Militant gay couple win £1,800 each in damages

[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

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.