View Full Version : Christian couple broke the law by turning away gay couple.


Pages : [1] 2

spindrift
18-01-2011, 12:12
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23915053-gay-couple-win-legal-battle-over-double-room-at-christian-hotel.do


Christian hotel owners who refused a gay couple a double-room at their guesthouse were today ordered to pay compensation after breaking the law.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull must now pay £3,600 damages to Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy after denying them a room at their hotel in Cornwall in 2008.

A judge today said the couple had broken equality laws and said that “social attitudes” in Britain have changed.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, had been seeking up to £5,000 damages for sexual orientation discrimination.

The Bulls claimed their decision to refuse the couple a bed was based on their beliefs about marriage and not a hostility to sexual orientation.

But in his judgement at Bristol County Court, Judge Andrew Rutherford said their views were out of date. He said: “It is inevitable that laws will, from time to time, cut across the deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.”

He pointed to the abolition of capital punishment, beatings in schools, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and suicide – and even the ban on hunting and smoking in public places.

In this case he stressed he had no doubt that the Bulls were genuine in their beliefs.

But, he added: “Not so very long ago these beliefs would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.”

After the ruling Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said they were extremely pleased with the outcome.

“When we booked this hotel we just wanted to do something that thousands of other couples do every weekend –take a relaxing weekend break away.We checked that the hotel would allow us to bring our dog, but it didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 we would have to check whether we would be welcome ourselves.”

auto98uk
18-01-2011, 12:15
I thought this was ages ago? Is this just the amount the b&b have to pay?

spindrift
18-01-2011, 12:17
Years ago B&Bs had signs saying:

"No Irish, tinkers or coloureds"

We live in more enlightened times, fortunately, a bed and breakfast is a business, you cannot discriminate in business based on peoples' race or gender or sexual orientation.

HotPhil
18-01-2011, 12:19
It's an interesting point. The belief/principals of the owners is deemed to be in the wrong when deciding who they allow into their home.

Glamrocker
18-01-2011, 12:19
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23915053-gay-couple-win-legal-battle-over-double-room-at-christian-hotel.do


Christian hotel owners who refused a gay couple a double-room at their guesthouse were today ordered to pay compensation after breaking the law.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull must now pay £3,600 damages to Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy after denying them a room at their hotel in Cornwall in 2008.

A judge today said the couple had broken equality laws and said that “social attitudes” in Britain have changed.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, had been seeking up to £5,000 damages for sexual orientation discrimination.

The Bulls claimed their decision to refuse the couple a bed was based on their beliefs about marriage and not a hostility to sexual orientation.

But in his judgement at Bristol County Court, Judge Andrew Rutherford said their views were out of date. He said: “It is inevitable that laws will, from time to time, cut across the deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.”

He pointed to the abolition of capital punishment, beatings in schools, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and suicide – and even the ban on hunting and smoking in public places.

In this case he stressed he had no doubt that the Bulls were genuine in their beliefs.

But, he added: “Not so very long ago these beliefs would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.”

After the ruling Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said they were extremely pleased with the outcome.

“When we booked this hotel we just wanted to do something that thousands of other couples do every weekend –take a relaxing weekend break away.We checked that the hotel would allow us to bring our dog, but it didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 we would have to check whether we would be welcome ourselves.”
So in this respect he can hire his rooms out for euthanasia legally

spindrift
18-01-2011, 12:23
So in this respect he can hire his rooms out for euthanasia legally

suicide isn't illegal, euthanasia is.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 12:24
It's an interesting point. The belief/principals of the owners is deemed to be in the wrong when deciding who they allow into their home.

yep, just as if the B&B owners "believed" that everyone from Wales is a paedophile.

melthebell
18-01-2011, 12:25
So in this respect he can hire his rooms out for euthanasia legally
Feel free to try it out :)

Obelix
18-01-2011, 12:30
It's an interesting point. The belief/principals of the owners is deemed to be in the wrong when deciding who they allow into their home.

It ceases to be just their home though, when they start charging money for services..

When I used to work away from Sheffield down south - which would be the early 1990/1 I used to stay at a B&B that was run by a fearsome lady. She had a sign that simply said "Lodgings for Singles" (either men or women). She basically didn't want rumpy-pumpy in the night. I wonder if that would be considered acceptable or legal these days.

truman
18-01-2011, 12:33
It ceases to be just their home though, when they start charging money for services..

.

Yet a publican can refuse to serve anyone without giving a reason (as far as I know anyway) Is a retail shop forced to take anyone's custom?

spindrift
18-01-2011, 12:35
Yet a publican can refuse to serve anyone without giving a reason (as far as I know anyway) Is a retail shop forced to take anyone's custom?

Not the same thing at all.

If a black publican was found to be refusing to serve any white person would you support him?

truman
18-01-2011, 12:37
Not the same thing at all.

If a black publican was found to be refusing to serve any white person would you support him?

Explain why it's different ...genuine question..and where did I say I was supporting the hotel owners?

Glamrocker
18-01-2011, 12:38
suicide isn't illegal, euthanasia is.
Your correct ok..... Suicides welcome reduced charges for unfulfilled term of residence

Glamrocker
18-01-2011, 12:40
Yet a publican can refuse to serve anyone without giving a reason (as far as I know anyway) Is a retail shop forced to take anyone's custom?
He would have been within the law if he had termed them undesirables and not made a song and dance about their sexuality.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 12:44
Explain why it's different ...genuine question..and where did I say I was supporting the hotel owners?

A publican can lawfully refuse to serve a belligerent drunk.

Were a black publican found to discriminate on the basis of colour or sex he would face the same charges as the narrow-minded bigots who run the B&B.

Hots on
18-01-2011, 12:54
Its the law and the law should be observed, but its a bad law in my view.

A business owner of any type should be allowed to refuse sale/entry to anyone for any reason.

truman
18-01-2011, 12:54
A publican can lawfully refuse to serve a belligerent drunk.

Were a black publican found to discriminate on the basis of colour or sex he would face the same charges as the narrow-minded bigots who run the B&B.

A publican can refuse service to anyone..drunk or not....and I don't think they are allowed to serve a drunk anyway (or a policeman in uniform)...I don't see the difference between that and the hotel owners' actions..

