Reader comments · Gay ban hotel couple ‘may have to close business’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay ban hotel couple ‘may have to close business’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. SFMuscular 14 Dec 2010, 5:32pm

    They won’t “have” to close their business. Closing their business rather than to comply with the law is a “choice”. What would these bigots say if a same-sex couple lawfully married in, say Spain,tried to check into their hotel and stay in a single bed? What would their excuse be then?

  2. Let’s hope they make that choice

  3. Misleading headline – it should read, “Instead of following the law, couple will close business”

  4. Reese Mitchell 14 Dec 2010, 5:49pm

    My guess is they have cameras in each room to uphold their rules. Hope they don’t have kids. Bigots don’t make good role models, except on Rush.

  5. Absolutely Philip.
    These two prejudiced miseries look about ready to retire anyway and I think they should do so sooner rather than later.

  6. Breaks your heart, really (not).

  7. Well if they win this case, I suppose I can stop paying my mortgage, as the bible says interest on money lending is sinful:

    Deuteronomy 23:19-20 “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest”

  8. Aw diddums, I feel so sowwy for these poor old dears – NOT. They DO have a choice – they can either obey the law, or suffer the consequences. End of story. No-one is above the law – not even their imaginary sky-daddy.

  9. play the world-s smallest violin.

    why do they not ban divorcees or non-christians?

  10. They had the nerve to say they had been “set up” but how can Mr and Mrs Bull afford a QC to represent them? I thought barristers were expensive but a member of the ‘Bar’ is going to cost more than £5,000 just for him!

  11. If they don’t want to deal with what other people get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms they’re pretty much in the wrong business.
    Either that or maybe they should knock before entering.
    But hey, don’t let us stop you from retiring!

  12. For the past 24 yrs this couple have gotten away with discriminating against gay couples… time it was ended.

  13. They can afford the lawyers because they are not paying the bills for them. The “Christian” Lawyers are defending pro-bono. I don’t know if it is the Association of Christian Law Firms, motto,”Whatever you do,work at it with all your heart, as working for the lord, not for men”. Make that not for gay men especially it seems. Or it could be the Christian Lawyers Society. It might be someother group of Christians. In any event you can depend on this, if you happen to be gay, in all probability they hate you, but in a loving Christian way; they hate you with a smile.

  14. I suspect there Christian values allow them to let a Hetro couple who have had a “civil marriage” sleep together. If that is the case, then they should allow a gay couple who have had a civil partnership stay. Of-course Bigots generally change the rules to suite their own point of view. Agree with the rest – If you don’t want to act within the law, don’t run a business!

  15. It’s the Christian Institute. This is from their website. “The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom” and “the advancement of education”.The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK.
    We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception..Colin Hart, Director” The QC, James Dingemans is one of their group.
    Anyone think they don’t hate us? Anyone?

  16. I don’t think they hate us, I just think they are mentally deranged, anti-gay sociopaths…what other conclusion could I come to based on the evidence?

    Christianist extremist’s

  17. Mihangel apYrs 14 Dec 2010, 9:22pm

    replace doubbeds with singles: simple

  18. @Mihangel – But if you had single beds it’s going to get a bit cramped in there! You’d have to hug extra tight or lie on top of each other to make that work!

  19. Competition is tough. Adapt or die.

  20. Peter & Michael 14 Dec 2010, 9:55pm

    Makes one wonder if the Devon and Cornwall Tourist Board have known that this hotel has discriminated in the past and turned a ‘blind’ eye. No comment from them it seems

  21. PaulDG – excellent point, and I bet you’re right on that. That just shows how all these ‘christians’ have a pick ‘n’ mix attitude to Christianity. What they REALLY mean, in my opinion, is not that they don’t want unmarried couples, they don’t like gay people. How Christian of them – NOT.

  22. How can you use the phrase “advancement of education” on your website, when what they actually mean is advancement of the belief in a Sky Pixie and all the other tall tales from a made up book?

  23. “The Christian couple at the centre of a court case around gay rights and religious freedom say they may have to close their hotel if barred from discriminating against gay couples.”

    Really? One would think, if they allowed gay couples, their business would flourish. Thus creating more revenue for them. I am so sick and tired of religionists playing the victim when they are in fact the perpetrator.

