Reader comments · Christian hotel owners’ appeal reaches court today · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian hotel owners’ appeal reaches court today

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 10:02am

    Well. Here we go………………

    1. @Dr Guthrie

      You may be surprised to learn that I think the only reason this should go to appeal, is because British justice allows appeals …

      Its clear that the hotel failed to comply with the equality act.
      If the hoteliers wish to use their own home as a business, then (in my opnion) they must comply with the same legislation that applies to all businesses. Equal access to goods and services should never be restricted.

      Out of interest, I went and looked at the hotel’s website today. Now, I may be being cynical here … but there is no mention of refusing to allow either same sex couples or unmarried couples to share a bed/room. However, there is a mention of “please contact us by telephone to discuss other terms and conditions” – it seems odd that they are not prepared to commit in writing on the website other terms, unless they have something to hide ….

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 12:05pm

        At the time ( 9 months ago )

        One of this sites contributors toddled off to their web site and noted the following:

        “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

        Suffice it to say, the offending text is still there.

        1. @Dr Guthrie

          I stand corrected!

          I had searched for terms and conditions and looked through most of the site, but avoided going as far as the booking form ….

          Interesting that they hide that little gem of illegality there, and cynically suggest contacting for other terms and conditions elsewhere….

        2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 1:50pm

          I think that is their point. “Unmarried” means just that. The rule is primarily there for straight couples, but equally gay men are not married either, even if they are in a CP (yet another reason to get that loophole fixed) – So the discrimination is not against gay people per se, just those “living in sin”.

          This might not be the cut-and-dried case it initially appears.

          1. Absolutely agree it is another reason why equal marriage is crucial

            Although CPs are to be regarded as having the status of marriage in law for many purposes (according to directgov website).

            So regardless they are still discriminating unlawfully.

          2. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 3:49pm

            It would be curious to see if they actually do ask people for their marriage certificates?

    2. It is plain to see the Fascist Christians have a lot of attention on the post about the Christian religion here. More proof that the Fascist Christians are watching the gays and what they say and do and then plotting and planning on how to destroy gays. It is not so much a mad man who wants again to kill gays but mad Christians who are working together like an army to attack and destroy anything they think is their enemy, gays being at the top of their list. Who will be next? I hope there are some sane people who can see this before it is too late and the world is plunged into another holocaust. All people will end up living in a religious slavery if the mad Christians do carry out their mad plan. Strange how the good Christians think they have to murder the “bad” people as the solution to “their problems”, which in fact make the good Christians into bad people but they can not see this as they are too busy murdering the bad people. Their madness has blinded them.

    3. “Mr Dingemans (legal argument) is playing up the non-married side to the maximum. He is reported in the Guardian as going as far as saying that: “[The Bulls] have prevented hundreds of unmarried couples sharing double beds.” Claiming that the Bulls discriminated against both unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples might well muddy the legal water over whether they unlawfully directly discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation.

      Yet the claim that the Bulls did not rent rooms to unmarried straight couples was flatly contradicted by NSS council member Ray Newton who revealed that in 2006 he and his female partner stayed at the hotel in a double room. They signed the registration book with different names and at no stage purported to be a married couple. Mr Newton said they were never asked whether they were married – and it never occurred to him that it would be an issue.” NSS

  2. Cambodia Guesthouse 8 Nov 2011, 10:08am

    Well, if there really IS any justice in the UK, then they should lose this appeal abd finally have to pay for their discrimination..

    This couple did NOT have to ignore their homophobic prejudices, they could have chosen NOT to run a business offering services to the general public.

    Instead, they chose to run a guesthouse so they must therefore obey the laws of the land… I’m sick of these sky-pilot worshippers claiming that their ‘beliefs’ allow them to break the law!

    I hope they lose in a spectacular fashion and the ‘Christian Institute’ lose loads of their donated funds on this stupid case.

    1. Rubber Ducky 8 Nov 2011, 10:17am

      being where the appeal is (those that look at the law rather than facts per say) you are correct in that they should lose, its pretty open and shut i would dare say, if they were directly part of a religious insitution then they may have a point however as they’re simply a private guest house they’re bound by all the laws that every other buisness is under the equality act

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 11:22am

      Utter rot.

      I bought my car before emissions testing was required but it still must now comply to said tests.

      1. Those people who believe that also believe in lots of other strange things which are not true.

      2. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 11:48am

        As a physicist, can you stop using Sir Isaac Newton as your avatar… It degrades his image somewhat.

      3. You clearly do not understand the issue of case law …

        Case law applies equally to statute and common law …

        Thus, whilst there are very limited pieces of case law with regards the equalities act, and this case MAY be a test case that becomes significant – its immaterial whether it is statute law or common law for case law to apply to it

      4. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:31am

        Indeed. Keith is proof that religious freaks don’t believe in change because they think They are the word of law.

      5. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:34am

        Lets hope the appeal fails coz I don’t think you fruitloops realise the problem you are about to unleash. The saddest part is most5 good Christians don’t agree with this or you and can see what you are about to unleash with serious consequences. But hey so long as you get your right to discriminate eh? tosser.

    3. Since the UK is not a theocracy and seeks to have impartial laws, blind to religious, racial or other forms or prejudice or favour, then the Bible is irrelevant in this case. The only issues are the facts of the case – ie that the couple were refused the same service others would have been able to enjoy, and what the law says in the Equality Act. Whether the Bible would permit a couple to share a bed in a B&B in Cornwall (which I doubt it even comments on) is irrelevant.