Rupert_Baehr
18-01-2011, 12:55
A publican (of any colour, sexual persuasion, religion or other random grouping) can lawfully refuse to serve anybody.

I was told when I went into a pub with some friends (a few years ago) "We don't serve your kind here."

His pub. His choice. We left, we told our friends what had happened and we didn't bother going there again.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 12:55
Its funny if there was a sign saying "no women" or "no caucasian people", I really can't see it bothering me. It would make me think why the hell would I want to stay there but I wouldn't sue anyone.

To me it depends whether it was advertised "no homosexuals" or whether they turned up after booking a room and were not allowed in. I have to assume it wasn't advertised as no homosexuals otherwise the couple would be idiots to book it anyway!

We are talking about a B&B not a hotel and there is a massive difference. Hopefully they will not get much custom after this anyway:hihi:

spooky3
18-01-2011, 12:56
Other countries don't care about things like this!

Won't even let mixed couples in many hotels unless their married in some countries! (Never mind gay people!)

Oh we live in a great place!

truman
18-01-2011, 12:56
I have to assume it wasn't advertised as no homosexuals otherwise the couple would be idiots to book it anyway!



Unless they wanted to try and prove a point etc.etc...

Kthebean
18-01-2011, 12:56
Its funny if there was a sign saying "no women" or "no caucasian people", I really can't see it bothering me. It would make me think why the hell would I want to stay there but I wouldn't sue anyone.

To me it depends whether it was advertised "no homosexuals" or whether they turned up after booking a room and were not allowed in. I have to assume it wasn't advertised as no homosexuals otherwise the couple would be idiots to book it anyway!
We are talking about a B&B not a hotel and there is a massive difference. Hopefully they will not get much custom after this anyway:hihi:

AS far as Im aware it was advertised married couples only. As they are in a civil partnership they assumed it would be ok. They even rang to ask if it was ok for their dog to stay (which it was) so assumed they would be alright. It was only when they arrived that they were turned away.

Hots on
18-01-2011, 12:57
This incident was probably a set up by a gay rights campain group.

quisquose
18-01-2011, 12:58
It's an interesting point. The belief/principals of the owners is deemed to be in the wrong when deciding who they allow into their home.

They didn't allow gay people into their business, that is the point.

Here's a picture (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLTv30xhWnQ1GGJL37-0LI2TLHWHuC4dF-onr2Dz7O371ZNwIl). Note the word hotel.

Now somebody could buy that building and take the hotel sign down, change its use to residential, and tell teh gays to keep out.

Alternatively, somebody could make the building use exclusively a business and live off the premises. They would then be unable to refuse somebody entering any part of the building on account of their sex, sexuality, age, disability, religion or the colour of their skin.

As it happens, Peter and Hazelmary Bull chose to have part of the building their home, and the other part their business. In the first part they are entitled to refuse entry to teh gays, but in the business part they are not.

I do suspect that Peter and Hazelmary Bull were set up. There is also an argument that that they were entitled to refuse entry on the basis of marriage, and this was the argument that they used. So the case could have gone either way, and was quite important. On balance I am glad that they lost, because otherwise a precedent would have been set, based on a loophole in the inequality of marriage and civil partnership laws, that would have enabled bigots everywhere to discriminate.

Eater Sundae
18-01-2011, 13:04
Your correct ok..... Suicides welcome reduced charges for unfulfilled term of residence

...but it's probably worth insisting that they pay for the room up front.

scoop
18-01-2011, 13:09
I remember hearing about a campsite that doesn't allow unmarried couples.

Makes me womder how they determine whether a couple are friends or lovers? I've camped and shared hotel rooms with same sex friends many times.

And how do they determine if an oppisite sex couple is married or not?

I'm married, but my boyfriend isn't. Would we be allowed to stay?

altus
18-01-2011, 13:14
There is also an argument that that they were entitled to refuse entry on the basis of marriage, and this was the argument that they used. So the case could have gone either way, and was quite important. On balance I am glad that they lost, because otherwise a precedent would have been set, based on a loophole in the inequality of marriage and civil partnership laws, that would have enabled bigots everywhere to discriminate.
If a precedent had been set that it was OK to discriminate based on the inequality of marriages and civil partnerships there would certainly be calls for to eliminate the fudge that are civil partnerships by legalising marriage between gay couples.

Noob
18-01-2011, 13:14
These gays wanted all the tolerance in the world shown to them, and respect, yet they offered none nor showed any respect to these people with Christian beliefs. To hell with the pair of them.

mj.scuba
18-01-2011, 13:16
These gays wanted all the tolerance in the world shown to them, and respect, yet they offered none nor showed any respect to these people with Christian beliefs. To hell with the pair of them.

Surely it isn't the business of hotel owners to pass moral judgement on their guests, and thereby grant or deny services based on that judgement?

Hots on
18-01-2011, 13:18
Peter and Hazelmary Bull must now pay £3,600 damages to Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy after denying them a room at their hotel in Cornwall in 2008.



Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, had been seeking up to £5,000 damages for sexual orientation discrimination.



Why do this gay couple want/need money from the hotel owners? and why are they getting some?

altus
18-01-2011, 13:18
When I used to work away from Sheffield down south - which would be the early 1990/1 I used to stay at a B&B that was run by a fearsome lady. She had a sign that simply said "Lodgings for Singles" (either men or women). She basically didn't want rumpy-pumpy in the night. I wonder if that would be considered acceptable or legal these days.
As it is treating everyone equally, it wouldn't fall foul of anti discrimination laws.

Did she have an opinion on solo sex - or didn't you ask? :wink:

sccsux
18-01-2011, 13:19
Why do this gay couple want/need money from the hotel owners? and why are they getting some?

The hotel owners broke the law, the gay couple have broken none. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

Noob
18-01-2011, 13:23
Surely it isn't the business of hotel owners to pass moral judgement on their guests, and thereby grant or deny services based on that judgement?

What happened to "Management have the right to refuse admission"

quisquose
18-01-2011, 13:23
This is the thing that gets me about these stories ...

Where is the supposed Christian teaching of "love thy neigbour" in all this?

Peter and Hazelmary Bull admitted that it was a mistake, that they simply forgot to ask the couple if they were married when they accepted the booking, so assumed that they were.

