Christian couple broke the law by turning away gay couple.

[Glamrocker 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

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 10]

This incident was probably a set up by a gay rights campain group.

[quisquose 10]

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. 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.

Edited January 18, 2011 by quisquose

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.