors 'miltant' Christians, could we not? So why not say that? It does make it a little less inflamatory.

[Inseriousity.]

If I booked a holiday, paid money for that holiday then got to the hotel where they refused to serve me, I'd take them to court too. If however they informed me of their conditions before I booked and I booked anyway then that'd be my responsibility. It sounds to me like they did not do the latter and therefore they are at fault imo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well you did add the word 'militant' then :P Well in that case we could call the proprietors 'miltant' Christians, could we not? So why not say that? It does make it a little less inflamatory.

You could, but I don't see the Christian imposing their views on others - other than on their own property.

If a Christian couple went to a hotel owned by a gay couple and the gay couple had a sign reading 'only gay couples can share beds' - and the Christians took them to court, then i'd call the Christian couple a militant couple also as it would show they cant accept the views of other people.

I call a spade a spade and just because its a touchy feely subject doesn't mean i'll shy away from it.


If I booked a holiday, paid money for that holiday then got to the hotel where they refused to serve me, I'd take them to court too. If however they informed me of their conditions before I booked and I booked anyway then that'd be my responsibility. It sounds to me like they did not do the latter and therefore they are at fault imo.

If they did not inform then they are at fault, but not on grounds of discrimination.

[FlyingJesus]

Both are linked, private property and private business are direct links of freedom of thought, speech and view.

Actually when it comes to a business that deals with members of the public it's not just expression through thought, it's quite clearly in deed as well

[Ajthedragon]

Frankly some people might find gay people in their homes offensive, so surely this works both ways?

For example, Muslims disagree with homosexuality, so having them allowed to stay in their business by law would surely offend them.

As usual, only one view is ever taken into account, and taxpayers pay a cruel price.

[Technologic]

Frankly some people might find gay people in their homes offensive, so surely this works both ways?

For example, Muslims disagree with homosexuality, so having them allowed to stay in their business by law would surely offend them.

As usual, only one view is ever taken into account, and taxpayers pay a cruel price.

Views don't change this though, the b&b owners breached the law when they refused a room on the grounds of sexual orientation.

[Jordy]

Frankly some people might find gay people in their homes offensive, so surely this works both ways?

For example, Muslims disagree with homosexuality, so having them allowed to stay in their business by law would surely offend them.

As usual, only one view is ever taken into account, and taxpayers pay a cruel price.Well that isn't really the case is it? That's why they had a court case showing both views followed by a verdict, it's how a court works :rolleyes:

And also the loser of the court case pays for the costs so taxpayers don't pay a "cruel price". And even if they did, people are entitled to fairly take people to court regardless, cost shouldn't come into it. The difference with a home is, you're perfectly entitled to not let gay people in your home (or anyone else for that matter).

The pair also had a civil partnership which gives them the same legal status as a married couple anyway.

[Hecktix]

If you want to open a business like this in your own home, you should not discriminate against people - by all means it's their home but it's also a public business, if they are allowed to refuse gay people to stay in their B&B, should we allow shops/bars/restauraunts/club and every other business out there to have the right to refuse their service to gay people? No we shouldn't, they haven't done anything wrong so you have to be fair to them, if you dont like what they do then fair enough but they are paying customers like any other couple.

[Ajthedragon]

Well that isn't really the case is it? That's why they had a court case showing both views followed by a verdict, it's how a court works :rolleyes:

And also the loser of the court case pays for the costs so taxpayers don't pay a "cruel price". And even if they did, people are entitled to fairly take people to court regardless, cost shouldn't come into it. The difference with a home is, you're perfectly entitled to not let gay people in your home (or anyone else for that matter).

The pair also had a civil partnership which gives them the same legal status as a married couple anyway.

The Taxpayer compensated them, not the people in question.

Frankly I think they should just find somewhere else and get on with it. If I was discriminated against for whatever reason, I would. I wouldn't really care enough to make a fuss.

[Jordy]

The Taxpayer compensated them, not the people in question.

Frankly I think they should just find somewhere else and get on with it. If I was discriminated against for whatever reason, I would. I wouldn't really care enough to make a fuss.I think they had every right to take the case to court after they were unfairly treated. Whilst you can say that in hindsight, you have every right to take someone to court if you've been treated unfairly.


