Militant gay couple win £1,800 each in damages

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...he-ruling.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...uble-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.

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.

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 problem

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).

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.