If I owned a hotel that didn't accept pets, but forgot to inform one person of this, who then drove 200 miles and arrived with a dog, I would bloody well let them stay and curse myself for failing to do my job properly. My religious faith or lack of would have nothing to do with my decision.

So why couldn't this couple accept that it was their mistake, and in the true supposed spirit of Christianity let them stay after accepting their payment, and after they had driven so far? If they objected to sleeping in the same building as gays sharing a bed, they should have rented a room elsewhere, because it was their mistake.

This lack of empathy for others just goes to prove, in my opinion, that they are bigots first and Christians second.

Kthebean
18-01-2011, 13:25
So because the publican doesn't have to say why he refuses service it's OK? The end result is the same...maybe the hotel/bandb owners should have lied and just said that they had no vacancies...?

They had a booking...

tripe hound
18-01-2011, 13:27
So because the publican doesn't have to say why he refuses service it's OK? The end result is the same...maybe the hotel/bandb owners should have lied and just said that they had no vacancies...?

it would have worked out cheaper

truman
18-01-2011, 13:27
They had a booking...

"sorry we've overbooked the place"....wouldn't be the first time that's happened..

quisquose
18-01-2011, 13:28
If someone breaks the law by breaking into my house I wouldn't get damages awarded by the court...

You would be welcome to take the <REMOVED> to court in a civil action to seek damages.

It rarely happens because <REMOVED> are usually broke.

altus
18-01-2011, 13:30
What happened to "Management have the right to refuse admission"
The law trumps signs put up by management. Which is also the reason why publicans can't put up signs saying "Management allows smoking on these premises".

Kthebean
18-01-2011, 13:32
I wonder...I just wonder...what the reaction would be if it had been a gay couple who had refused access to their hotel because a person was wearing a Catholic cross round their neck?

Hots on
18-01-2011, 13:34
I wonder...I just wonder...what the reaction would be if it had been a gay couple who had refused access to their hotel because a person was wearing a Catholic cross round their neck?

Or if the hotel owners refusing a gay couple were Muslims.

Jessica23
18-01-2011, 13:34
[...] This lack of empathy for others just goes to prove, in my opinion, that they are bigots first and Christians second.

Exactly so.

I'm glad this couple took them to court and I'm glad they won.

Fishcake
18-01-2011, 13:34
The gays are everywhere now! How can they be expected to expect the same treatment as normal folk? They'll be on TV next or in government or looking like normal people! I am appalled that these vile law breakers have been given this attention............Whats that you say? It isn't illegal? Oh and they are normal people! Oh well then I see nothing wrong with a loving couple wanting to stop in premises advertised as being for the purposes of people staying there.

Kthebean
18-01-2011, 13:38
What sort of a name is Hazelmary anyway.

altus
18-01-2011, 13:40
What sort of a name is Hazelmary anyway.
Sounds like the closest they could get to Hail Mary to me. :smile:

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 13:41
I think I saw a 'gay' the other day. Covered in feathers, webbed feet and a huge yellow bill. . . . it was in the water at Endcliffe Park eating the bread people were throwing at it.

Later that night I saw two ducks <REMOVED> in the bushes.

flamingjimmy
18-01-2011, 13:41
I wonder...I just wonder...what the reaction would be if it had been a gay couple who had refused access to their hotel because a person was wearing a Catholic cross round their neck?

I think it would be pretty similar, why wouldn't it?

spindrift
18-01-2011, 13:42
I bet they would have had no problem welcoming a butch, straight male like Alexander The Great, Cary Grant or Rock Hudson.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 13:42
I think someone running a b&b should have the right to refuse entry to their home on any grounds. Partially because if they had let them stay they would do it begrudgingly.

I'd prefer to know whether or not Im staying at the home of someone that actively hates my beliefs rather than them having to hide their hatred for legal reasons!

If I had a b&b I wouldn't want overtly religious people staying! or smelly people or racist people.....in fact I probably wouldn't have any customers:hihi:

spooky3
18-01-2011, 13:43
I bet they would have had no problem welcoming a butch, straight male like Alexander The Great, Cary Grant or Rock Hudson.

I'm going to take a punt and say "they were all gay!"

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 13:43
I bet they would have had no problem welcoming a butch, straight male like Alexander The Great, Cary Grant or Rock Hudson.

Cary Grant???

Hots on
18-01-2011, 13:44
I bet they would have had no problem welcoming a butch, straight male like Alexander The Great, Cary Grant or Rock Hudson.

Not sure what point you're trying to make there. The gay couple in this court case are not particularly effeminate.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 13:44
I think someone running a b&b should have the right to refuse entry to their home on any grounds.


Good luck with that.

Isn't it weird people who hate gays spend so much time thinking about what they do in bed?

Classic repression.

Like when they go on about RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 13:45
Cary Grant???

Lived with and had an affair with Randolph Scott.

spooky3
18-01-2011, 13:45
Cary Grant???

Yes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Grant#Personal_life

Hots on
18-01-2011, 13:45
Good luck with that.

Isn't it weird people who hate gays spend so much time thinking about what they do in bed?

Classic repression.

Like when they go on about RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS.

:hihi: you just resist trolling can you?

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 13:47
Lived with and had an affair with Randolph Scott.

I know it more as a rumour, never confirmed.

flamingjimmy
18-01-2011, 13:47
I bet they would have had no problem welcoming a butch, straight male like Alexander The Great, Cary Grant or Rock Hudson.

To be fair sexuality in ancient Greece was a little different to say the least, simple terms like straight or gay, or even bi don't really apply to Alexander. But your point still stands.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 13:47
I know it more as a rumour, never confirmed.

Um, they lived together for 12 years.

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 13:49
Um, they lived together for 12 years.

Cliff Richard has lived with a man for many years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

spooky3
18-01-2011, 13:51
I lived with a gay bloke for 2 years whilst at uni, best mates. I'm definitely not gay. But Cary AFAIK was! Some brilliant films, RIP!

Noob
18-01-2011, 13:52
Good luck with that.

Isn't it weird people who hate gays spend so much time thinking about what they do in bed?

Classic repression.

Like when they go on about RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS.

Weirdo....

spindrift
18-01-2011, 13:52
Cliff Richard has lived with a man for many years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Who cares? Peoples sex lives have bugger all to do with me (sorry!)