  24. pinkprincess 14 Dec 2010, 11:25pm

    In my opinion if we can’t have exclusive gay an lesbian hotels etc anymore then they can’t have an exclusive hetro hotel, regardless of their religion. it should be one rule for all and if they can’t accept that then maybe they should close down.

  25. Oh dear…how sad…never mind…next!

  26. they really need dog poo through their letterbox.

  27. 21stCenturySpirituality 15 Dec 2010, 12:47am

    Ridiculous. They do not have to close their business, they just need to accept the fact that it is not neccessary for them to believe that the only space they can occupy as Christians in relation to homosexuality is a hostile or opposing one. They need to realise that the parochial version of Christianity they have embraced is theologically and spiritually bankrupt. And they need to grow up and let go of their outdated and outmoded inhibitions and taboos about human sexuality. But they do not need to close their business. Thats just melodramatic emotional blackmail.

  28. Catholic Nomore 15 Dec 2010, 4:36am

    They can go to work for the catholic church molesting children. In general molested people get all screwed up with guilt etc that it was their fault. Making them easy pickings to become ultra-homophobies thanks to the church. I know one of these types of critters. He’s nuts to put it simply.

    In other words why did the church hide the molestation for so many years if not centuries – it helps further the churches agenda.

  29. Katie Murphy 15 Dec 2010, 4:40am

    this is small potatoes – why didn’t Britain surprise the pope when he arrived – by telling him he had 30 min to have his plane leave, or have a lien put on it as the very beginning of paying the trillions of $$ gqay people deserve as recompense from the church of the molestation, which worships satan, and his virgin birth leader – RATZInger.

  30. de Villiers 15 Dec 2010, 6:49am

    > The QC, James Dingemans is one of their group.

    Really? I thought he was a distinguished lawyer who had published a book on discrimination – without any political preference.

  31. I thought he was a distinguished lawyer who had published a book on discrimination – without any political preference.

    Interesting to speculate whether the distinguished QC would be as swift to defend businesses that sought to exclude Jews or black people by citing “Christian” values.

  32. Mihangel apYrs 15 Dec 2010, 7:44am

    But Flapjack, if there are 2 single beds, everybody knows that they’re for one person each. What sort of perverts would sleep 2 to a single bed? :-)

  33. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2010, 8:01am

    Typical religious business view… If I can’t discriminate my way I’ll stop my business. More suited to a spoilt child.

    So close it already!

    Mind you it would stop them being nasty bigots!

  34. “No blacks allowed”… is this any different?

  35. Closing their business would help to make them martyrs, which is what they seem to be aiming for. There’s absolutely no reason why they can’t let gay couples stay there and pretending there is just makes them look stupid.

    Here’s a suggestion: why don’t they drag their small minds away from What Other People Do In Bed and grow up. A guest house isn’t supposed to be a vehicle for spreading your own personal bigotry. The Bible also bans masturbation – I suppose the Bulls are up all night with their ears pressed to the doors of the single guests checking their not indulging?

  36. Oops! “..they’re” I need another coffee!

  37. To break the law is to break the law.
    That is what this couple have done.

    I wouldn’t like to see them shut down. That would be vindictive. But if they refuse to adhere to the law then this is the only other option available. The choice is theirs. Obey the law or return your residence to a private dwelling.

  38. Strange how this court case has come up NOW, just before Christmas???

    I bet the Christian Institute are well pissed off, that judgement has been differed until after Christmas. However I think it now looks like the Christian Institute has lost again!

  39. Further to my previous comment –

    If Civil Partnership is being touted by the Government as “the same as and equivalent to marriage” then surely these two homophobic bigots must recognise it as such. They say “only married couples can share a room”. The two people, by the standards defined by law, ARE married. Or do they mean only god fearing types?

    I’m not christian, does that preclude me from sharing a room with my partner? I cannot, by law, ‘marry’ him, but that didn’t stop us from being in a loving, monogamous relationship.

  40. I agree with Rich and 21st Century Spirituality…

    In fact, if the Bull’s had a healthy business sense and a concern for their community’s tourism industry, they would go ‘gay friendly’.