Judge Andrew Rutherford made the ruling in a written judgment at Bristol County Court as he awarded the couple £1,800 each in damages.

Mr and Mrs Bull, who have previously admitted they are struggling to pay debts, are facing financial ruin after being ordered to pay most of the costs of the Equality and Human Rights Commission which funded the action.

'We are trying to live and work in accordance with our Christian faith. As a result we have been sued and ordered to pay £3,600

[GommeInc]

They were the ones that chose to turn their home into a business. Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2007 discrimination in the provision of of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation is unlawful. If they do not want to follow the law then let them be treated like any other criminals today.
Ah but the case isn't one sided. The fact that their religious beliefs (which they are allowed to follow) is also being attacked here is another concern. They have the right to uphold their faith. So you've got two conflicting rights - their right to religion and the Equality Act which upholds the gay couple's right. Personally I think both of them should be let off free, FlyingJesus made a good point that if they do not want to allow homosexuals into their home (and business) then it's their right - they're only damaging business for themselves :P They should have the liberty to turn away whoever they want on perfectly acceptable grounds, and seeing as they believe in the Christian God and believe that homosexuals shouldn't do unmentionable things to each other (or unmarried couples etc etc), then should have the liberty to do so. Aren't they the couple who weren't actually rude about this, either? They were polite last time I heard.

EDIT: Infact, both rights conflict quite heavily with each other. The "Freedom of religion" principle allows an individual or community to practice their religion in private and public, so it would seem neither the gay couple nor the Christian couple are to blame, but the legal system for having unprecise legislation :/

EDIT again: Infact, the "Equality Act" covers both of them - sexuality, religion and belief :P

[Ajthedragon]

Just leave it - my view. If someone has a problem with someone they should just get over it. If every time someone offended me I took them to court I'd be a very rich man.

[Jordy]

Just leave it - my view. If someone has a problem with someone they should just get over it. If every time someone offended me I took them to court I'd be a very rich man.I don't doubt that! This isn't simply just offending someone though, it's discriminating them because of their sexuality and not letting them in the hotel.

Oh and it's fact that the hoteliers will be paying the couple the compensation and court costs and not the taxpayers (Unless of course they choose to take further legal action which is possible).

[Catzsy]

You could, but I don't see the Christian imposing their views on others - other than on their own property.

If a Christian couple went to a hotel owned by a gay couple and the gay couple had a sign reading 'only gay couples can share beds' - and the Christians took them to court, then i'd call the Christian couple a militant couple also as it would show they cant accept the views of other people.

I call a spade a spade and just because its a touchy feely subject doesn't mean i'll shy away from it.



If they did not inform then they are at fault, but not on grounds of discrimination.

Well their followers did turn up at the court with their banners! LOL :P They did impose their views on others as they refused to give them a double room in a hotel which is a business not a home! Taking people to court is hardly a reason to call anybody militant, Dan.
This is militant:

adj.
Fighting or warring.
Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

[Ajthedragon]

I don't doubt that! This isn't simply just offending someone though, it's discriminating them because of their sexuality and not letting them in the hotel.

Oh and it's fact that the hoteliers will be paying the couple the compensation and court costs and not the taxpayers (Unless of course they choose to take further legal action which is possible).

Why should they? It's part of their religion so they should have every right to refuse them. It's a waste of money for taxpayers and the hoteliers. Black people were made slaves and they didn't get compensation at all. Being refused at a hotel is hardly a big thing.

[Catzsy]

Why should they? It's part of their religion so they should have every right to refuse them. It's a waste of money for taxpayers and the hoteliers. Black people were made slaves and they didn't get compensation at all. Being refused at a hotel is hardly a big thing.

Maybe because it's the law. :P In any event to bring a claim like this it has to be accompanied by a claim for damages. I would very much doubt if the 'gay' couple sued for the compensation.
I don't think 'black slaves' had the opportunity to file discrimination cases for damages at that time.