I wish we could adopt thye French approach to private sexual lives, it was an open secret Mitterand had a mistress and the press didn't bother him.

Do your cornflakes taste funny if your milkman is having an affair? Course not, who cares so long as he does his job, same with politicians.

I think it's because we Brits are raised on Carry On films where breasts are intrinsically hilarious, I wish we'd GET OVER IT.

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 13:54
breasts are hilarious.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 13:55
would you rather b&bs were not allowed a sign saying "no xxxxxx" and upon arrival if you are gay they treat you like <removed> or a big fat sign saying "we do not allow any non-christians into our B&B" indicating very clearly that you should give your money to someone else who won't spit into your morning coffee?

Kthebean
18-01-2011, 13:56
I think it would be pretty similar, why wouldn't it?

I've just been looking at the daily mails best rated comments, thats all, these are the ones that had the most thumbs up:

So many gay people want all the tolerance in the world shown to them, and respect, yet they offer none nor show any respect to people with Christian beliefs. To hell with the pair of them.
- Claire , Derry, 18/1/2011 10:41

I am neither gay nor ham I a Christian, however, I do feel that the hotel owners have every right to deny the gay men a double room. Gays and all the other so called marginalised are now marginalising Society in general, by forcing us to water down our beliefs, ideologies and values. I hope Mr and Mrs Bull go on to challenge this decision and I hope Mr Bull comes though his surgery well and fit
- Malthus, Darwen, England, 18/1/2011 11:00

I dont understand the gay rights movement. Cases like this alienate them. They preach about people having to respect thier rights, their beliefes that they can lead their life the way they choose. But by enforcing these rights and beliefes in this way unsing a court and the law, they ride rough-shod over the rights and beliefes of others and stop them leading the life they choose. The homosexual community wont get any proper respect untill they start to respect the views of those around them. You cant win respect through a court order.
- Burtros, Somerset, 18/1/2011 11:00

its their home and they should be able to invite who they want into it. ifl they dont approve of this situation then good on them. should not have been fined
- Laura, Liverpool, 18/1/2011 10:42


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Gay-couple-win-1-800-Christian-hotel-owners-refused-double-room.html#ixzz1BOYPqqb4

spindrift
18-01-2011, 13:56
breasts are hilarious.

Good point well made.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 13:58
I've just been looking at the daily mails best rated comments, thats all, these are the ones that had the most thumbs up:

So many gay people want all the tolerance in the world shown to them, and respect, yet they offer none nor show any respect to people with Christian beliefs. To hell with the pair of them.
- Claire , Derry, 18/1/2011 10:41

I am neither gay nor ham I a Christian, however, I do feel that the hotel owners have every right to deny the gay men a double room. Gays and all the other so called marginalised are now marginalising Society in general, by forcing us to water down our beliefs, ideologies and values. I hope Mr and Mrs Bull go on to challenge this decision and I hope Mr Bull comes though his surgery well and fit
- Malthus, Darwen, England, 18/1/2011 11:00

I dont understand the gay rights movement. Cases like this alienate them. They preach about people having to respect thier rights, their beliefes that they can lead their life the way they choose. But by enforcing these rights and beliefes in this way unsing a court and the law, they ride rough-shod over the rights and beliefes of others and stop them leading the life they choose. The homosexual community wont get any proper respect untill they start to respect the views of those around them. You cant win respect through a court order.
- Burtros, Somerset, 18/1/2011 11:00

its their home and they should be able to invite who they want into it. ifl they dont approve of this situation then good on them. should not have been fined
- Laura, Liverpool, 18/1/2011 10:42


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Gay-couple-win-1-800-Christian-hotel-owners-refused-double-room.html#ixzz1BOYPqqb4

That proves nothing so much as people who read the Daily Mail are as thick as the proverbial.

It wasn't "their home" , it's a business.

Quoting comments beneath Mail stories is like reposting the views of the street drinker Eddie Lager who sits outside Tescos and swears at buses.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 13:59
breasts are hilarious.

not all of them some are scary!:o

spooky3
18-01-2011, 14:00
I've just been looking at the daily mails best rated comments, thats all, these are the ones that had the most thumbs up:

....


I'm not going to bother looking, but I bet there are similar comments on most newspaper sites...

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 14:00
not all of them some are scary!:o

Which ones?

sccsux
18-01-2011, 14:00
Hasn't answered my question, but thanks for coming.

Of course it has. The damages were for the fact that the hotel owners took their money, the refused them entry at the last moment (based on their sexual oriention - an illegal act), thus ruining their holiday/break.

Q. What does "dicriminate" mean? (Only because you pull me!)

It means I was typing too fast, or this keyboard needs a clean.

So because the publican doesn't have to say why he refuses service it's OK? The end result is the same...maybe the hotel/bandb owners should have lied and just said that they had no vacancies...?

You're misunderstanding (again). If the hotel owners had simply refused to take their booking, or used some other reason for not allowing entry then none of this would have happened. However, the hotel owners explicity stated their reason for not allowing entry (that being that the couple who were not allowed to stay were gay).

If someone breaks the law by breaking into my house I wouldn't get damages awarded by the court...

You can launch a CC case.
The case was in a couty court, a CC judge will usually award damages.

"sorry we've overbooked the place".

In which case, there wouldn't have been a problem. But the owners made direct references to their sexuality as the reason of refusal; they shot themselves in all four feet by doing so.

I wonder...I just wonder...what the reaction would be if it had been a gay couple who had refused access to their hotel because a person was wearing a Catholic cross round their neck?

I would hope it would be the same:confused:.

Or if the hotel owners refusing a gay couple were Muslims.

I'd expect the same kind of result (I know my muslim friend - runs a B&B - wouldn't turn someone away based on their religion or sexual preference).

truman
18-01-2011, 14:00
It wasn't "their home" , it's a business.

.

Just for the sake of discussion,if I had a spare room at home and wanted to let it out,could I choose who I let it to and would I have to give reasons why I refused some people?

Kthebean
18-01-2011, 14:00
That proves nothing so much as people who read the Daily Mail are as thick as the proverbial.

It wasn't "their home" , it's a business.