    It would be no worse than Catholics buying stocks in the condom industry…

  41. Having tied themselves up in knots that even Houdini couldn’t get out of, I guess they’ll have to close either way, for if their ‘rights’ are upheld, they will also have to bar those unmarried str8s whose pre-marital chastity must be preserved at all costs; nor will they be able to let their twin rooms to str8 same-sex friends who simply want to share expenses, for fear they might succumb whilst in there to previously unknown temptations.

    Net result: a drought of bookings.

  42. ….But Flapjack, if there are 2 single beds, everybody knows that they’re for one person each. What sort of perverts would sleep 2 to a single bed?…..

    It’s a wicked world and you just can’t be too careful. Checking for stains, or – in a prayerful, compassionate, Christian way – handcuffing everyone separately to their bedframes until morning is probably the way forward.

  43. john sharp 15 Dec 2010, 3:58pm

    they closed themselves up
    they do not want unmarried people that is 50% of the population and LGBT is another 12% so not many clients left
    i hope amongst the 38 % of married they can side with equality an boycott the joint

  44. Less than that, John. I presume they also don’t want divorcees or adulterers or women who weren’t virgins when they married etc etc. The list of questions at reception must be endless! Unless, of course, they actually only want to ban GAY people.

  45. Bear in mind …a most senior minister appointed by His Highness Cameron, Chris [phobe] Grayling, and most of the rest of Tory and LibDem coalition, are all making sure these homophobes will soon be up for compensation if they appeal.

    Gay tories and supporters —> Duhh !

  46. Now we discover that Stonewall manipulated the entire shebang in order to provoke the hotel who had a clearcut policy outlined in their terms that only married couples could share a double bed. How wicked is that? There are many guest houses in Cornwall; it was a deliberate stitch-up as this one was targeted because of the religious beliefs of its owners which they are (still) entitled to hold so long as the last remnants of fereedom remain in this country. This rule also applied to heterosexual couples so it was clearly NOT a discriminatory policy per se. What with Ben Summerskill’s antics at the Lib Dem conference earlier this year, I am cancelling my Stonewall direct debit as of this week and would urge other readers to follow suit.

  47. Two words, tide and turning. What does it mean? Here’s another clue:

    Gay tories —> Duhhh !

  48. To use one of Mr Dingeman’s own quotes. “I am sorry for the loose use of language”. I did not mean to impugn his good name by suggesting that he was an actual member of the Christian Institute. Nor do I suggest that he is a rabid bible thumping homophobe as are many who are either actual members or committed supporters of the Christian Institutes. Mr Dingman is a very good lawyer, good looking, poised and witty and has beautiful manners. As many other lawyers often do in such matters his job is to put the best frame he can on a very, very bad picture.

  49. Angela, the law states that CP’d couples must be treated the same as married couples – so the Bulls WERE discriminating.

  50. I want to know what would have happened if a Gay couple booked a room with two single beds and pushed them together….all hell would break loose !!

  51. Stewart Cowan 16 Dec 2010, 3:13am

    The usual compassion from Pink News readers is evident. Not.

    It is a choice whether two blokes share a bed. Not everyone should be forced to accept this choice on their own premises.

    There are “gay only” hotels. But that’s okay, I suppose, being “positive discrimination”.

    You want tolerance but aren’t prepared to give any back.

  52. Steward, you can’t be serious.

    You accuse the commentors here of lacking compassion, yet you let the hotel owners get away with it (a lack of compassion).

    Then you ramble on about “Not everyone should be forced to accept this choice on their own premises.” which is the most dumb founded idea ever. That is like saying “Not everyone should be forced to accept negros on their own white premises.”. It. is. the. same. It is a business, and thus is has to follow the rules.

    I have never heard of any “gay only” hotels. There are hotels that cater to gays, but do not limit straights. But then again, I guess “It is a choice whether two straights share a bed.” and chose to not book at a gay hotel because it threatens your archiac sense of masculinity.

  53. Jock S. Trap 16 Dec 2010, 8:04am

    The equality law was made to sensibily protect everybody including Christians.

    Yet it is people who Choose to be religious who Choose to try and ignore the law and think they should be above it.