[GommeInc]

Maybe because it's the law. :P In any event to bring a claim like this it has to be accompanied by a claim for damages. I would very much doubt if the 'gay' couple sued for the compensation.
I don't think 'black slaves' had the opportunity to file discrimination cases for damages at that time.
It's interesting how it is completely down to laws revolving around organisations and businesses. The moment you register a company it does seem you have to bin any beliefs and opinions until you close for the night. I still think it was a bit harsh fining the couple, especially when loads of sources seem to be suggesting they were polite to the gay couple, rather than aggressive. An interesting case to say the least :)

[Ajthedragon]

Maybe because it's the law. :P In any event to bring a claim like this it has to be accompanied by a claim for damages. I would very much doubt if the 'gay' couple sued for the compensation.
I don't think 'black slaves' had the opportunity to file discrimination cases for damages at that time.

Maybe not, but they got on with it. Black people are generally accepted in all modern society now, we think nothing of different toned skin.

[Catzsy]

It's interesting how it is completely down to laws revolving around organisations and businesses. The moment you register a company it does seem you have to bin any beliefs and opinions until you close for the night. I still think it was a bit harsh fining the couple, especially when loads of sources seem to be suggesting they were polite to the gay couple, rather than aggressive. An interesting case to say the least :)

Yes, but it really is quite a nominal sum but he has given leave to appeal so maybe someone will back them financially to see what the result would be. From a purely selfish point of view there, though.

@ Ayd- so therefore, perhaps we should think of two people of the same sex sharing a bed as nothing too. Do you think that of two ladies had turned up they would have even batted an eye lid? I would say two lesbians could probably get away with it but not the male gay couple. What if two brothers had turned up and wanted a double room to save money?

[Casanova]

Dan you're most certainly crazy.
I agree people are allowed to practice their own religions and the views on which they're governed by, but if they wish to have a public business and 'open their homes' then they should accept the same laws we all do if we were to have a business. it's unfair to disregard or refuse people for their choices/religion/sexuality or anything else on which is their own personalities or makes them who they are.

They are not a militant homosexual couple, they're just normal people whom are gay. Why should they be refused board in a private business just because the owners have a religion on which they believe dictates 'bestiality' or homosexual acts aren't correct or allowed? it's not correct to treat people this way in this day and age, they're most certainly wrong in having a business in which people from all walks of life may use their services and i damn well hope they shut down their business if they can't handle that.

Would you feel the same if they said no to a sufferer of MS? after all, ms isn't choosable as homosexuality isn't choosable. you can't just dictate what you find attractive? you can't dictate what your body suffers from (in the case of MS) it's not fair.

[Ajthedragon]

That's not a very realistic as an example is it. I'm sure the owners would be quite aware they were brothers and not in love. And I'm sure people like this would do the same for lesbian relationships. I very much doubt they turned these men away before finding out about their sexuality anyway.

[Catzsy]

That's not a very realistic as an example is it. I'm sure the owners would be quite aware they were brothers and not in love. And I'm sure people like this would do the same for lesbian relationships. I very much doubt they turned these men away before finding out about their sexuality anyway.

Well it is quite accepted in society and always has been for two woman to share a bed so it is a very realistic scenario. Also I am quite certain that the couple did not register saying 'hey we are gay'. To even be interrogated as to their sexuality is breach of their personal privacy and human rights. You can't uphold that for one section of the community without upholding it for the other.

[GommeInc]

Yes, but it really is quite a nominal sum but he has given leave to appeal so maybe someone will back them financially to see what the result would be. From a purely selfish point of view there, though.
If they do appeal they may bring up the point that they have the right to exercise their right to religion. The hotel industry is quite different to other industries, especially when it involves a place of residence for the owners (thus somewhat "private" than "public"). Their B&B is a unique example where you work in a public industry within a private building. The Equality Act 2010 is an interesting read, but I can't help but notice a distinct lack of information regarding religion and beliefs, it's mentioned as a definition but the rest of the Act seems to focus on sexual orientation, gender alignment and disabilities.

[Ajthedragon]

Well it is quite accepted in society and always has been for two woman to share a bed so it is a very realistic scenario. Also I am quite certain that the couple did not register saying 'hey we are gay'. To even be interrogated as to their sexuality is breach of their personal privacy and human rights. You can't uphold that for one section of the community without upholding it for the other.