Quoting comments beneath Mail stories is like reposting the views of the street drinker Eddie Lager who sits outside Tescos and swears at buses.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm merely pondering on whether the main objection to this story is because the complainants were gay or if everyone has suddenly become interested in the rights of b and b owners. Sheesh...

Rupert_Baehr
18-01-2011, 14:00
Who cares? Peoples sex lives have bugger all to do with me (sorry!)

I wish we could adopt thye French approach to private sexual lives, it was an open secret Mitterand had a mistress and the press didn't bother him.

Do your cornflakes taste funny if your milkman is having an affair? Course not, who cares so long as he does his job, same with politicians.

I think it's because we Brits are raised on Carry On films where breasts are intrinsically hilarious, I wish we'd GET OVER IT.

If you really mean that, if sexuality is irrelevant and if you wish people would stop making such a fuss about it, why did you start this thread?

truman
18-01-2011, 14:01
Of course it has. The damages were for the fact that the hotel owners took their money, the refused them entry at the last moment (based on their sexual oriention - an illegal act), thus ruining their holiday/break.



It means I was typing too fast or this keyboard needs a clean.



You're misunderstanding (again). If the hotel owners had simply refused to take their booking, or used some other reason for not allowing entry then none of this would have happened. However, the hotel owners explicity stated their reason for not allowing entry (that being that the couple who were not allowed to stay were gay).



You can launch a CC case.
The case was in a couty court, a CC judge will usually award damages.



In which case, there wouldn't have been a problem. But the owners made direct references to their sexuality as the reason of refusal; they shot themselves in all four feet by doing so.



I would hope it would be the same:confused:.



I'd expect the same kind of result (I know my muslim friend - runs a B&B - wouldn't turn someone away based on their religion or sexual preference).

Seems like being honest isn't the way to go then...

spooky3
18-01-2011, 14:01
...
It means I was typing too fast, or this keyboard needs a clean.
...

Excuse not required, but jolly well accepted! :hihi:

spindrift
18-01-2011, 14:02
Just for the sake of discussion,if I had a spare room at home and wanted to let it out,could I choose who I let it to and would I have to give reasons why I refused some people?

Yes and yes.

You're letting a room, what business is it of yours what people do in it so long as it's legal?

Your post is what I meean about people going on about RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS, why spend any time at all imagining what people do in bed?

llamatron
18-01-2011, 14:02
That proves nothing so much as people who read the Daily Mail are as thick as the proverbial.

It wasn't "their home" , it's a business.

Quoting comments beneath Mail stories is like reposting the views of the street drinker Eddie Lager who sits outside Tescos and swears at buses.

And theres the grey area-it's both!

spindrift
18-01-2011, 14:02
If you really mean that, if sexuality is irrelevant and if you wish people would stop making such a fuss about it, why did you start this thread?

So that I could make that point!

spooky3
18-01-2011, 14:02
If you really mean that, if sexuality is irrelevant and if you wish people would stop making such a fuss about it, why did you start this thread?

Because it's spindrift, she can't help herself! Too clever by half!

llamatron
18-01-2011, 14:02
Yes and yes.

You're letting a room, what business is it of yours what people do in it so long as it's legal?

Your post is what I meean about people going on about RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS, why spend any time at all imagining what people do in bed?

the only difference between letting a room and a B&B is breakfast:loopy:

clearly you can refuse whoever you want with no reason when you are letting a room.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 14:04
And theres the grey area-it's both!

Whilst the owners of the B&B are operating out of their home, it is a business and discrimination against the rights of guests on the grounds race, colour, religion, sexuality etc etc should be punished. If not, we will see a return to the not so good old days of "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs"

truman
18-01-2011, 14:04
Yes and yes.

You're letting a room, what business is it of yours what people do in it so long as it's legal?

Your post is what I meean about people going on about RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS, why spend any time at all imagining what people do in bed?

I mentioned nothing about bed....? Or anything else for that matter...

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 14:05
So that I could make that point!

I thought this thread was about hilarious breasts. . . . .?

spindrift
18-01-2011, 14:05
the only difference between letting a room and a B&B is breakfast:loopy:

clearly you can refuse whoever you want with no reason when you are letting a room.


Sausages don't come with alarm clocks! :loopy:

Rupert_Baehr
18-01-2011, 14:06
If you really mean that, if sexuality is irrelevant and if you wish people would stop making such a fuss about it, why did you start this thread?

So that I could make that point!

Oh... so it's other people who should stop making a fuss about it.

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

llamatron
18-01-2011, 14:06
Whilst the owners of the B&B are operating out of their home, it is a business and discrimination against the rights of guests on the grounds race, colour, religion, sexuality etc etc should be punished. If not, we will see a return to the not so good old days of "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs"

why is it a punishment. If you were black and went to stay at a B&B finding the owner to be a racist pillock would you want to stay? I would want prior warning that the owner was a racist pillock!

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 14:06
Sausages don't come with alarm clocks! :loopy:

it would be nothing short of awesome if they did.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 14:06
Sausages don't come with alarm clocks! :loopy:

Are you sex obsessed?

tripe hound
18-01-2011, 14:07
Sausages don't come with alarm clocks! :loopy:

have you got a link to this

spooky3
18-01-2011, 14:08
it would be nothing short of awesome if they did.

Mine wakes the ladies! :suspect:

denlin
18-01-2011, 14:09
It's an interesting point. The belief/principals of the owners is deemed to be in the wrong when deciding who they allow into their home.

The thing is they've turned their 'home' into a business where they advertise for the general public to stay - if they turn customers away for their beliefs then they are in wrong trade.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 14:09
Are you sex obsessed?

We all are, in order to procreate and reproduce, the strongest human urge. there's a theory gay men are more creative so they leave their mark on the world in other ways, like the Sistine Chapel, for instance.

splodgeyAl
18-01-2011, 14:17
Its the law and the law should be observed, but its a bad law in my view.

A business owner of any type should be allowed to refuse sale/entry to anyone for any reason.You think that water companies should be able to refuse to provide their services to anyone for any reason?

llamatron
18-01-2011, 14:19
We all are, in order to procreate and reproduce, the strongest human urge. there's a theory gay men are more creative so they leave their mark on the world in other ways, like the Sistine Chapel, for instance.

