Militant gay couple win £1,800 each in damages

[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 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

[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 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. 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.