    Some Christians, and other religions, are just acting like spoilt children having tantrums because they are being given preferential treatment. Something of which not only do they feel they should have but accuse everyone else of getting because they feel they aren’t.

    It is clear that some Christians feel they should be above the Equality laws, using religious text to try and prove their discrimination is justified. They cannot accept that with the Equality law All should be treated with the same respect. They clearly do not want that so act up when they are challenged.

    All this case Actually proves is that it is now the Right time for Everyone to enjoy the same right to Marry who they choose, regardless of sex.

  54. @ Stuart, name me a “Gay only Hotel” ?
    There are Gay Themed Hotels but any “business” cannot discriminate on the grounds on Gender/Race ect ect.
    Name a “Gay Only Hotel” in the UK??

  55. Stewart Cowan, what I find so depressing about your points is that you never seem to take on board what others say – I don’t mean their opinions, I mean FACTS. The fact is that it is against the law to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. The law applies to everyone. You don’t get an opt-out because of your beliefs.

    Moreover, gay hotels DON’T discriminate against straight people so your comment was nonsense. Perhaps you find it hard to accept that most people don’t feel a burning need to discriminate aginst ANYONE.

    I’m not fond of fundie Christians like you but I don’t dislike you as a person and I certainly wouldn’t refuse to treat you in exactly the same way as anyone else or ban you from shops and hotels, etc. That’s not because I’m expecting any reward for that from any god or gods – it’s just common human decency. It’s a pity you don’t concentrate more on that.

  56. Presumably when a married opposite sex couple arrive at the hotel, the wife gets asked if it’s her time of month and they’re made to sleep in single beds if that’s the case. The reason being, that the Bible prohibits sex during menstruation.

  57. “There are “gay only” hotels. But that’s okay, I suppose, being “positive discrimination”.”

    Feel free to stay at a gay hotel any time you like Stewart…. no doubt it’ll titillate you to no end, given your basket-case obsession with all things gay. You can lament the “fall of civilisation” while listening to Gloria Gaynor and having a delightful afternoon tea.

    “This rule also applied to heterosexual couples so it was clearly NOT a discriminatory policy per se.”

    Or Angela, a clever person might say that its ALSO discriminatory to heterosexual couples, per se. You should probably look up the definition of “discriminatory”, Christians have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone, sorry. You should probably look up the word “democracy”. Actually, you should just start at the beginning of the dictionary.The freedom you refer to is the freedom to discriminate, and if you want that sort of thing, best you move to Iran. I’ll help you pack you’re stoning kit.

  58. Just listen to yourselves! Many of the comments on here are far less tolerant than those they viciously attack. What nasty, vicious low lives infest these forums.

  59. 21stCenturySpirituality 17 Dec 2010, 4:23am

    @William I stand by what I said and I think the points I have made are perfectly valid. I’m not being nasty or vicious and unlike you I haven’t engaged in petty name calling. Grow up – whats your point? Instead of engaging in name calling why dont you present your arguements on this issue instead of wasting everybodys time with petulant insults.

  60. Hi William . . . I was wondering which comments appeared particularly intolerant to you ?

  61. William, would it not be more worthwhile to point out where these “nasty, vicious low lives” might be wrong, rather than actually BEING of of these “nasty, vicious low lives” yourself by that last hypocritical comment?

    And besides, I see nothing of the sort here. I see natural reactions to the inevitable outcome of a grossly discriminatory business – but then again you support such discrimination because you have a problem with “political correctness gone mad”, isn’t that what you said once? Indeed. Quite enlightened to see anti-discrimination legislation as “PC gone mad”. Forgive me if I don’t take you seriously.

  62. “You can lament the “fall of civilisation” while listening to Gloria Gaynor and having a delightful afternoon tea.”