I'm not:o!

mynameisdan
18-01-2011, 14:22
I am eating a banana while I read this.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 14:22
You think that water companies should be able to refuse to provide their services to anyone for any reason?

they are not the same kind of company, there are different rules for different businesses, there are probably many legal differences between running a hotel and running a B&B. These probably came up in the case and the judge just decided one way, another judge could decide another way.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 14:23
I am moving the hands around on my sausage clock.

Obelix
18-01-2011, 14:26
As it is treating everyone equally, it wouldn't fall foul of anti discrimination laws.

Did she have an opinion on solo sex - or didn't you ask? :wink:

I wouldnt have dared. She had a fearsome frying pan/rolling pin combination for "drunkards and 'ooligans!" as someone found out when they rolled in at 3am reeking of beer. :)

As landladies go she was actually pretty good - decent food, decent price, a good common room and she let people alone most of the time. But go back thirty years and I bet she had a card that said "No dogs, ****, blacks or Irish" in the window....

Rupert_Baehr
18-01-2011, 14:33
You think that water companies should be able to refuse to provide their services to anyone for any reason?

Isn't beer about 95% water?

tripe hound
18-01-2011, 14:34
Isn't beer about 95% water?

depends where you drink

splodgeyAl
18-01-2011, 14:35
they are not the same kind of company, there are different rules for different businesses, there are probably many legal differences between running a hotel and running a B&B. These probably came up in the case and the judge just decided one way, another judge could decide another way.I know that. It was a general comment in reply to a post about business generally.

quisquose
18-01-2011, 14:44
And theres the grey area-it's both!

There is no grey area.

Read my post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7158580&postcount=24) from page 2.

John X
18-01-2011, 14:47
Other countries don't care about things like this!

Won't even let mixed couples in many hotels unless their married in some countries! (Never mind gay people!)

Oh we live in a great place!

I take it from that you agree with discriminting against people on grounds of their sexuality? :suspect:

John X

llamatron
18-01-2011, 14:58
There is no grey area.

Read my post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7158580&postcount=24) from page 2.

Im not sure that the use of the word hotel would legally make it a hotel rather than a B&B. There are probably legal definitions for these purposes.

spooky3
18-01-2011, 14:59
I take it from that you agree with discriminting against people on grounds of their sexuality? :suspect:

John X

Read the rest of the thread! No!

Does it really read like that? :huh:

splodgeyAl
18-01-2011, 15:05
Other countries don't care about things like this!

Won't even let mixed couples in many hotels unless their married in some countries! (Never mind gay people!)

Oh we live in a great place!In some countries people love segregation - women only carriages on trains and stuff like that.

spooky3
18-01-2011, 15:06
In some countries people love segregation - women only carriages on trains and stuff like that.

We do live in a great place don't we!

splodgeyAl
18-01-2011, 15:23
We do live in a great place don't we!Do we? ;)

One thing I like about this planet is that there is room for different cultures with differing ideals, despite what a number think or want. The longer that remains so the better, IMO.

And if women only carriages allow women to feel (and be) safer while travelling alone, then I for one am not only happy to see them, but think there should be more.

Yes, in an ideal world, everyone is treated equally. But this is not and never will be an ideal world, the place is full of idiots who want to lord it over others and always will, and until all such people miraculously disappear, then we need systems to protect the vulnerable

quisquose
18-01-2011, 15:40
Im not sure that the use of the word hotel would legally make it a hotel rather than a B&B. There are probably legal definitions for these purposes.

The hotel or B&B bit is irrelevant, although it is interesting to note that the Daily Mail and supporters of Peter and Hazelmary Bull have constantly referred to it as a B&B despite it advertising itself as a hotel.

What is relevant is what they have decided to make a business and as soon as they did that the business became subject to laws that protects customers.

I don't know why this is so difficult, I can't imagine anybody supporting a racist shopkeeper who refused to serve somebody because of the colour of their skin, merely on account of him living above the shop.

:huh:

llamatron
18-01-2011, 15:41
Do we? ;)

One thing I like about this planet is that there is room for different cultures with differing ideals, despite what a number think or want. The longer that remains so the better, IMO.

And if women only carriages allow women to feel (and be) safer while travelling alone, then I for one am not only happy to see them, but think there should be more.

Yes, in an ideal world, everyone is treated equally. But this is not and never will be an ideal world, the place is full of idiots who want to lord it over others and always will, and until all such people miraculously disappear, then we need systems to protect the vulnerable

An ideal world sounds very dull as well!

splodgeyAl
18-01-2011, 15:43
An ideal world sounds very dull as well!My ideal world wouldn't be. Perhaps you need more interesting ideals? :D

llamatron
18-01-2011, 15:44
The hotel or B&B bit is irrelevant, although it is interesting to note that the Daily Mail and supporters of Peter and Hazelmary Bull have constantly referred to it as a B&B despite it advertising itself as a hotel.

What is relevant is what they have decided to make a business and as soon as they did that the business became subject to laws that protects customers.

I don't know why this is so difficult, I can't imagine anybody supporting a racist shopkeeper who refused to serve somebody because of the colour of their skin, merely on account of him living above the shop.

:huh:

because different sized businesses are governed by different rules. This business is based in their home and that makes it very different. It doesn't matter whether their views are right or wrong the question is whether they have the right to them (in their own home). The grey area is there because their business is based within their home.

A racist shopkeeper isn't inviting someone into his house.

I don't think anyone is actually supporting them.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 15:45
My ideal world wouldn't be. Perhaps you need more interesting ideals? :D

my ideal world is full of non-ideal things, that's what makes it interesting:confused:

bottom line I guess I agree with one of the previous posters, why can't businesses refuse their product to certain people (in fact they often do). They are only shooting themselves in the foot and we can take our business to a more deserving company.

By the look of the place they would have had to pay me to stay there. I hate going to stay somewhere and finding creepy religious items everywhere-they had scary religious books!

denlin
18-01-2011, 16:00
because different sized businesses are governed by different rules. This business is based in their home and that makes it very different. It doesn't matter whether their views are right or wrong the question is whether they have the right to them (in their own home). The grey area is there because their business is based within their home.

A racist shopkeeper isn't inviting someone into his house.

I don't think anyone is actually supporting them.