    4. Now you are using sophistic, you know that nobody can agree with the law of a country such as Uganda. Not because it goes against a gay agenda, but because it goes against commons sens. If you are the least bit in your right mind you should agree with me that nobody deserve to die due to their sexual orientation, religion and such. You should know as well as me that Uganda isn’t a real democracy and thus your question is bad rhetoric. England laws on the other hand are based on an ideology of liberty, equality and fraternity so i would ask you to stop using such aggressive and hateful arguments and think a second. Why should the law uphold the freedom of religion against the freedom of sexual orientation? You are not living in a country ruled by religion and since equality is more important than religion the couple should win the case against the B&B.

      1. I live in England, thus I adopt English law.

        As you know fine well, Keith, I have campaigned to change law – thats called democracy (I suggest you look it up in a dictionary since you seem not to understand it).

        If I lived in Uganda then I would comply with the law – but if there were areas I did not agree with the morality of, then I would campaign to change them – I suspect I would be campaigning very strenuously given the bigotry in Uganda.

      2. I do not see paedophilia as an orientation – although this is the sorry excuse many paedophiles use to try and mitigate in law for their behaviour

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:37am

        People like you die of ignorance every day, what makes you think your immune, loser?

    5. Ahhh Uganda that once was a gay tolerant country till christianity imposed its immoral morality on its people. and I dont know about other people but I sign and support petitions that try to put pressure on the anti-gay laws in a country (even USA) and for once I agree with Conservative policy to refuse aid to countries that flout human equal rights.

      Keith you are a really horrid and bitter little man, I don’t know who said it but I agree you should change your avatar pic to someone more befitting your mentality and warped sense of right and wrong rather than a man that contributed so much to science.

    6. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:30am

      Makes no odds. The law changed and they must apply to it. The law doesn’t stop for Christian’s or anyone in religion, to discriminate.

      1. Absolutely, Jock S Trap

        Just trying to point out that the law in England & Wales is blind to ethnicity, orientation, faith etc etc except when considering equality etc cases where judging if someone with a protected characteristic has been discriminated against etc

    7. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:35am

      Do the words Pot and Kettle mean anything to you?

    8. My uncle began a business before the health and safety at work act came into force, does that mean he can ignore the legislation since it didnt apply to his business when set up? Using Keiths (illogical) logic, you would assume so …

      Clearly, back in the real world, the law applies to all businesses, individuals and organisations equally

  3. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 10:14am

    Beware people.

    All that matters here is whether or not the judge agrees with the point of law.

    This could set wonderful or dangerous precedent dependant on this judges viewpoint and interpretation of this law.

    1. If this case wins then we’ll be back to where were in the 1960’s.

      Instead of signs reading ‘No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs’ we’ll have signs reading ‘No Gays’.

      If that happens then all gay businesses must start actively discriminating against religious people. Get the courts tied up in hundreds of court cases until the law is applied fairly and equally to everyone.

      1. @dAVID

        I agree that if the case is overturned (either fully or partially) then this potentially takes us back to images of the 1950s and 1960s when offensive posters in shops, bars, pubs, B&Bs etc clearly discriminated against non-whites. In this scenario there could be signs saying “No gays permitted” which would be horrific.

        I would rather encourage the couple involved to appeal further to the supreme court and/or European courts before considering the appropriateness of engaging in the sort of direct action you propose.

        Whilst I do not deny that there can be a case for direct action, usually it is self defeating to adopt an attack strategy that is using similar rhetoric to which we seek to eradicate against ourselves. So if for example, gay bars were to place placards in the window saying “No Christians” then this would look no better than the “No Gays” sign in a Christian run B&B.

        Lets allow court processes to be concluded before thinking about it.

        1. John Antrobus 8 Nov 2011, 8:09pm

          The voice of reason.

    2. @Dr Guthrie

      I would be very surprised if this review of the points of law would change the decision of the original Bristol court. The facts seem clear – as do the points of law. That said, one never knows until the judges make their decisions.

      If they decide to either fully or partially overturn the Bristol decision then I would hope the couple involved could be persuaded to accept support from an appropriate LGBT body to appeal to the supreme court or European Court.

  4. Let’s hope they win their appeal and are give the choice to who they want in their hotel. Landlords right.

    Also today let’s hope the Lords today remove the word insualt from the public order act.

    I’m fed up of homosexuals being given special treatment and special laws just because they chose in their teens to be homosexual

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 10:21am

      You are a d!ck arent you.

      1. He certainly is Dr Guthrie …

        One thing is the will not be removing insulting today (if they ever do) as the protection of freedoms bill is not before the Lords until 27 November …

        I know he is fishing for comments as a troll and I am biting … but homosexuals are not being given special treatment in law, they are being given fair treatment in law – having been subject to discrimination in law for far too long. There is no choice in being homosexual – one either is or is not. Did Matthew choose his sexuality – if he did, can he tell us how he considered and weighed each individual motivation and demotivation – what the pros and cons were – how he then stayed with one form of orientation – because if its a choice, surely he can choose differently again? Did he try and make an informed “choice”? Of course, he can’t answer be orientation is within the DNA of each person …

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:39am


    2. Dave North 8 Nov 2011, 10:24am

      “I’m fed up of homosexuals being given special treatment and special laws just because they chose in their teens to be homosexual”

      And just which University did you gain Phd’s in Genetics, Psychology and Sociology that affords you the ability to make such a claim?

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 11:24am

        If you look, actually there is some proof.

        Look up hypothalamus differences in gay and straight people.

        1. Keith is right, there is no proof that it is hereditary in the sense that homosexuals are more likely to have homosexual children. In fact most homosexuals are born to heterosexuals. (Keith is probably aware of this)

          There is however significant pointers to a combination of genetics and pre-natal biological factors (some of which are indicated by the differences in hypothalamus).

          The only thing mainstream (ie non religious) science seems agreed on is that it is not environmental (all the nonsense about distant father/overbearing mother, abuse in childhood or playing with dolls), a choice or something which can be changed.

          So Keith if you want to be adamant about anything that proper science tells us then try that last one.