    LOL! Classic. And you never know with Stewart Cowen, he spends so much time thinking about the ‘dirty’ stuff gays get up to in bed, he might not make it down from the bedroom for afternoon tea if you get my drift…. :)

  63. 21stCenturySpirituality 17 Dec 2010, 4:02pm

    @ Stewart … I’m sorry to be blunt but its about time that the likes of you and the Bulls just grew up and stop using religion as window dressing for your prejudices. They are not above the law. You accuse gay people of asking for ‘special rights’ and yet here we are with some of your crew trying to bend already established statutory equality legislation and to get special treatment because of their ‘lifestyle’ choice. As far as the law is concerned If I turn my front room into a cafe I am operating a business on my premises – I am a service provider providing goods and services to the general public. The law protects the consumer of those services from discrimination on my part. It doesn’t matter what my personal views are or that the cafe is in a part of my home. The facts from a legal perspective is that I am running a business which is providing goods and services to the general public and I cannot discriminate or offer a less favorible service to one section of the public than I would to another on the grounds of either religion, gender, sexual orientation, race or disability. That is what the law says and its there to protect consumers and rightly so. Why are you and they trying to bend legislation which has been established to protect people from bad treatment by public service providers?

  64. Who is saying there is no gay-only accommodaton? There are several that advertise ‘gay-only’ within a few minutes of googling.
    Luckily most heterosexuals don’t give a monkey’s whether you have gay-only or not – it’s not heteros that are trying to force gay establishments to open their doors to everybody.
    Are you sure you want this? I mean will you mind if some hetero people make a challenge to the gay-only facilities and force you to let them in?

    Each to their own, I say, but obviiously some want their cake and eat it.

  65. Adultery is just as grave and terrible as homosexuality. Does each couple that goes there have to show a wedding certificate?

  66. @ Matt, are you real ? There are NO Gay only hotels. This is against the law and the Gay community know this. Phone up a Gay accommodating/themed hotel and book a room, you will NOT be refused. There have and still are Gay night clubs for Gay men and women, however the Gay community have and always will do let in hetrosexuals. In fact Gay clubs have allowed hetrosexuals into clubs long before the goods and services act came in effect.
    So Matt, name me some “Gay Only Facilities” that we might have to be forced to open up to hetrosexuals ????
    Even a Gay Sauna for Gay and Bisexual men will allow straight men in if they want to !!

  67. “it’s not heteros that are trying to force gay establishments to open their doors to everybody.”

    Really? I suppose those same hetros would have no issue if I put up a sign in a pub saying that no Jews were allowed because they’re “christ killers”. The “hetros” would be okay with that, I assume?

    You see, this is the critical flaw in your argument. To have a free society for all citizens, discrimination must be removed. We cannot have unsubstantiated (and religious reasons of “faith” are not substantiated) discrimination against any section of society, an flagrant irreverence for the laws that protect society by a bunch of misguides religious fanatics. If its okay to refuse gay people, where does that stop? Jews, blacks, women? I can find a passage in the bible to support all of these. I can even find a passage that would have me murder you for cutting your hair. What about refusing Christians on the basis I think their nonsense is against my own beliefs in a pluralistic society? Start with one permissible discrimination, and you open a flood gate to all discriminations, and soon we’re back in the 14th century,

    And your comments precludes the obvious:- a hotel that caters for gay people cannot discriminate either, against Christians or “hetro’s”. And that is how it should be, no9 more than a hotel that caters for children can, or will, preclude catering for single people. Point out a gay hotel that does, and you have a case.

    I suggest Matt you rethink your logic, its fundamentally flawed.

  68. I second what Doug said!!!!

  69. Fckin hell Will, you always sound like spock off star trek. “your logic is fundamentally flawed” captain kirk.
    “Start with one permissible discrimination, and you open a flood gate to all discriminations, and soon we’re back in the 14th century ” – Really? Says who, you? Why make such extreme statements? You sound like a religious fundamentalist.

    And as you brought up ‘flaws’ in arguments. You reckon ” To have a free society for all citizens, discrimination must be removed” – so why do you discriminate against people who are religious? Your idea just shows how simplistic and naive your thinking is. Unless you can tell me a place where this Utopia that you dream of exists – heaven? (and i don’t mean the nightclub). Obviously it doesn’t exist, it’s just a fairy tale in your mind, a fantasy, unsubstantiated, not reality – like what the religious have in their heads. And how you think you’re going to create this non discriminatory utopia, when you yourself can’t see past the hate you have for religious people. Or will this utopia that you dream of only exist when you get rid of Christians? and Muslims? and Jews? Because for someone who isn’t religious, you seem to know your bible well, or are they just wiki quotes.