They are not inviting them into to their home, they are charging them for a service in same way hotel does so same rules apply as they would in any other business such as shop. If you don't want somebody in your home that's fine but the minute you start charging then that becomes a different story

sccsux
18-01-2011, 16:03
This business is based in their home and that makes it very different.

Actually, it's the other way around (their home is based at the business address).

There are no laws which state that the owner of a business has to live at the premesis (even a hotel/B&B); that is purely a matter of choice.

sccsux
18-01-2011, 16:04
they had scary religious books!

Only like most hostels have those awful "Gideon bibles".

Tradescanthia
18-01-2011, 16:05
It is not a Christian act to ban someone because of their sexual orientation, But the law can be an ass. No one is sure of anything these days. Everybody has 'rights' but are never sure what they are. The 'legal eagles' do very nicely thank you out of it all.
I often see 'Gay Friendly' tags on Spanish hotel brochures. Far too simple for the UK.......

splodgeyAl
18-01-2011, 16:09
Only like most hostels have those awful "Gideon bibles".Handy if you run out of rizla :)

llamatron
18-01-2011, 16:16
Only like most hostels have those awful "Gideon bibles".

they were definitely scarier than the bible.

llamatron
18-01-2011, 16:18
They are not inviting them into to their home, they are charging them for a service in same way hotel does so same rules apply as they would in any other business such as shop. If you don't want somebody in your home that's fine but the minute you start charging then that becomes a different story

well there are differences, legally and informally.

spindrift
18-01-2011, 16:28
This incident was probably a set up by a gay rights campain group.

the judge explicitly said that: "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, James Dingemans QC, did not seek to run the case on this basis."

llamatron
18-01-2011, 16:35
are b&bs allowed a "no children" policy?

Rupert_Baehr
18-01-2011, 17:50
the judge explicitly said... let me make it clear that their counsel, James Dingemans QC, did not seek to run the case on this basis."

Well he wouldn't, would he?

are b&bs allowed a "no children" policy?

Probably.

MY wife watches programmes about doing up houses/running hotels and B&Bs (along with sliding strictly on your ar8e on ice with no talent at all whilst singing badly.) I try to ignore them (usually by going elsewhere) but occasionally one breaks through.

On that particular instance, the programme was about guest houses. One proprietor was charging ridiculously high prices for people to stay at his establishment because he felt 'people who appreciate the finer things of life' are daft enough to pay whatever he asked. It is his business and what he charges is his business, too.

Another couple who ran a guest house said that their establishment catered for gays. When asked whether they would allow straights to stay, they implied that they would not.

I suppose it is their business and if they don't allow straights to stay in their establishment, that is their business, too.

No doubt they will end up in court.

Someday.

No doubt I couldn't give a damn.

willman
18-01-2011, 17:57
are b&bs allowed a "no children" policy?

Yep - i stay in one in Great Yarmouth.

I ownder how the "no sex same parties" warnings on caravan sites etc will get on.

melthebell
18-01-2011, 18:14
Yep - i stay in one in Great Yarmouth.

I ownder how the "no sex same parties" warnings on caravan sites etc will get on.
no sex same parties?:huh:

LardyBoy
18-01-2011, 18:34
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23915053-gay-couple-win-legal-battle-over-double-room-at-christian-hotel.do


Christian hotel owners who refused a gay couple a double-room at their guesthouse were today ordered to pay compensation after breaking the law.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull must now pay £3,600 damages to Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy after denying them a room at their hotel in Cornwall in 2008.

A judge today said the couple had broken equality laws and said that “social attitudes” in Britain have changed.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, had been seeking up to £5,000 damages for sexual orientation discrimination.

The Bulls claimed their decision to refuse the couple a bed was based on their beliefs about marriage and not a hostility to sexual orientation.

But in his judgement at Bristol County Court, Judge Andrew Rutherford said their views were out of date. He said: “It is inevitable that laws will, from time to time, cut across the deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.”

He pointed to the abolition of capital punishment, beatings in schools, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and suicide – and even the ban on hunting and smoking in public places.

In this case he stressed he had no doubt that the Bulls were genuine in their beliefs.

But, he added: “Not so very long ago these beliefs would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.”

After the ruling Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said they were extremely pleased with the outcome.

“When we booked this hotel we just wanted to do something that thousands of other couples do every weekend –take a relaxing weekend break away.We checked that the hotel would allow us to bring our dog, but it didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 we would have to check whether we would be welcome ourselves.”

Pathetic, totally pathetic ruling.

This country has gone mad.

The hotel owners should be able to decide who they want and dont want in their hotel , because its THEIR HOTEL.

Judege Rutherford is a bafoon.

Where the hell do we fet these judges from ?
What planet do they live on ?

LardyBoy
18-01-2011, 18:37
Yet a publican can refuse to serve anyone without giving a reason (as far as I know anyway) Is a retail shop forced to take anyone's custom?

Not the same thing at all.

If a black publican was found to be refusing to serve any white person would you support him?

Trumans point is EXACTLY the same .

you have to have the same rules for everybody , not pick and choose different rules just to be politically correct.

Bassman62
18-01-2011, 21:19
Trumans point is EXACTLY the same .

you have to have the same rules for everybody , not pick and choose different rules just to be politically correct.
The problem is that many of these silly laws are the result of campaigns by the 'Permanent Campaigner Brigade' once they get one thing passed they then sit down to discuss what to campaign about next.
In most cases it has nothing to do with what they believe in most are 'Rebels Without A Clue'.

andygardener
18-01-2011, 21:29
Trumans point is EXACTLY the same .

you have to have the same rules for everybody , not pick and choose different rules just to be politically correct.

We do have the same rules for everyone. Anyone can refuse anyone service, I can, you can, everyone can. However if it gets challenged in court you need to able to demonstrate that the reason you refused service was not unlawful. Refusing someone service because they are swearing, no problem. Refusing someone service purely because they of their gender/sexuality/race etc - unlawful.

mj.scuba
18-01-2011, 21:32
Note there is no accusation of 'Christianophobic' levelled at the OP by the usual lot that love to label folk.

quisquose
18-01-2011, 21:49
We do have the same rules for everyone. Anyone can refuse anyone service, I can, you can, everyone can. However if it gets challenged in court you need to able to demonstrate that the reason you refused service was not unlawful. Refusing someone service because they are swearing, no problem. Refusing someone service purely because they of their gender/sexuality/race etc - unlawful.