        2. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 12:11pm

          Well, given that I received dominant and recessive genes from both my parents, “something” was passed on that caused my sexual orientation.

          I would call that hereditary.

          And given that it has existed all down the human generational line, that would also point to hereditary aspects.

        3. Dr Robin Guthrie,

          Everything in our biological make-up is hereditary at that level. Some things like some recessive genes are in all human DNA and some are in specific hereditary lines and so only affect children born to parents who have that gene. It is the last element which is normally classed as hereditary.

          If homosexuality has a genetic basis then statistically it would have to be in the make-up of all human DNA as there does not seem to be any pointers to show it follows any specific blood line – it is simply a genetic disposition which exists ‘in the wild’ across all human DNA.

          This would be classed then as a statistical possibility rather than an inherited characteristic.

          All through time this statistical possibility has been observed and is fairly consistent which is a pointer to a genetic source.

        4. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 1:57pm

          Dave G:
          If homosexuality is genetic, then it would have to be a recessive throwback. If it does exist, it is what is termed a “lethal gene” because it will never be replicated unless there is some involvement with the opposite sex. In other words, it becomes the end of the genetic lineage due to it’s own make up.

        5. Commander Thor 8 Nov 2011, 3:56pm

          For non-identical twins, the fraction of twins that are both gay is 22%, whereas the same fraction for identical twins is 50%.

          The “gay gene” wouldn’t be a lethal gene if it causes other members of the same lineage to be overly promiscuous or fertile – case in point, females who have a gay relative tend to be more fertile.

      2. I suggest you look at the following published articles by eminent scientists that all consider sexual orientation to have genetic factors:

        Some positively state that homosexuality is genetic, others state like the one below state that many cases have biological origins, although not all

        Others, clearly states that there are both biological genetic factors and some experiential and environmental factors:

    3. DJ Sheepiesheep 8 Nov 2011, 10:38am

      He probably thinks that he wrote one of the gospels.

    4. Matthew: My sympathy has always been with the Bulls and my concerns remain that people can now be punished for doing what is right. I share your hopes but while one day the war will be won, some battles however, including this one, may be lost on the way though.

      I would say though that while no-one should be given special treatment, everyone, including homosexuals, should be treated respectfully and normally not discriminated against. Because the B&B business was their own home, and they had previously made it clear that shared sleeping arrangements could only apply to married couples, I don’t think they were acting inappropriately or illegally even (although the earlier judge saw it differently). While not agreeing necessarily with their actions, I don’t think they should be penalised either.

      1. it is irrelevant that it has to do with a gay couple, they broke the law regarding businesses and discrimination, same as if they were not to employ someone on the grounds of their sexuality. As far as I know there is only one exclusion that a business can specify a particular type of person and that is in the case of vulnerable people (such as a women’s shelter only employing female staff). The key word in your statement is business, they have no more legal right to refuse to accommodate someone (or ask if they are gay, disabled or gender) than say hmv. They are both governed by the same laws.

        1. There are a few cases were discrimination (in employment) is currently permitted under English law, these include:

          An occupational requirement eg a theatre requiring a black actor to play a particular role …

          Justification eg a female in a women’s refuge

          I can not conceive of how one would apply to a B&B.

          Tesco can not choose on the basis of gender, orientation or faith – nor should a Christian bookshop or Stonewall ….

          1. Stu: I defer to your greater understanding of the law. The law, however, may (sometimes) be an ass (as Charles Dickens Mr Bumble once observed) but it should nevertheless be obeyed.

            I know the strength of feeling among some Christians re. this case (it is because I once asked a question in a political hustings on this very incident that I found myself engaging in PN forums). The fact that an appeal is being lodged suggests there may be grounds. We await with interest the outcome.

            As you point out, we do discriminate, quite often in fact (e.g. prisoners not being able to vote, ex-sex offenders not being allowed to work with children), suggesting to me that not every case is clear cut. These folk felt they shouldn’t allow non-married couples (the sex of the couples did not come into it) to share a bed in their home – whether you or I agree is neither here nor there.

            If they broke the law then they must accept the consequences, even given they were ignorant at the time, but imo opinion if they did it is a bad law given it is their home and their discomforture in having guests (albeit paying) sharing a bed who are not married.

          2. @JohnB

            The law may sometimes be regarded as an ass.

            Some exclusions and discriminations are fuly appropriate eg not selecting a white actor to play the role of someone black in a theatre, prisoners not being able to vote, paedophiles not being able to work with children, under 18s not being able to purchase alcohol, men not being employed in women’s refuges etc etc

            In all these cases there is a legitimacy (whether we agree with it or not) in the discrimination. Not of that legitimacy is regarding belief processes. All of the legitimacy is connected to either safety, public health or integrity of the law etc

            Operating a business (wherever that may be located) and preventing a strand of people from being served by that business in the same way others are able to be, is not a justifiable form of discrimination in law.

            In law, CPs are regarded as being comparable to marriage (in terms of rights). Thus, this couple were to be afforded similar rights in the eyes of the law as …

          3. … would be provided to a married couple. The perception of whether that couple were or were not entitled to those rights by someone due to their faith and world view is irrelevant. They were in a committed relationship endorsed and approved of by the state, they are entitled to protection from the state when faced with prejudice and unfair treatment – which is what they experienced.

            This is less to do with the couple being gay and much more to do with the CI and others seeking to try and establish theocratic principles in English law – and that should be avoided entirely.

    5. Do you still beat your wife Matthew?

      1. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 12:30pm

        I don’t think he has a wife, at least, he sounds sexually repressed :( I think Christians need to have sex more often, I think they would then leave the ones of us (str8/gay) actually enjoying our lives (including having sex and not feeling guilty about it) alone.