    I suggest you rethink your life and sort out your anger issues before you lecture anyone else.

  70. 21stCenturySpirituality 18 Dec 2010, 9:30pm

    @ Owen…’Adultery is just as grave and terrible as homosexuality’

    Explain how and why exactly?

  71. Catholic Defender 19 Dec 2010, 4:10am

    This whole thing about gays and law is just not right. In the 1970’s gay activist displayed shock and awe posting themselves at churches being totally obnoxious. In the 1980’s they put on suits and ties then went to Washington joining the Democratic Party. We see this attack on the Military as well. Christians will be the persecuted ones as a small minority dictate what is law against the vast majority of Americans

  72. 21stCenturySpirituality 19 Dec 2010, 8:47am

    @ Catholic Defender can you explain please why it is not right for the law to protect consumers from discrimination by people or organisations that set themselves up in business to provide goods and services to the general public? Why should a service provider be allowed to provide a lower standard of service to one section of the public than they would to another on the basis of their personal beliefs? If we are going to go down that road whats to stop travesties like racial segregation?

  73. @Catholic Defender . . . what you appear to be describing is paranoia.You do not appear to be very well to me.

    In the UK businesses need to operate within the law, this means abiding by the “Goods and services Acts” . . .not by I might add the the Book of Acts, or any other bibilical texts.

  74. Haha, let them close! Who cares?

  75. de Villiers 19 Dec 2010, 3:29pm

    > whats to stop travesties like racial segregation?

    I find the behaviour of the hotel distasteful. However, I also find the hatred expressed towards their owners to be unpleasant.

    It may be that I have yet to think long enough about the issue to be as certain as others on this board. However, as much as I find discrimination unpleasant and contrary to most systems of modern ethics, I can accept a difference between discrimination and avoiding domination.

    When minority or disadvantaged groups seek to avoid domination by a majority culture, they seek to carve out minority space from which others are excluded. Gay night-clubs, Asian dating agencies, the Black police association, women-only taxicabs, etc. are all examples. These exist not to cause disadvantage to the orthodox, majority or prevailing culture but to avoid being caused disadvantage or harm by it.

    I am not suggesting that a Catholic hotel fits into this definition. But there may come a point where Catholic associations may seek to form asserting their right to freedom of association to associate with each other – in much the same way that gay networking groups or gay hotels or gay clubs currently do.

  76. “” To have a free society for all citizens, discrimination must be removed” – so why do you discriminate against people who are religious?”

    How does Will (Dublin Will) discriminate against religious people? He expresses his opinion, but I don’t remember seeing him lobby for the right to discriminate against people because of their religion even if he doesn’t share their beliefs. In fact, he clearly says that ANY discrimination is wrong.

    Isn’t that the point he’s making? Allow discrimination against one group because of a personal belief – ie that homosexuality is wrong or whatever – and you open the door to others coming forward with their own beliefs and asking that they should be allowed to discriminate because of them. The law requires that we don’t discriminate and there are no exceptions because of ‘belief’ else racists could discriminate against people with a different skin colour; misogynists could discriminate against women; one religion could victimise another.

    Equality laws are there to protect everyone and I don’t see anyone here saying that we should be allowed to discriminate against religious people. Why would anyone want to?

  77. 21stCenturySpirituality 19 Dec 2010, 3:42pm

    Catholic Defender, James, William, Owen, Stewart all hit and runs. None of them have answered any of my questions or responded to any of my points. Why wont you engage in dialogue about these issues? Why wont you answer legitimate questions and concerns about your ethical reasoning and justifications on these issues? If you think you have a case to argue then lets hear/see it, lets look at it and talk about it, why wont you do that? Why do you come here and make provocative and sometimes offensive remarks if you cant back them up with sound ethical reasoning and verifiable evidence?

  78. “so why do you discriminate against people who are religious”

    Well, “Will”, where did I do that exactly? Reality vs Nonsense-In-Your-Head, I’m afraid.

    “Because for someone who isn’t religious, you seem to know your bible well, or are they just wiki quotes.”

    Its not that hard really, I have more then enough intelligence for the bible, thank you. Why, do you have difficulty reading?

