Reader comments · Ruling expected on gay hotel ban · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Ruling expected on gay hotel ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. while the judge may find that they can discriminate against non-married couple, I can’t see how he would be able to find the they are allowed to host only HETEROSEXUAL married couples. this is clearly discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and that’s illegal, non?

    Even though one could argue that not allowing non-married couples can also be anti-gay discrimination since gay people can’t get married as such.

  2. dave wainwright 17 Jan 2011, 5:32pm

    Am dreading the local reporting of this matter and the backlash in the comments section of thisiscornwall website , earlier reporting drew every homophobe in the west country to go on the attack. Cornwall is a notoriously homophobic place , with a great deal of hostility and retarded thinking .

  3. Whites only? No Jews or Romanies?
    That would be unthinkable.
    No gays – fine!
    These bloody christianists.

  4. If they lose then it will only serve to massively strengthen the case for marriage equality, so essentially we will win either way.

  5. Red Gosans 17 Jan 2011, 6:01pm

    “their lawyer James Dingemans QC said that if they were not allowed to retain their policy of only allowing straight married couples to share rooms, they would have to shut their hotel.”

    I still don’t understand this reasoning. Their policy has no bearing on whether or not they’ll make money (which is the primary requisite for a business to stay open). The only thing I can equate with it is a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum.

    Hopefully they (the Bulls) will lose their case. Discrimination is wrong no matter who it’s against.

  6. I don’t get the problem here? It seems simple enough to me. It’s illegal for a business to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality, and the hotel did exactly that, so they broke the law.

    What a waste of time and money, this should never have gone to court and the hotel owners should have been prosecuted and told it was unlawful.

    I hope they shut down, its not really a loss to anyone if they do.

  7. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I thought you weren’t allowed to discriminate at all. Are they legally entitled to prevent non-married people from booking a double room?

    I would have thought the basic principle of running a business was “Come one, come all”.

    PS “No Gypsies, No Blacks, No Dogs.”

  8. I’ve put this on one of the TV news programs facebook page that will be covering the Ruling:

    Ruling expected on gay hotel ban tomorrow!
    So ‘The West Country Tonight’ should not forget to have a Representative from “Christian Voice” and “Stonewall” for a balanced and impartial story.

    Would you call this entrapment?

  9. In the current climate… chances are 50% – 50%. The Tories have created a climate of uncertainty for gay people. We simply don’t know what the judge will decide. Chris Grayling still stands as one of Mr Cameron’s best friend… this example is an incentive to bigots everywhere … LGBTory must be a group full of masochistic personalities.

  10. The ruling is going to go against the B&B owners.

    Why else would the ruling to put back until after Christmas?

  11. It seems to me that not only should they be prosecuted for discrimination in their hotel; they should be prosecuted for discrimination on their web site.

  12. I’m totally with Peter Tatchell on this one. We should totally respect the right of the owners of the Chymorvah Private Hotel to be allowed to practise their Christian beliefs.

    Peter is 100% correct. Christian street preachers, evangelists, and ministers have every right to give witness in public to whatever they believe Jesus tells them. And Christian hotel-owners have every right to stand by the principles of their religion and refuse to have gays and lesbians on their properties.

    And Peter is also 100% correct regarding Muslims who speak against us or refuse to serve us on their premises. We must absolutely fight back and refuse to accept their homophobia. Muslims cannot be allowed to get away with homophobia. If we let Muslims get away with making homophobic statements, we do so at our peril.

  13. Spanner… I’m not sure as scenarios regarding ‘married people/non married people’ aren’t mentioned specifically in the equality act. If they’d said they only accepted couples married in a Christian church or whatever, they might have had a leg to stand on. Not sure.

    Sexual orientation is of course mentioned though, so the fact that they specify ‘hetero married couples only’ thus dragging sexuality into their criteria for acceptable guests should hopefully clinch it regardless.

  14. “… I’m not sure as scenarios regarding ‘married people/non married people’ aren’t mentioned specifically in the equality act.”

    I might be wrong but I thought it WAS mentioned and specifically said that CP’d couples counted as the same as married couples?

  15. michael, liverpool 17 Jan 2011, 9:43pm

    Vincent, why the difference in attitude towards Christians and Muslims?

    Homophobia is homophobia, and discrimination is discrimination, regardless of where it comes from.

    Personally, I wouldn’t mind this B&B being classed as clearly signed private member’s club for married heterosexual “Christians”. At least potential customers would know where they stood. But as it’s not a private club and only seems to have a problem with gays, it’s blatantly in the wrong.

    The reason I say this is I rather like gay only B&Bs whenever I visit Blackpool or Brighton. It has to work both ways for the “married straights”.

  16. Iris, yes that does seem to be the spirit of the law, as wherever is mentions civil partnerships it mentions marriage, and wherever it mentions marriage, it mentions civil partnerships too, as though the two are the same. It doesn’t actually explicitly say though that you must recognise civil partnerships as you would marriage. Not to my knowledge anyway, whenever the subject has come up before and I’ve tried to argue that civil partnerships should be treated the same as marriages (which is my personal belief) it’s been pointed out to me by defenders of the Bulls that the equality act doesn’t actually say that in black and white.

    What I actually meant though is that unmarrieds (regardless of sexuality) aren’t mentioned specifically in the list of people you musn’t discriminate against like gay people, trangendered people, black people, etc

  17. de Villiers 18 Jan 2011, 12:08am

    > The Tories have created a climate of uncertainty for gay people. We simply don’t know what the judge will decide

    Goodness – they have created a climate of uncertainty in only eight months. And they have created this uncertainty by going out of their way to state how homophobia is unacceptable. That demonstrates some awesome power. No doubt it is all a secret plot.

    But even with this awesome power, they cannot force a judge in the UK. Politicians have no power over them – look how many times the government has been defeated. Any judgment will be on the basis of law rather than politics.

  18. Christine Beckett 18 Jan 2011, 12:13am

    “Vincent, why the difference in attitude towards Christians and Muslims?”


    I think Vincent is simply drawing attention to Peter Tatchell’s rather curious double-standards on the issue of religious bigotry,

    According to Peter such bigotry is apparently OK from Christians, but not from Muslims.


  19. Really Christine? Will have to check that out, I notice that kind of double standard with regard to Islam and Christianity alot, but would have expected more from Tatchell

  20. dave wainwright 18 Jan 2011, 10:31am


  21. Jock S. Trap 18 Jan 2011, 10:34am

    Excellent news. Just seen on Sky News They won!!! WooHoo!!

  22. “What I actually meant though is that unmarrieds (regardless of sexuality) aren’t mentioned specifically in the list of people you musn’t discriminate against like gay people, trangendered people, black people, etc”

    Ah, OK, M. My apologies for misunderstanding. I haven’t seen unmarried people mentioned either, but I think (note the ‘think’, I don’t know for sure) that the issue is discrimination – ie treating one section of a group differently from another. So you could ban ALL unmarried people but you couldn’t ban SOME? Could that be right?

    I wish I could remember where I saw the reference to CPs being equal to marriage. I’m pretty sure I did, but I can’t remember what part of the Act it was in. Sorry!

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.