        Give her a kinky slap, not a “I’m a sexually frustrated…” slap. lol
        Or no slaps at all, whatever works (I don’t like slaps) Basically just feck off lol :p

      2. I don’t have a wife, Id happily slap some homosexuals who stepped out line, we need more laws for religion, and stop pandering to homosexuals and their whining of being ‘hurt’ by peoples decisions.

        1. Erm the court case and whining is coming from the Christians … please check your facts …

          1. No, the Christians are appealing against being sued by some poofs who wanted to sleep together in their religious hotel, they were told no, and like most gays they throw their toys out of the cot, because they ALWAYS have to be right.

            Well they were not, and they will be proved this, and it will soon be the law that anyone can have a say who comes on their premiss..

            Gays are the minority and will continue to be so until they stop demanding things, and start behaving properly and stop whinging when someone doesn’t like their lifestyle and tells them about it.

          2. These ‘some poofs’ are a legally recognised couple who deserve the same respect and level of service as any other recognised couple.

            I take it from your comment that if gays stop, as you put it, “demanding things, and start behaving properly and stop whinging when someone doesn’t like their lifestyle and tells them about it” they will become a majority. I am not sure how that would happen – or are you just as deranged as your logic?

          3. @Matthew

            Even if we accept your argument, which I dont …

            Then the Christians are “throwing a tantrum” because the law of the land went against them at Bristol County Court and appealling – it is their right to appeal – and lose …

        2. Irrespective of the fact I am gay, I’d be mightily offended if I was not allowed to enter an Indian restaurant say, because the owner thinks I, as being British would not respect their customs. I would like to try different world cuisine! Just an example, you can choose your own. Why do you seem to dislike ‘homosexuals so much? I view no ill malice to you. You have an opinion, so do I… I don’t agree with you, you don’t agree with me… so we’ll have to agree to disagree. Its religion thats causing all the tension and wars in society. Why not just shut your cake hole and crawl back under the bridge? You will never win over our opinion.

    6. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 11:57am

      Weeeooo WeeeOooo WeeeOooo
      –TROLL ALERT! :p
      get back under your rock troll! ^_^

    7. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:38am

      I’m fed up of homosexuals being given special treatment and special laws…?

      Oh yeah, such as bigot? Not intelligent are you? LOL

    8. Sod off.

  5. At the end of the day they provide a public services and are bound by the same anti discrimination laws that any other business have to adhere to. This means they are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, gender, race or disability. If it was a private home then they can do what ever their small minded provincial bigoted minds desire. They broke the law irrelevant of whom they discriminated against.

  6. Spiritbody 8 Nov 2011, 11:07am

    Im kinda with the hoteliers on this I have to say. They dont allow unwed couples to share a bed. If thats what they feel is right, then thats fair enough. I wouldnt want them to feel they have to go against their beliefs. They should feel free to live in accordance with what they believe surely. As should everyone. Its very difficult to pin point a right and wrong here, as sometimes peoples individual human rights overlap and cause a grey area. They should have the right to refuse entry into their home and business, and the gay couple should have the right to equal treatment from a business that is providing a service to

    1. Wrong.

      If you run a public business then you really have no right to impose your superstitions,

      If an unmarried couple were refused a double bed because of the Bulls’ religious superstitions then equally they would have been guilty of discrmination.

      I suspect however that the Bulls frequently turn a blind eye to unmarried couples sharing a bed.

      They are using their religious superstitions to hide the fact that they are homophobic monsters who should not be running any kind of business.

      1. @dAVID

        You are entirely right that anyone running a business to serve the general public has to comply with the law of the land – whether that be health & safety, food hygiene or the equality act.

        I have no proof personally, but I share you suspicion that the Bulls probably have turned a blind eye to an opposite sex unmarried couple sharing a bed/room. I have heard that there is circumstantial evidence to suggest this, however.

        If you want to run a business, inviting people into your homes – then comply with the law. If you don’t want to comply with the law, then choose a different type of business.

        Plenty people work day in day out, dealing with laws and regulations they disagree with. Police officers, doctors, HR managers etc. but we comply because we have to. Its not different in this case.

    2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 2:02pm

      @Spiritbody: Ooch!. I actually agree with you, but you make a rod for your own back with this bunch of PC leftie drama queens. You’ve almost scored as low a figure as our resident scatalogically obsessed closet queen Keith…

  7. Spiritbody 8 Nov 2011, 11:09am

    . .providing a service to the public. So the only critisism I would have of the hoteliers, is maybe they could have thought of some other business to go into if there is a whole section of the public that they dont like. Seems to cause them and others quite a bit of unnecessary stress.
    Also, Id be quite interested to see if they allowed a married gay couple to share a bed.

    1. Do they allow double rooms to unmarried straight couples.

      Do they request a marriage license every time a straight couple turns up at their doorway.

      if not then quite simply they are hypocritical bigots?

      1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 2:05pm

        Er. No and Yes, respectively.
        So no, they are not hypocrites.

        Whatever you say about these people, they are genuinely standing by their principles, however misguided or out of date they may happen to be.
        Right approach, wrong reason.

        1. @Spanner1960

          There, I am led to believe, is evidence they have turned a blind eye to unmarried opposite sex couples staying in the same bed/room

        2. So it is official policy in this hotel that a straight couple who request a double room, need to produce a marriage certificicate?

          I do not believe that.

          Do you?

        3. @dAVID

          I find it incredulous that anyone believes they require a marriage certificate from every couple who attend …

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 11:26am

      I would see their business closed before they even attempted that.

    3. The law requires them to treat people in a marriage and in a civil partnership equally. In other words if you are in a civil partnership you are no different from being married. Which is as it should be.

      1. Stop wriggling.

        At the moment the law does not see a CP equating to Marriage BUT under the law people in a CP MUST be treated in exactly the same way as if they were married for the provisions of goods and services.

        That is the point of law at issue here.

      2. @Dave G

        Absolutely, here is an extract from the Directgov (UK govt) website:

        “Civil partnership
        Same-sex couples can have their relationships legally recognised as ‘civil partnerships’.
        Civil partners must be treated the same as married couples on a wide range of legal matters, including, but not limited to:
        tax, including Inheritance Tax
        employment benefits
        most state and occupational pension benefits
        income-related benefits, tax credits and child support
        their duty to provide reasonable maintenance for their civil partner and any children of the family
        ability to apply for parental responsibility for their civil partner’s child
        inheritance of tenancy agreements
        protection from domestic violence
        immigration and nationality purposes”

      3. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 2:08pm

        For once I agree with Keith, a civil partnership is NOT a marriage, although it carries most of the same legal status.

        However, as for the bit about a ‘man and a woman’, I’d watch this space, because I suspect very soon you will have to eat your words.

      4. Seeing as they are religious cultists then their religious beliefs also indicate that any couple not married in a church is not married in the eyes of ‘god’.

        Therefore what they are saying is that only married couples who have married in a church are allowed to be guests at their hotel.

        They will not win this case I suspect.

        But I hope the extreme right-wing US christian group funding this case wastes a lot on money on this case.

      5. I ma for what it is worth a qualified solicitor with a keen understanding of and interest in equality laws. I take my law from primary sources, not wikipedia. The Equality Act 2010, s. 23 (3), provides:-

        “If the protected characteristic is sexual orientation, the fact that one person … is a civil partner while another is married is not a material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.”

        A little learning is a dangerous thing and I suggest you refrain from commenting on things you clearly do not understand.

    4. John Antrobus 8 Nov 2011, 8:18pm

      But there aren’t any married gay couples in the UK. As soon as any gay couple married overseas step foot in the UK, their marriage is downgraded to a civil partnership.

    5. Why pick on homosexuality? How will the hoteliers refuse to let a muslim family stay, who would almost certiainly violate the first 2 commandments of the Decalogue by praying to Allah on their premises? Their anti-gay prohibitions are arbitrary. Also, the hotel is not their home. One does not charge friends or family lodgings plus VAT to cross one’s threshold. Similarly, they could not afford a 10-bedroom home with such a lovely view, if it were all their home. Therefore the must abide by the law in respect to offering a service to the public. .

  8. I think it’s very simple. Does a land lord/owner have the right to refuse service when working in the public domain? I think that should really be the only legal issue raised in this case. Forgot the fact the couple were gay, or married/not married etc. Boil it down to it’s most simple form, can you refuse service to who you like based on opinion and belief? Yes, or no?

    Think about that for a moment, because there are religious extremists out there who won’t serve black people due to ”genuinley held beliefs”.

    I’d also like to talk to the couple myself, and ask them, if their genuine belief really is married couples, and their legal defence is they refused heterosexual none married couples, then will they be refusing married homosexual couples when homosexual marriage is introduced? It will be interesting to see… and the only defence I could possibly see they’d have, is if they refused all hetrosexual married couples who were in civil marriages rather than religious if they don’t want to be seen as discriminatory against homosexuals.

    1. They didn’t refuse service

      1. They refused the service they were asked to supply – a double room for the couple to share

        1. No, I dont think its discriminatory to have unisex toilets in the slightest …

          It proves the twisted and bizarre nature of your mind, that suggests that other people seeking equality can not follow common sense and logic

          Ah – but that will be the problem, following, evidence, logic and common sense – not your strong point …

        2. @ Stu – Wrong. They gave an alternative, which was fine. They did not refuse to give the service.

          1. They discrimated … they did not treat a gay couple in a CP with equal value to a married heterosexual couple … ergo unlawful discrimination …

            Shall I draw a picture???

          2. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 8:56am

            However you want to see it, legally a CP may have all the legalities of a marriage, but as you know, many Christians don’t see it like that.

            There should be no such thing as “gay marriage”, it should simply be just “marriage”, and the gender of the couple involved should be irrelevant. That way there is no splitting of hairs or semantics, two men can be just as married as a man and a woman.

          3. @Spanner1960

            With respect, its no use projecting this case into the future when we have equal marriage – at the time (and now) they were in a CP – and regardless of what Christians think of that in terms of value, the law states clearly that same sex couples in a CP should be treated with equality to a married couple.

        3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:50am

          What would you know about morality, hygiene, privacy etc?

  9. Seriously dude are you not educated at all?

    Romans 13:1-7 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    They broke the law of the land contrary to what the bible teaches.

    1. F*** ‘god’.

      That fictional character needs to p!ss off.

      I think Harry Potter should be the fictional character that people worship.

      Far more acceptable than the current ‘god’ we have.

      1. Amen. These couples are civilly-unioned which, according to my understanding, is the equivalent of marriage under UK laws. This is what must be determined. What will these haters do when legal marriage for both gay and straight exists?

    2. well thats the age old argument so quoting the bible in a court of law is pointless. and as been said repetitively they broke the law. they provide a public service and have no legal right to even ask if two people are married irrelevant of sexual orientation.

      1. as I said quoting the bible is an age old argument and we can sit here and bandy quotes at each other that disproves what the other is saying. I would quote something from Genesis 9:6 or 1st Corinthians 14:33 and you would find another to come back at me with etc etc etc, so the bible is total bubkiss

      2. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 12:04pm

        Ahh the bible, the infallible resource of all things. It’s a wonder more people don’t tap that resource to make groundbreaking discoveri… wait a minute! No need for discoveries, all questions already answered. To think schools complain about science books being inaccurate that were written in the 60s, those idiots.

        Again I must say, seriously, stop using Sir Isaac Newton as your avatar. Perhaps a pope or something fitting.

      3. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 12:23pm

        @Dafy “so the bible is total bubkiss”
        I read that as “Bum-kiss” D’awww ^_^

      4. lol maybe I should chosen another thing instead of bubkiss was just trying to be polite rofl

      5. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:45am

        “Christians are not bound by mans law where it conflucts with Gods”

        Oh how convienent!

    3. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 11:25am

      I hope you like living in jails then.

      1. I love the way that a christian can cherry pick the bible and they are right in the eyes of god (according to them) but non-religious or people that are contrary to bibles morals who uses passages are cherry picking and wrong. it always make me laugh

    4. Well if what you say were to be correct, Keith (which it is not!) …

      Then what we can look forward to is yourself and other extremists deciding to put the Bible first, and ending in conflict with British law and being made to be martyrs due to the punishment they will receive under the law of the land …

      As for your Biblical exposition, it lacks credibility, is inaccurate and irrelevant …

      1. Any bible explanation lacks credibility, the clue is right there – the bible lacks credibility ergo so does any explanation derived from it.

        Stu – best to stick to rights and law – arguing semantics with a biblical apologist will get you no-where. He is entitled to his beliefs and if he wishes to act on them then, as you indicate, he can take the consequences. I for one will not worry the day he is sent down.

      2. @Keith

        You clearly didnt read what I said – and I am only going to say this once more – I will respond to you with an initial response when I believe that your serious bigoted inaccuracies need confrontation or clarification. What I will not do is enter into dialogue with you. The only reason this post is being made is, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you have misread my comments.

        As for lacking credibility – other readers on PN have clearly refuted any credibility in your arguments dozens (if not hundreds) of times before. I have done so on a number of occasions and will be be baited by an ignorant, dispicable, inhumane idiot like yourself who trolls and baits with indignity and clearly has mental health problems.

        Good day.

      3. @Dave G


        I only wish I knew Keiths full name so that when he is incarcerated for refusal to comply with English law, then I can celebrate

      4. Dave North 8 Nov 2011, 1:55pm

        Its up to you to prove its credibility Keith,

        You keep bringing that ass wipe into the conversation, now prove it.

    5. Fine. Then this couple can go into some line of work where their delicate sensibilities will not be offended and they will not discriminate against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. Other B&Bs will spring up that don’t feel the need to discriminate..

    6. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:43am

      You know nothing, you have no credibilty, therefore you are nothing of any consequence. Just a boring low life.

  10. Typical christians.

    Trying to undermine our democracy by seeking absurd exemptions from the law based on their personal superstitons.

    Here’s an idea for them – let them beliieve what they like and remove their hotel license.

    If you run a business which provides goods and services to the public, then the law takes precedence over their personal, bigotted superstitions.

    I wonder which extreme right wing US based christian group is funding this absurd appeal.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 11:31am

      The Christian Institute.

      The blurb on their web site states:

      “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.”

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 11:32am

        I would guess they mean the “cherry picked truths of the bible”

      2. Concerning the issue of sex education in schools, the Christian Institute’s latest campaign of hate and misinformation led to the following statement in the House of Lords

        “Labour’s Baroness Massey of Darwen and Liberal Democrat Baroness Walmsley have both hit out at the campaigning tactics of the Christian Institute.Lady Massey said that in her time in the House of Lords she had never known “such a sinister and vicious campaign that has sought to misinform others”

    2. Dave North 8 Nov 2011, 11:37am

      Here is a little nugget of the Christian Institutes beliefs:

      3. Its commitment to freedom for, not freedom from religion. No state
      can be neutral in terms of morality or religion. When a state has a
      majority who claim allegiance to one religion, it may not enforce that
      one religious belief. There will, however, inevitably be a privileging of
      that religion at certain public ceremonies such as thanksgivings, funerals of public figures, and rituals and prayers at the beginning of
      Parliaments. Also it will be privileged in education, while ensuring optouts for those of other faiths and none. There must be freedom for
      minority faiths and philosophies except where these plainly transgress
      the moral law. To fail to privilege one religion would be for the State
      positively to endorse either a secular humanistic philosophy (which
      results in atheism), or a “multifaith philosophy” (which is opposed by
      faithful people in all religions).

      These people are DANGEROUS.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Nov 2011, 11:41am

        This is what they say on comparing gay marriage with heterosexual marriage.

        – Why Gay and straight relationships should not be equal in the eyes of the law.

        A – They are not equal in nature

        B – They are not equal morally

        C – The law must do what is best for the whole of society

        You should head over to and see just how insane these people are.

        1. I tend to pay scant attention that do not understand the scientific meaning of the word theory and promotes intelligent design as a scientific theory. But I agree they are good for amusement now and again, maybe it was all created by monty python as it certainly has the same sort of disjointed humour about them

          1. The Christian Institute is a fascist organisation that should be classified as a hate group. It thrives from USA religious fundies who bankroll this sick group, hoping to undermine our fairly egalitarian laws and impose a theocracy. They also have religious extremist lawyers who work pro bono. Hence their disproportionate power.

  11. Like squids squirting ink, the God-botherers obfuscate and protest like mad about the outrageous idea that their supernatural beliefs about invisible spirits and ancient Near-Eastern texts should exempt them from obeying laws binding on all of us.

  12. Sorry – I meant of course that they are outraged about NOT being exempted from the law.

  13. Such a compelling reason for gay MARRIAGE -don`t you think?
    They say they only allow MARRIED couples to stay in their private hotel-so they are perfectly illustrating the anomaly of the present position-where gay couples are discriminated against purely because they are not legally entitled to form marriages.
    Demonstrates once and for all that MARRIAGE is a human right that should be available to ALL.

    1. Yeah, I doubt that the “not married” excuse is valid. It was because the men were gay. Even if gay people were allowed to get married (and I hope they do soon) religious homophobes will find some other excuse to deny serving gay people.

    2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 2:11pm

      I’ve been saying this all along. They could win this case on a technicality based simply on semantics. If gay people could marry, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

    3. Absolutely John, if a civil partnership does not make you married enough to stay in a B&B then obviously same sex marriage equality is the only solution to this anomaly.

  14. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 12:07pm

    Damm, another Troll/moron… Usually the “What is x + y” question catches most of these guys out… The trolls seem to have adapted.

    1. Yeah, evolution even works for trolls and religious nutjobs.

  15. There are other unmarried couples who have stayed at said guesthouse and had different surnames. The policy did not apply to them. To be clear if they were following biblical laws they would have to ensure that no couple was unmarried, one had not previously been divorced, they were virgins when married and that they had never had sex when the lady was having her period. Then there is the general moral exclusions for heterosexuals who might have engaged in oral or anal sex with their partners even if they met the previous conditions. Oh and civil marriages are not in the eyes of god and so not marriages in the biblical sense.

    So the signs the Bulls will have to put up will be

    No gays, fornicators, adulterers, practitioners of immoral sex acts or people married in registry offices.

    Obviously the bible also prohibits interracial marriage, but I was running out of space on the sign and potential customers for the Bulls.

  16. Even if we were able to marry, they still would discriminate because of the Leviticus verse they use to justify it.

    1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 5:39pm

      Yes, but they probably wouldn’t let you in wearing that poly-cotton shirt and the bag of Prawn Cocktail crisps either.

  17. The law of England & Wales is NOT the BIble

    Maybe you would like it to be … but that is not the case …. Britain is not a theocracy – and it never should be …

  18. It is still in the court at the moment, no news yet, but fingers crossed, there are many reporters here, great interest and Mr and Mrs Bull have had 100’s of messages of support.

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:53am

      and your point is?

  19. What the couple did was not Christian either. It was downright inhospitable, hateful and judgemental.

    To deny ANYONE a BASIC need- food, shelter, clothing, life-saving assistance on the basis of whether or not you agree with their culture, orientation, status, race, religion or whatever, had ZERO to do with ANYTHING Jesus taught about “Doing unto others” or being a Good Samaritan.

    If I were the judge, I would take that into consideration as well. I also think Christians should take offense that these two are representing their religion that way.

    1. Would the Bulls question a heterosexual couple as to whether they were going to engage in buggery in their room prior to confirming that they could stay ? or do they just assume that any homosexual couple will take the opportunity of being in the nice guesthouse for a good bugger and that heterosexuals will refrain for the the duration of their stay?

      If not then is issue is not buggery but sexuality. What happens when a homosexual couple married – and I mean married – visit from Spain and want to stay there for a holiday. They are as married as I assume the Bulls are (although to be honest I have not checked the Bull’s are actually married).

      1. Why do you assume that ? You clearly have no knowledge of people in long term relationships.

        Do you assume when a heterosexual couple insist on a double bed (many do sleep in them too) that they must sex in mind and so should be refused on the basis that if they do then it might not be to the high standards of the owners of the business. Or maybe a questionnaire would be the best way for all couples – I can just imagine it

        Will you be having any sex during your stay and will you assure us that buggery and other things we don’t like will not be undertaken ?
        Do you prefer coffee or tea in the morning ?

        Next it will be some catholics banning the use of contraceptives in their B&B

        You really are a confused and deluded individual.

      2. John Antrobus 8 Nov 2011, 8:41pm

        It’s not a Christian roof. The only parts of their premises under a Christian roof are their private quarters. In the public parts where the provide their services, the law applies, and they broke it.

    2. It was bigotted, hateful and stupid.

      That sounds pretty christian to me.

      most christian churches are cesspits of toxic bigotry. The tolerant churches are the exception.

    3. Buggering? Get out of the hateful 16th Century. The Anti-Buggery statute of 1533 is no longer in force. Straight f***ing isn’t a need, either, married or not, either.

      If this couple was legally civil-unioned under UK law, the Bulls have discriminated and need to go into some other line of work.

    4. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:54am

      Obsessive Keith and his ‘buggering’ again.

  20. what is a Hoosexual? I’m not liking being called a Hoo!

  21. If we had the same agenda as muslims we’d bomb these superstitious, Daily Mail reading bigots – then people would think twice about discriminating against gays

  22. Andrew Hamm 8 Nov 2011, 1:33pm

    “Mr and Mrs Bull argued that they barred all unmarried couples from sharing rooms regardless of their sexuality. Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were in a civil partnership.”

    In which case, why did this couple still face discrimination? I’m sure they’d have a full blown marriage if it was legal.

    1. Nail on the head. That is the entire point of the case; whether their failure to recognise a civil partnership as equal to a marriage means they discriminated directly or indirectly on the basis of sexual orientation. Given that there is, in law, no distinction between civil partnership and marriage, the only difference is the orientation of the partners and therefore they were discriminated against on that basis. Regarding the two as “unwed” meant that the owners drew a distinction between them and everyone else based on their orientation. The religious angle comes in when the defence says ‘oh but my religion says that a civil partnership is not the same as marriage’, so in essence it is a battle between secular law and religious belief, not one between gay rights and religious rights. The court of appeal will have to uphold the law. The appeal must fail.

      1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2011, 2:13pm

        Well don’t hold your breath.
        This is one case I certainly wouldn’t want to put bets on the outcome.

      2. @Sven

        I certainly hope the appeal does fail.

        In the unlikely (in my opinion) event that it does not, I earnestly hope that it will be taken to the supreme court or the European courts.

        Whilst LGBT rights are crucially important to the fabric of a just, fair and moral society …

        This is not to do with LGBT rights – its all to do with extremist religious groups and individuals wanting to pursue a pick and mix approach to which secular laws they wish to abide by.