    “I suggest you rethink your life and sort out your anger issues before you lecture anyone else.”

    No I won’t, can certainly not on the advice of a emotionally unstable individual like you. Maybe you need a lesson in that logic you bitch at, that post of yours was a ridiculous blend of anger and stupidity, with very little else of substance. You’re lucky I even responded, it was really that sad.

    “The law requires that we don’t discriminate and there are no exceptions because of ‘belief’ else racists could discriminate against people with a different skin colour; misogynists could discriminate against women; one religion could victimise another.”

    Well said Iris, and thanks for getting in with a logical (Will seem to have an issue with this word) response. This other “Will” hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. Not agreeing with religion is not discrimination. If he could calm down for 5 minutes and at least try to read before the drama queen episodes, he might be able to read my post.

  79. REVELATION is my favorite book of the Bible because it outlines the main hysteria and insanity of most Christians.

  80. “Catholic Defender, James, William, Owen, Stewart all hit and runs.”

    Agree with your there 21stCenturySpirituality. It seems to be the MO:- preach, insult, say something unsubstantiated and then run. It only lends to the weakness of their argument.

  81. “But there may come a point where Catholic associations may seek to form asserting their right to freedom of association to associate with each other – in much the same way that gay networking groups or gay hotels or gay clubs currently do.”

    Then in order to maintain operation within the law, they should become a private members club, but if they are open to the public, they must operate a non-discriminatory policy. This hotel is being run for profit, and the idea that someone has to give them money to be told not to sleep with their partner is ridiculous simply becuase the owners are religious extremists (and yes, this sort of behaviour is extremism)

  82. “It only lends to the weakness of their argument.”


  83. Disgusted American 20 Dec 2010, 5:34pm

    so – what if they felt inter-racial marriage was against thier buy-BULL teachings too? It’s Dinosaurs like this cpl that hold humanity back. If you can’t treat all guest the same – then bye bye!!!!

  84. @Catholic Defender – “This whole thing about gays and law is just not right.”

    What does this even mean ? Do you think gay people should have the same rights and freedoms as straight people ?

    “Christians will be the persecuted ones as a small minority dictate what is law against the vast majority of Americans”

    What ? Persecuted ? By whom ? Who is the minority that will be doing the persecution ? Are you saying that Christians are a minority in America ? Why do feel the American system is so easily manipulated by minorities ? What have you done to alert your politicians to your concern ? Do you think what the majority believe is always correct ?

    Do you think that religious people should be free to dictate how other people behave ?

  85. H. Goaterson 21 Dec 2010, 12:44am

    Remember, if they don’t close it why not have a weekend away there with your same sex partner? Be sure to get a double room.

  86. Christians are NOT being persecuted in the UK or the US. I’m tired of hearing that pathetically transparent lie.

    This made me smile because it contains much truth:

  87. MACDONALDBANK1 21 Dec 2010, 4:50pm

    The evil writings in Leviticus 20:13; which exists in the old testament & torah … were written long after Moses — 600BC — regarding “priestly rules” … expanded by the pope; homophobes and religious frauds … to attack the gay community and never meant to apply to the public — but to priests.

    How would you like it … if hate speech was directed to your brother or sister as you sat in the pew; spewed by some better than thou religious lunatic with a hateful black book about Leviticus — under his arm?

  88. Lets hope the case gets thrown out.
    Those guys didnt read the booking form / website correctly, and on applying they agreed to the terms.

  89. Pair of bloody liars.

  90. The result of the case, is in my opinion unfortunate because it seems to me that some gay people like to rub every ones noses in gay lib, gay rights, gay this and gay that, no one is ever going to convince me that being homosexual is a norm, because it just isn’t, nature does not make allowances for one sex relationships.
    As far as the hotel case is concerned, I am convinced it was a set-up regardless of what Mr Preddy and Mr Hall say.
    Christianity is a fairly strict religion, and it’s values preach tolerance of others, but it does not say you should except something that fundamentally wrong , If Hitler had been around today would we have allowed him to carry on with his intentions because of his human rights ?. I think it fairer to say there has been a clash of beliefs, and opinions, in this instance, where there should have been no winners or losers

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.