Exactly, it's quite simple really ... I don't know why so many find it hard to comprehend. :huh:

It was amusing to hear Mrs Bull on the news say, "Much is said about 'equality and diversity' but it seems some people are more equal than others." Sob.

Equality to her obviously means being allowed to operate in a manner that nobody else is. :loopy:

John X
18-01-2011, 21:49
The problem is that many of these silly laws

Do you view the Disability and Equality Act, the Race Relations Act and the Equal pay Act as 'silly laws'?

John X

stewpot54
19-01-2011, 07:19
Or if the hotel owners refusing a gay couple were Muslims.
Or if the B&b owners were Muslims who do not tolerate homosexuality.Would the Judge have put their beliefs second.
Idont think so somehow.
The whole thing stinks .How did these two name themselves when prebooking the accomodation.
I by the way am not homophobic far from it.

John X
19-01-2011, 07:34
Or if the B&b owners were Muslims who do not tolerate homosexuality.Would the Judge have put their beliefs second.

After the law of the land, yes. :roll:

Where do you get this nonsense that British muslims are subject to a different law to everyone else?

Do you have any evidence for that? I'd love to see it!

John X

norks
19-01-2011, 07:44
After the law of the land, yes. :roll:

Where do you get this nonsense that British muslims are subject to a different law to everyone else?

Do you have any evidence for that? I'd love to see it!

John X


Maybe its all the Sharia courts that are popping up :suspect:

Kaimani
19-01-2011, 07:46
We do have the same rules for everyone. Anyone can refuse anyone service, I can, you can, everyone can. However if it gets challenged in court you need to able to demonstrate that the reason you refused service was not unlawful. Refusing someone service because they are swearing, no problem. Refusing someone service purely because they of their gender/sexuality/race etc - unlawful.

well put. one of my friends is a what people call a 'race man', everything is 'it's because i'm black'. overheard him being knocked back by a bouncer once and it was beautiful=
drunk fiend(slurring)-"let me in. you're only stopping me coz I'm black.'
bouncer-"you just happen to be black, pal, but I'm not letting you in coz you're a d#@]k head."

people do sometimes 'set people up' or take advantage. that's why society's getting numb to it. but as long as the law of the land says one thing your god, Allah, Jehovah, 'principles' etc have to come second place.

John X
19-01-2011, 07:53
Maybe its all the Sharia courts that are popping up :suspect:

I must have missed that. Silly me! :roll:

John X

norks
19-01-2011, 07:56
I must have missed that. Silly me! :roll:

John X


Just thought i would point it out :thumbsup:

freezer
19-01-2011, 08:02
Pathetic, totally pathetic ruling.

This country has gone mad.

The hotel owners should be able to decide who they want and dont want in their hotel , because its THEIR HOTEL.

Judege Rutherford is a bafoon.

Where the hell do we fet these judges from ?
What planet do they live on ?

The judge is right.

Do you think it should be legal to turn away black people? Or Jews? Or disabled people? Maybe unmarried people? Where do you draw the line?

Kthebean
19-01-2011, 08:06
Yep - i stay in one in Great Yarmouth.

I ownder how the "no sex same parties" warnings on caravan sites etc will get on.

Theres a big difference. Polygamous marriages are not legally recognised whereas civil partnerships are on an equal legal footing with heterosexual marriages.

llamatron
19-01-2011, 09:56
We do have the same rules for everyone. Anyone can refuse anyone service, I can, you can, everyone can. However if it gets challenged in court you need to able to demonstrate that the reason you refused service was not unlawful. Refusing someone service because they are swearing, no problem. Refusing someone service purely because they of their gender/sexuality/race etc - unlawful.

I think the refusal was actually because they do not see civil partnerships as marriage. They do not allow unmarried couples double rooms. The argument is actually about whether civil partnerships are marriages. They claim not as a marriage is "between one man and one woman"-according to them!

Edge
19-01-2011, 10:18
Some accounts Ive read, Hall and Preddy the two chaps in question, would have been welcome in single rooms, it was their insistence upon a double room which led to them leaving . They were not discriminated against for being "gay". They were asked to abide by the same rule as unmarried heterosexuals

If I remember correctly it was denied in Parliament that a "Civil Partnership" was the same as marriage,.

I personally think the hotel couple were certainly set up.

scoobydotcom
19-01-2011, 10:37
it was the fault of the b&b owner for saying it was because they were gay, they should have just said no and not given a reason ... there is no law stating they must let them in!

if i refuse to serve someone in my bar then that's up to me i don't have to have a reason, its private property and if i dont want someone there i dont have to let them!

truman
19-01-2011, 10:46
Theres a big difference. Polygamous marriages are not legally recognised whereas civil partnerships are on an equal legal footing with heterosexual marriages.

I think you may have misunderstood,the poster is,I think,referring to the rules that some caravan sites have where they won't allow groups of just men or just women to occupy a 'van...Sorry if I'm wrong..

stewpot54
19-01-2011, 11:41
Maybe its all the Sharia courts that are popping up :suspect:

Thankyou saved me a job of answering the poster who just cherry picked part of my thread.

tripe hound
19-01-2011, 11:45
Some accounts Ive read, Hall and Preddy the two chaps in question, would have been welcome in single rooms, it was their insistence upon a double room which led to them leaving . They were not discriminated against for being "gay". They were asked to abide by the same rule as unmarried heterosexuals

If I remember correctly it was denied in Parliament that a "Civil Partnership" was the same as marriage,.

I personally think the hotel couple were certainly set up.

it looks that way

stewpot54
19-01-2011, 12:01
it looks that way

Yes.
i dont think the gay community have done themselves any favours by pursuing this couple through court.
We accept their way of life and they should accept other peoples way of life.
I find this whole debacle quite sinister and devised.

Glamrocker
19-01-2011, 12:05
We all are, in order to procreate and reproduce, the strongest human urge. there's a theory gay men are more creative so they leave their mark on the world in other ways, like the Sistine Chapel, for instance.
Therein lies the root of the problem with homosexuality ,thank you Spindrift for highlighting that fact:thumbsup: