Reader comments · Gay ban hotel owners to claim they were set up · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay ban hotel owners to claim they were set up

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. These people aren’t just homophobes, they’re paranoid. And they expect the taxpayers to fund these extra police??

  2. Whether they were set up as a Stonewall sting or not, it doesn’t detract from one fundamental issue: They broke the law! I can’t wait to see what whiney, pathetic excuses they come out with today. Hopefully they will get shut down as a result.

  3. Oh, the paranoia! Its everyone else fault but there’s…. Stonewall must hacked their page have put that section up on their website about “married couples only” as part of the homosexual agenda master plan for world domination and the destruction of weddings and families and whatever else they can think of.

    Please. These people need counselling.

  4. Peter & Michael 13 Dec 2010, 1:35pm

    We live in a secular society governed by laws of Parliament which are changed from time to time to understand the everchanging freedoms of our society. If the church would have it’s way, any mother bearing a child and not ‘married’ would have their baby taken away for adoption as happened before 1960. We cannot have a situation were a gay couple whom are married or in a Civil Partnership being refused hotel accommodation on the say so of a Bishop, after all people are indoctrinated into a religion not born into it.

  5. Well, you can’t deny that technically they are right – the English law does not allow gay marriage. The Civil union act is discriminatory in its essence and implies that discrimination of gay couples is allowed in Britain, contrary to discrimination of single gay persons.

  6. So Gary McFarlane did not ‘set up’ a employment tribunal against ‘Relate’ in Bristol then?

  7. I like the slippery Bishopspeak. Who else’s freedom to act upon ‘conscience’ would they defend, I wonder? The freedom of school science departments not to employ irrational god-botherers? The freedom of white supremacists not to employ or serve blacks? They either haven’t noticed or are hoping we won’t realise that there is no theoretical limit to ‘conscientious objection’ to law – any law, with reference to supernatural beliefs or not. Which is why it can’t be admitted in a fair society.

  8. The interesting bit from the bishops is this,

    “Liberty of conscience must not be confined to the mind. It is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to stand by our principles publicly.”

    These people have stood by their principles publicly, and like anyone else who wishes to do so they are free to.

    Freedom to act however is not the same as freedom to act without consequences and sometimes peoples beliefs and actions run contrary to the law and common decency and so attract consequences.

    If they wish to act like bigoted throwbacks under the yolk of an ancient homophobic Palestinian god then fine but don’t be surprised to find the rest of the world moving on.

  9. Jock S. Trap 13 Dec 2010, 3:08pm

    Don’t think ‘set up’ comes into it really. They got caught breaking the law. End of!

  10. the house was used as a business so the law applied that they couldn’t be idiotic homophobes, they we’re caught and are now whining about it, the bishops are idiots as their remarks can be used to support racism etc, the couple have chosen to stand by the principle of being homophobes and that is now public

  11. Tim Hopkins 13 Dec 2010, 4:07pm

    322, technically the guest house owners are in the wrong.

    You’re correct that having civil partnership only for same-sex couples and marriage only for mixed-sex couples is discriminatory.

    However, the law on sexual orientation discrimimation specifically says that businesses must treat civil partners as well as they treat married couples. If the guest house only turned away non-civil partnered same-sex couples, as well as non-married mixed-sex couples, they would not break the law.

    But if they allow married couples to stay, they must allow civil partners to stay also.

  12. As no less important a person as Jesus Christ once said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s …” !!! In other words OBEY THE LAW OF THE LAND. Christians are responsible for their OWN relationship with whoever or whatever they conceive their God to be … there are NO grounds to justify ramming their beliefs, opinions or prejudices down the throats of others!!!!
    Guilty as charged – pay up and learn from your mistakes!!!

  13. So racists are not really racists, they’re a bunch of people who’ve been set by other people up to appear they’re racists, but they really aren’t.

  14. Set up? No, they were given an opportunity to comply with the law, and they arrogantly chose to ignore it. They’re trying to say that the law doesn’t apply to them because they’re ‘christians’ blah blah. NO-ONE gets an opt-out from the law.

  15. The Bishops say “Liberty of conscience must not be confined to the mind. It is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to stand by our principles publicly.”

    Does that mean that, beacuse I am fed up with organised religion and think it is the cause of a large majority of the world’s troubles, I can stand in their churches and disrupt their services so that they can’t spread the word?

    Would those Bishops be happy for us to do that, stand by our conciences and go to their place of worship and actively disrupt their dangerous preaching?

    I think not…..

  16. Their case has been that their B&B is their home, and so anyone coming into it should respect their rights and who come’s into it! Fine ….if it’s just your home! But its not! It’s a business and one thats serves the public…ALL of the public, and all public businesses have to comply with the law. They still think they can have a B&B business and let in who they think fit. Wrong! The law has moved on…they have not! Face the consequence of your law breaking ,amend your policy or just shut up shop!

  17. Regardless if the owners claim they were set up, I do think this court case could go either way. The owners have set rules mainly “but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others)” However we will have to see what the Law stipulates marriage and civil partnership. The owners belief is marriage is between man and woman and the law states civil partnership is also legally binding hence the same as marriage. Lets see what the court comes up with as I dont think we are home and dry just yet.

  18. Oh my, now they’re claimin they were set up? Why does this not surprise me? This is typicl of RR wingnuts–do something discriminatory then when called out on it, claim that they were either set up or being “persecute” for their bigoted beliefs.

  19. The litmus test of comparing the situation as it would apply to other equalities groups gives us a situation where a hotel puts up a sign saying ‘no blacks’ and defends it as a conscience issue. Of course what they have done is totally unacceptable on any moral and legal founding and they deserve a large fine.

  20. They set themselves up by refusing to comply with the law.

  21. If you decide to be a conscientious objector and that you will go down the route of civil disobedience then you must be prepared to face prosecution, surely the Bulls ware not so naieve as to imagine this couldn’t happen as a result of their anti-gay discrimination.

  22. Spelling, “were not so naive”

  23. The law says that married couples and CP’d couples must be treated the same, Simon.

  24. Iris, I know CP’s and married couples legally should be treated the same, however these B&B owners think differently which is why I think we should wait to see how the courts rules. Legally I believe we will win this one but the way the legal system operates in this country when same sex couples and religion is involved its anyone’s guess.

  25. How do they tell when married adulterers come and stay at their B&B?
    I mean it gets ridiculous if you are going to practice this sort of religious discrimination…do they have people sign an affidavit to the effect they are monogamous church married couples ?
    We really do need to know how rigorously they operate their selection procedure.

  26. Homophobes are now governing the country, thanks to Gay tories, so more and more homophobes will win cases.

  27. 21stCenturySpirituality 14 Dec 2010, 3:17am

    Er hang on a minute, I set up a group on facebook when this story first came out and they most certainly do not state anywhere on their website that they only allow mixed couples to share a bed. Trust me I checked at the time and posted a link on the page so others could see for themselves. If they are now doing so, not only would that be illegal, it is also clearly an attempt to cover their tracks.

  28. 21stCenturySpirituality 14 Dec 2010, 3:32am

    Ooops no this is another one. I’m refering to the Swiss Hotel in Berkshire. But my point about it being illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in providing a service to the public still stands. The Law is very clear on this so if they are saying that on their website then they are breaking the law. You cant selectively offer less of a service or goods to one section of the public than you would to another, its against the law for a provider of goods or services to the public to do that.

  29. Of course there are no gay-only hotels are there guyz? :)

    Heteros don’t care if you have gay-only hotels – personally I think it would be understandable if you wanted a place to go which was culturally exclusive.
    I doubt Christians would care if there were Jewish hotels, or the able bodied, hotels for the disabled only.
    It’s not heterosexuals who are trying to shove their way of life down your throat is it? It’s vice versa, demanding that every establishment in the country cater for you and making a point of proving it.
    Nobody else is allowed a little cultural privacy it seems, in this ‘diverse’ land.

    Don’t be surprised if there is a lot of anger if the case against this couple succeeds.

    As for Guyz- perhaps it would be better for them to change their page description and policy, before some angry hetero reports them to the police.

  30. If they broke the law, tough uknowhat. If anyone set them up, it is the curse of the western world – conservative christianity.

    “Remember the old nursery rhyme – Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive?”

    Jesus is only one in a long line of sons of God. Alexander the great was pulled out of the forehead of the God Zeus. He was great in that he was the worst mass murderer of his time re his conquests.

    Osirus was a son of some God in Egypt long ago. the same old crap gets recycled and recycled.

    In another example, the catholic church has a “regeneration” program to “fix gays” During the middle ages the same name was used to convert Jews, on pain of death.

    If you’ve ever met on of these fixed gays btw, you realize how smart the cath monster is – instead of killing the gays directly, regeneration turns them into psychopathic haters of themselvs and other gays

    And yes – I always thought the church used fear of hell and promise of heaven to control minds.

    But it goes beyond that – its Paranoia, although the outward symptoms are psychologically supressed.

    Same thing done here in the states re gun laws. the national rifle association uses Paranoia to get people to “protect their families”

    No wonder we have 29000 gun murders per year, while England, population adusted has 500

  31. the B&B owners can go get into anohter biz, or hire someone to run the biz and move away so they don’t have to look at the good gay people coming in the door.

    We have the same problem here in the USA. EG druggists selling birth control pills. I think the general rule is they have to sell them, or have someone else there who will not object to selling legally prescribed drugs.

    Bigotry and religious extremism know no bounds. These peoples conscience is not the law. they can go change their religion to comply or just STFU and comply.

    Cheers for England, lets hope the old “hit them in the pocketbook and their minds will follow works on this deal”

    Or should we have places with signs that say “no christians allowed” – just to piss off people.

    BTW, in general in the USA, you do have a choice of to whom you rent out a room in your house. But if it is a separate appartment with a separate entrance,, you have the option to go to your church and drown yourself in the toilet.

  32. 21stCenturySpirituality 14 Dec 2010, 5:45am

    @ Fed up. You make a fair point but two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t force my “lifestyle” down anyones throat thank you very much. I just ask and expect to be treated with the same respect as any other person. That does not mean being treated like some kind of moral lepor because of who I am and who I love.

  33. john sharp 14 Dec 2010, 7:33am

    how can entrenched hate be set up
    they hate gays every day
    bible in hand
    no excuses

  34. “demanding that every establishment in the country cater for you and making a point of proving it.”

    I hardly think its “demanding” to expect every established to follow the law and treat all its customers without prejudice based on selective interpretation of nonsense in a bible, now, do you? When you get kicked out of a shop for being black, or christian, or disabled, or foreign, then we’ll see how indignant you are….

  35. Simon, I agree that it’s definitely not cut and dried. Whenever a case like this comes up I do worry because, in my opinion, society clearly treats homophobia as less serious than other forms of hate – especially where ‘religion’ is concerned.

  36. “in my opinion, society clearly treats homophobia as less serious than other forms of hate – especially where ‘religion’ is concerned.”

    Sadly I think this is all too true, Iris. Its the same way using racist comments is unacceptable, but using “gay” to call something stupid. Its all too easy to wrap prejudice in a blanket of “faith”, as if that makes it okay somehow.

  37. So called “The Christian Institute” that is financing the Bulls legal defence should properly be called “The Christianist Institute”
    It’s political activism mostly opposing gay rights should make it ineligible to hold charitable status

  38. @ Fedup, no where on the website you linked says its a GAY ONLY HOTEL. It is a Gay Themed Hotel and if the owners refused entry to a hetrosexual couple then they are breaking the law. It is NOT against the law to have a Gay Themed Hotel or a Christian Themed Hotel, what you cant do is refuse entry based sexuality.

  39. poetic license 14 Dec 2010, 10:44am

    These B&B owners seem too change their story on a regular basis, so tracking through all the statements they made from the time of the incident would prove how unreliable they are in giving evidence at any hearing.

  40. poetic license 14 Dec 2010, 10:47am

    @ Will

    I disagree, I think Homophobia is treated more seriously by British Law than Transphobia.

  41. “I disagree, I think Homophobia is treated more seriously by British Law than Transphobia.”

    You’re probably right there, but I was referring to all LGBT under the banner of homophobia.

  42. I think “Fedup” highlights an important issue with regards inclusivity and exclusion which is potentially both double edged, contradictory and inconsistent.

  43. Fedup, if a straight couple sued for being turned away from a gay hotel, no one here would dispute their right to equal treatment.

  44. Will, what gets me about ‘religious’ hate is that only certain kinds of hate are permitted. The Bible has long been used to justify racism, but no-one would look kindly on someone trying to use ‘christianity’ to justify their racist views, even if they could quote bits from the Bible to ‘prove’ it. Yet it seems to be OK for ‘christians’ to go on and on about LGBT people and that’s often tacitly accepted by many people in society. That demonstrates to me that hatred/dislike/fear/ignorance of LGBT people is quite widespread (although obviously mainly low-level). That’s very unsettling.

    poetic license, you’re quite right regarding transphobia. I apologise for omitting it.

  45. “even if they could quote bits from the Bible to ‘prove’ it.”

    Indeed Iris, I couldn’t agree more. It amazes me that when you look at the bible logically (if there is such a thing), its so full of contradictions and graphical accounts on justifying about every hedonistic and immoral action you can think of, and inn the name of god.

    I think personally, you can distil this down to a few things:

    1. Christians in the past “traditionally” do not accept gay people, so that tradition has now become de facto faith.
    2. Religion is always slow to change, less so then society or our understanding.
    3. Most people who have some inexplicable hate/fear of gay people use this as a convenient excuse to mask their personal bigotry.

    Might be a tad simplistic, but as far as I’m concerned anyone that subscribes to the “its not my fault, the bible tells me to call you a sinner” lark, must also recognise they support incest, slavery, murder, selling of children for profit, cannibalism, stoning of people who cut their hair, stoning of women who are not virgins at marriage… not to mention a flat earth that’s 6,000 years old. And this last bit always gets me:- if the bible says the earth is flat, and everyone alive today knows it is spherical, why would they follow a book literally that’s been proven incorrect?

  46. Will… I think it has a lot to do with that post hypnotic command word “Jesus”
    Most christianists will have had years of conditioning to make them behave as directed on the command “Jesus” … critical faculties selectively suspended.

  47. “I think it has a lot to do with that post hypnotic command word “Jesus””

    Do you think that could help me quit smoking? :)

  48. TheSuburbanBi 14 Dec 2010, 4:39pm

    The website states in full:

    “Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

    Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.”

    According to this illegal condition (no more legal than “No Jews, no blacks, no dogs, no Irish” or anything similar) — they would also not allow divorced people to stay — well not if they were really sticking to their principles, right? Well, the divorced have by definition not married for life, have they? Even if 2 divorced people remarried one another, they would be going agains the fundamentalist interpretation of Christian religion, wouldn’t they?

    A friend of the family was told just this by her minister — if she divorced, she must never remarry, as God would not recognise any other marriage except the one to her abusive ex-husband. So this B&B couple would be happy to have had my friend come and sleep there in the days she was with her battering husband? so long as his battery didn’t wake up the household, I suppose….

    And how do they certify that a supposedly married hetero couple is actually married? Or that they are actually straight? Gasp! What if a couple came and the wife was bi and the husband trans and straight — how would they know? They would have to be doing some serious forms of investigation to make sure their policy is not violated!

    Really, it is entirely absurd on the face of it and in its implications.

  49. I think it might possibloy replace one problem with an even worse one Will :)

    The court has deferred judgement on the Bulls until after Christmas.

  50. I have read some interesting comments here. Some that stand out are the differing opinions regarding the Bull’s interpretation of the law. It seems, on face value, that they have a loophole (they only allow married couples the use of double beds), and CPs are not marriages. However, apparently (I’m from Canada, not the UK), the law is clear in that CPs must be treated sorta almost exactly like marriages (I don’t know if there are still restrictions in place that would make them exactly like marriages though).

    Additionally, the comment that quotes their current web page does imply that they have rooms with other bed arrangements (possibly two singles?) that they apparently would be happy to rent out to any two people. So, if they only restrict access to some of their rooms but still will provide them with ANY other room…does that follow the letter of the law? It probably doesn’t follow the spirit (being that any service provided to a married straight couple must be available to a CP couple).

    Interesting indeed.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.