If they weren't bothered by their sexuality they wouldn't mind people knowing about it. It wouldn't bother them. I have only ever met one lesbian couple in my life, they were quite nice and joked to my mother that she'd expected us to be awkward around them even though I was polite as always :rolleyes:. They weren't going to be bothered in the slightest. And they were quite willing to accept the childish teenage view of things and not let it get to them? So why should it be different for these.

I'm sorry but to me, it all comes down to who owns the establishment to who's views become more dominant, and the others should have to accept it. Providing of course that it isn't ridiculous like terrorism.

A B&B is somebody's home. If I had someone in my house for example at a party (which I have) and ordered them out, it shouldn't be a breach against human rights.

Frankly the act should be re-written, it causes too many problems and gets more innocent people charged then guilty people jailed or deported.

[Nemo]

If they weren't bothered by their sexuality they wouldn't mind people knowing about it. It wouldn't bother them. I have only ever met one lesbian couple in my life, they were quite nice and joked to my mother that she'd expected us to be awkward around them even though I was polite as always :rolleyes:. They weren't going to be bothered in the slightest. And they were quite willing to accept the childish teenage view of things and not let it get to them? So why should it be different for these.

I'm sorry but to me, it all comes down to who owns the establishment to who's views become more dominant, and the others should have to accept it. Providing of course that it isn't ridiculous like terrorism.

A B&B is somebody's home. If I had someone in my house for example at a party (which I have) and ordered them out, it shouldn't be a breach against human rights.

Frankly the act should be re-written, it causes too many problems and gets more innocent people charged then guilty people jailed or deported.
Where do you create that line between something ridiculous and not ridiculous though?

To me, religion is ridiculous. The fact that people's lived are being interupted because of the way they feel about another human being is just wrong imo. Sure it's their beliefs, but no matter how strongly you believe something, i just dont think that can top the way you feel about someone.

I just think its silly people are being discriminated in this day and age in this country. If you open your service to the public, expect the public to come, not just white people, not just black people, not just lesbians, everyone.

[Ajthedragon]

Where do you create that line between something ridiculous and not ridiculous though?

To me, religion is ridiculous. The fact that people's lived are being interupted because of the way they feel about another human being is just wrong imo. Sure it's their beliefs, but no matter how strongly you believe something, i just dont think that can top the way you feel about someone.

I just think its silly people are being discriminated in this day and age in this country. If you open your service to the public, expect the public to come, not just white people, not just black people, not just lesbians, everyone.

And terrorists and killers too. The world will always discriminate against people, some people choose not to like other people. It's just one of these things, and we must accept those views, taking them into account when running their day to day businesses.

[HotelUser]

If they were refused a bed for that it's a shame the ones who refused them the bed weren't made to pay up.

[Catzsy]

If they do appeal they may bring up the point that they have the right to exercise their right to religion. The hotel industry is quite different to other industries, especially when it involves a place of residence for the owners (thus somewhat "private" than "public"). Their B&B is a unique example where you work in a public industry within a private building. The Equality Act 2010 is an interesting read, but I can't help but notice a distinct lack of information regarding religion and beliefs, it's mentioned as a definition but the rest of the Act seems to focus on sexual orientation, gender alignment and disabilities.

Yes I agree. It would make a very interesting appeal. Most premises have the 'right to refuse admission' providing it is in their T&C's but would a T&C on their website saying that they are not willing to let gay couples have a double room because of their religious beliefs break any law?
These are the actual 'booking conditions'
http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/rooms.html#12
Interestingly it says 'For further booking conditions please contact us'.

[FlyingJesus]

To me, religion is ridiculous

What would Vishnu say :(


would a T&C on their website saying that they are not willing to let gay couples have a double room because of their religious beliefs break any law?

I actually think the old couple running the place have a good enough defence for this case, I don't particularly agree with them but their conditions are that only married couples may share one of their beds - it's not non-gay specific and can very easily be argued that forcing them to allow it forces them to condone practises that they believe sinful, and by a great many interpretations of Biblical law allowing such things when the alternative is available is just as much a sin as being a part of it

[Catzsy]

What would Vishnu say :(



I actually think the old couple running the place have a good enough defence for this case, I don't particularly agree with them but their conditions are that only married couples may share one of their beds - it's not non-gay specific and can very easily be argued that forcing them to allow it forces them to condone practises that they believe sinful, and by a great many interpretations of Biblical law allowing such things when the alternative is available is just as much a sin as being a part of it

See above for the 'booking conditions FJ - not there in writing. Looks like they may say on the phone with their 'for further booking conditions, please contact.' This could be said of unmarrried couples though in the 50's and 60's. Same religious/moral viewpoint was expressed.

[Jordy]

The most amusing thing about this whole story is that the Bible isn't against homosexuality anyway, I challenge you to find where it says Christian's should be against it :)

(That's not to say no one should be against homosexuality but it's food for thought).

[Catzsy]

The most amusing thing about this whole story is that the Bible isn't against homosexuality anyway, I challenge you to find where it says Christian's should be against it :)

(That's not to say no one should be against homosexuality but it's food for thought).

Now that really does make a minefield of it all so all they could say it that they think it is morally wrong. Interesting.

[FlyingJesus]

The most amusing thing about this whole story is that the Bible isn't against homosexuality anyway, I challenge you to find where it says Christian's should be against it :)

(That's not to say no one should be against homosexuality but it's food for thought).

Leviticus 18:22, a pretty famous verse from a book of Jewish/Christian law written by Moses -

"And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]." (I use Young's Literal Translation for quoting, but it is about the same in each version).

It isn't so much against the idea of love between two men, but clearly states that acting on lust between males is sinful. Please, before the gay brigade start attacking my post, note that I'm simply answering the question, I don't hold these views myself

[alexxxxx]

i think the phrase 'call for more terms and conditions' is probably not legally enforceable as terms and conditions are part of a legal contract. Even if the words 'unmarried couples are not allowed a double room' were allowed, i would find it unlikely that this part of the contract is unenforceable due to discrimination laws and even if it was enforceable the fact they were civil partners which is basically the same as marriage would likely mean that it was active discrimination against homosexuals. The country is not governed by religious law.

[GommeInc]

Yes I agree. It would make a very interesting appeal. Most premises have the 'right to refuse admission' providing it is in their T&C's but would a T&C on their website saying that they are not willing to let gay couples have a double room because of their religious beliefs break any law?
These are the actual 'booking conditions'
http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/rooms.html#12
Interestingly it says 'For further booking conditions please contact us'.
When I first heard of this I did wonder what happened to admission details, many establishments have them so when this came up it came as surprising . Afterall, large hotel firms that have been going for years have Terms of Use/Terms and Conditions (they mix and match as they deem fit). If they do attempt to go to court again, it does seem likely they will be told that it is their fault as they did not provide any further information about who can book a room.

They're only being called homophobic because by law same-sex couples who have had their partnership legally recognised are entitled to the same treatment as same sex married couples, assuming it is correct that they've had a civil partnership. So legally they're allowed to stay wherever they want. BUT, the couple who own the hotel have these religious beliefs, but the confusing thing from what I can tell is that they do not mind that they are gay, but for some reason they're civil partnership is not recognised - possibly down to not knowing that they are entitled to similar rights as married couples - or because of their beliefs, but how can it be when they're not saying it is about their beliefs? It does seem very confusing, as the Christian couple appear to not be making much sense with their case, the religious side doesn't seem the issue :/


Leviticus 18:22, a pretty famous verse from a book of Jewish/Christian law written by Moses -

"And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]." (I use Young's Literal Translation for quoting, but it is about the same in each version).

It isn't so much against the idea of love between two men, but clearly states that acting on lust between males is sinful. Please, before the gay brigade start attacking my post, note that I'm simply answering the question, I don't hold these views myself
Depends if you take it literally - some people believe that this part of the Bible is poorly translated from the original text, it could suggest that it is impossible for man to lie with another man as they would a woman because of physical limitations. I too don't really believe it as lust exists in all types of sexual orientation, but from what I understand, the Bible is up for interpretation and is never easy to understand :P


i think the phrase 'call for more terms and conditions' is probably not legally enforceable as terms and conditions are part of a legal contract. Even if the words 'unmarried couples are not allowed a double room' were allowed, i would find it unlikely that this part of the contract is unenforceable due to discrimination laws and even if it was enforceable the fact they were civil partners which is basically the same as marriage would likely mean that it was active discrimination against homosexuals. The country is not governed by religious law.
But the religious couple are protected by law, which is why it's a controversial case :)

[Nationalism]

From the old testament:


Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

Christianity sways both ways with half being for homosexuality and half being against. It doesn't take a genius to guess which side im on.
Some Christian churches and organizations are completely against being gay such as the Roman Catholic Church, in my times i've rarely seen Christians be for homosexuality, i notice most people i've came across are against it.
I believe the two B&B owners should have the right to decide who and what type of people stay at their home, whether it be in terms of sexuality, race, gender, age, height whatever - it's their own home at the end of the day. The state should have absolutely no right at all to intervene, i think we all forget ALOT of people are still strongly against homosexuality, it's only been widely accepted in the last say 20 years or so.
Homosexuality was even registered as a mental illness until around 1979 in the United States.

I won't go any further into the argument, incase i offend anyone.

[alexxxxx]

But the religious couple are protected by law, which is why it's a controversial case :)

i doubt they are protected.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Actually when it comes to a business that deals with members of the public it's not just expression through thought, it's quite clearly in deed as well

It is a private business though, not the state.


Views don't change this though, the b&b owners breached the law when they refused a room on the grounds of sexual orientation.

A draconian law which is totally wrong and flys in the face of liberty and freedom of choice, expression and thought.


If you want to open a business like this in your own home, you should not discriminate against people - by all means it's their home but it's also a public business, if they are allowed to refuse gay people to stay in their B&B, should we allow shops/bars/restauraunts/club and every other business out there to have the right to refuse their service to gay people? No we shouldn't, they haven't done anything wrong so you have to be fair to them, if you dont like what they do then fair enough but they are paying customers like any other couple.

It is not a public business, it is a private business which serves the public of which the owners of that private business can decide whom to serve (or should be able to). HabboxForum itself plays the same game, that the service can be terminated without reason at anytime and quite rightly so as it is a private website.

As for the second example, that is plainly ridiculous and would simply not happen. And if businesses did refuse to serve gay people so what? if they refuse to serve potential paying customers then it is simply to their own financial cost. I think we've reached a mentality in this country where we think that nobody has the right to offend/do something to upset you - well i'm sorry but that is just simply ridiculous and with these dangerous laws you are treading all over your ancient liberties.

Popular speech doesn't need protecting, its unpopular speech that needs protecting.


I think they had every right to take the case to court after they were unfairly treated. Whilst you can say that in hindsight, you have every right to take someone to court if you've been treated unfairly.

So we have a right to now take people to court on whether we disagree with the way somebody has treated us/exercised their own opinions/freedom of thoughts? in the real world despite whatever laws the government may put in, the right to not be offended does not exist and will never exist just as with dictorial regimes the laws against criticism of the regime eventually tumbled down.

All restrictions on freedom of speech and liberty show a culture unsure of itself, and all restrictions of freedom of speech have failed historically and they always will do so. Speech and thought cannot be regulated.


Just leave it - my view. If someone has a problem with someone they should just get over it. If every time someone offended me I took them to court I'd be a very rich man.

Indeed, agreed fully.


Well their followers did turn up at the court with their banners! LOL :P They did impose their views on others as they refused to give them a double room in a hotel which is a business not a home! Taking people to court is hardly a reason to call anybody militant, Dan.
This is militant:

Yes they did impose their view, but they didnt use the hand of the law to do so - there is no law stating *and this couple aren't actively pursueing it* that would ban gay couples from sharing beds - that would be militant and imposing a view on somebody else, this case on the other hand is one personal choice conflicting with another with the difference being that the hand of the law is wrongly on one side when it shouldn't be.


Dan you're most certainly crazy.
I agree people are allowed to practice their own religions and the views on which they're governed by, but if they wish to have a public business and 'open their homes' then they should accept the same laws we all do if we were to have a business. it's unfair to disregard or refuse people for their choices/religion/sexuality or anything else on which is their own personalities or makes them who they are.

You have just stated firstly that you believe people should be allowed to practice their own religion freely, then gone on to say why you don't believe they should be able to practice their religion/beliefs freely.

Instead of beating around the bush using nannying language, just state what you believe from the onstead.


They are not a militant homosexual couple, they're just normal people whom are gay. Why should they be refused board in a private business just because the owners have a religion on which they believe dictates 'bestiality' or homosexual acts aren't correct or allowed? it's not correct to treat people this way in this day and age, they're most certainly wrong in having a business in which people from all walks of life may use their services and i damn well hope they shut down their business if they can't handle that.

They are normal people are they? let's see, a couple who go to a private business who are turned down by that business who then get together with a militant gay activist group to take that business to court for not agreeing with their lifestyle - sorry but I don't call that normal, that is militant behaviour from a couple who ought to be ashamed for themselves for the simple fact that they are prepared to use the law in order to inflict their views/choices on others.

The business side, you say a their services are for all walks of life - i'm sorry no it is not, who decided that? nobody did. Their business serves who they want it to serve hence it is a private business, if they dont want to serve gay people then let them be - they own the business, if they gay couple do not like it then they can simply set up their own business or go to another business which will accomodate them.


Would you feel the same if they said no to a sufferer of MS? after all, ms isn't choosable as homosexuality isn't choosable. you can't just dictate what you find attractive? you can't dictate what your body suffers from (in the case of MS) it's not fair.

Yes I would, I told you before - if a white couple turn away blacks then i'm fine with that but it doesnt mean I agree, similarly it works the other way around and it is the same if somebody turns me away for having black hair/my sexuality. I may not agree with their views, but they have a right to them views and as they own the business and the land, they have the right to enforce them views.

I defended the rights of the muslim protestors burning the poppies on rememberance day - I don't agree with them, but they should have the freedoms under old English laws to be able to do so. Sadly over recent years, our liberties have been sharply eroded to the point now where you need to ask the police permission to protest in the streets around the supposed 'democratic parliament' - thats modern day democracy for you.

[GommeInc]

i doubt they are protected.

Part 2 Equality: key concepts
Chapter 1 Protected characteristics
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation

However, this Act is up for abuse as those protected characters can go at each other with all guns a blazing so interpreting the Act becomes a challenge. The only thing that is the main issue here is that the Christian couple own a business, and the business is seen as a seperate entity from the couple, even though it is a home. However, they "ad-lib" to turn down custom provided they have decent grounds to do so, their religion, before they accept them. So it's really a case of the couple turning away the gay couple at the wrong time.

[MrPinkPanther]

I challenge any of you to define what is a religion and what isn't a religion. If I myself follow a set of religious beliefs that dictate I should be able to assault people in the name of God should I be able to do so? How about if I run a B&B, well they are in my home so it's my rules can I attack them? Do you see how easily this argument falls down? There will always be limitations upon what you can do, religion or no religion.

[GommeInc]

I challenge any of you to define what is a religion and what isn't a religion. If I myself follow a set of religious beliefs that dictate I should be able to assault people in the name of God should I be able to do so? How about if I run a B&B, well they are in my home so it's my rules can I attack them? Do you see how easily this argument falls down? There will always be limitations upon what you can do, religion or no religion.
Not really, you are free to follow any religion provided they do not break any laws, if they do you're advised to follow the laws in place for everybody and restrict these religious beliefs and/or laws to home or areas where other people follow that particular law, like a church for example :P So attacking someone is agaisnt the law, murder etc etc. Telling people what you think in a polite manner is perfectly acceptable, which is what you see in this case - no malice or violence involved.

There's a phrase that sums it up but I'm way too exhausted to remember it.

[Oleh]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.

[Catzsy]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.

I have never heard of this at all :S Do you mean hen parties or stag parties because your post could be misinterpreted here. :P

[Ajthedragon]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.

I don't see how that would be any different for any couples. As an owner or guest I wouldn't want either.

[GommeInc]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.
Uh huh, I'm assuming this is your opinion? :P They have to accept anyone unless they strictly say "for singles only/for couples only", they cannot be anymore specific than that as it's deemed inappropriate, offensive and discriminatory.