        It is imperative that we do not allow this to become the chink in the law of the land that leads extremists to see an opportunity to seek a theocracy in England or the UK

        1. Yeah the main point here isn’t about gay rights, regardless of what the papers incessantly report. It’s about making a public declaration that religion is not an excuse for ignoring or re-interpreting the law. It’s a message to the religious organisations still trying desperately to cling to their special privilege that they will have to let it go. Times are changing etc. A failure at this level will be problematic from that point of view so I hope the CoA decides against the Bulls, and that leave is not given to appeal to the Supreme Court.

          1. de Villiers 8 Nov 2011, 3:06pm

            The main point is not about gay rights – it is about breaching the statute by discriminating against people on the grounds of sexuality. There is no larger political point here – it is solely whether there was a breach of the statute.

          2. @de Villiers

            There may be no legal bigger picture, but I have no doubt if the CI were to win – they would see it as a green light to push towards other elements of a theocracy

        2. It IS imperative that we ALLOW this to become the law – that people have the right to decide who the want in their hotel.

          1. Imperative for who?

          2. Should they be able to refuse all black people, if they don’t want black people in their business?

            Should they be able to refuse all Jews or Roman Catholics?

            Should they be able to refuse all people over 60 year old?

            If not, why should they be allowed to refuse gay people the same service equivalent customers would offer ,,,,

            Please make your answer lawful

          3. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 9:00am

            @Stu: “Please make your answer lawful”

            That really depends on which “laws” you choose to follow.

          4. Umm… so then you’re gonna be fine with businesses excluding people from using their services for: having freckles, wearing blue trainers, having an earring etc etc etc???

            When will stupid discrimination stop? The appeal must fail. Then the Bulls can go back with tail between their religious legs to their little fairy house and carry on discriminating against guests who don’t fit into the neat little world so intensified by Sky Lurker.

          5. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:05pm

            So much for a business then.

      3. This appeal must fail. The alternative is to allow anyone with a deeply-abiding faith in the invisible rabbit in the corner (or any other unprovable talisman) to discriminate.

  23. The bible is not contradictory? You must have access to one quite unlike those generally available. What’s the real deal on ‘salvation’, Keith? –
    – Believing in the atoning blood of ‘Christ’ (Pauline corpus)
    – Believing in Jesus to participate in the wisdom of the ‘Logos’ (Johannine)
    – Being charitable to your neighbour (Matthew 25 – dead Jewish)
    – Caring for orphans and widows (Epistle of James)
    What’s the line on children? Must be like them to recieve the kingdom of God (Jesus)? Or do we have to grow up (Paul)?
    Which of the two semitic creation myths in Genesis is factually accurate? Etc etc
    Please stop peddling fundamentalist ideology as fact.

    1. I can imagine Keith yabbering like that nice vid :)

  24. The law is very simple on this issue as the judge in the original case pointed out, under the Civil Partnership Act all Civil Partnerships must be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. If they wanted to allow only married people to share a bed that’s fine, as long as they also allow Civil Partnered people to do so as well. It really is that simple.

    It is welcomed that appeal has been brought to the Court of Appeal as it’s weight is more binding than a lower court.

    However, why should unmarried hetrosexuals or non – CP’ed couples be discriminated against in the provision of services??

  25. In the case regarding Eunice and Owen Johns, the High Court ruled that laws protecting people from sexual discrimination should take precedence, so what’s the difference with the Bulls?

    1. None from the face of it but issues of public interest can be appealed to a higher court so that the law can be fleshed out

      1. Thanks.

  26. Your sophistry isnt even worth commenting on …

    I refer you to my prior posts on logic, common sense, evidence etc – and will comment no further to ridiculous comments such as those you make

    1. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 4:36pm

      “I refer you to my prior posts on logic, common sense, evidence etc – and will comment no further to ridiculous comments such as those you make”

      Pfffft! Like logic, common sense and evidence have any place in my Nutt-job wacko Praise Be to Jebus arguments! ^_^
      For somebody who fails to grasp simple logic, putting a picture of Isaac Newton has got to be some sort of irony. Or perhaps an attempt to look better educated than you are in reality?

      1. @Locus


        He demeans the memory of Isaac Newton by his idiocy

    2. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 4:38pm

      Oh yes master, please, I am humbled before your mighty logic.

      1. @Locus


        If Keith really is that desperate to believe that he has “confounded me by logic” let him live in his little dream world, with his imaginary friends …

        Keiths ignorance and sophistry will continue to be ignored due to the irrelevance he continues to have

    3. Locus Solus 8 Nov 2011, 4:43pm

      “Keith…HIV free always!”
      Is that because nobody will sleep with you? ;)

      Incidentally it is possible to be gay and HIV free, ALWAYS yet still have sex (therefore not becoming sex starved trolls). Some of us have monogamous relationships /fact_checker -brain_off

      1. Of course dogging, prostitution and swingers parties are all risk free.

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:09pm

        There’s only one person here that’s clearly delusional, Keith… YOU!!

    4. Grow up, Keith. Women only loos would be discriminatory only if men were denied men only ones.

      1. Grow up Keith your infantile and irrelevant gestures and the garbage you speak is not welcomed herre … you do not belong here … please close the door on your way out

      2. All this attention is making Keith deliriously happy – garrulous sophistry the likes of which i have never seen.

        There’s a lesson here somewhere about how powerful beliefs are.

        Beliefs define a vision of the world. They dictate behavior. They determine responses to other human beings.

        The problem with religious beliefs, besides being untestable, is that they are murderous because ‘certainty’ about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.

        Have a look at history and see that religion has been, and continues to be, the root cause for one human slaughter after another.

  27. Shall we tell the Bulls how many children could have been saved if the money they had allowed to be blown on their behalf on trying to legally enshrine bigotry had been spent on clean water, emergency food rations or vaccinations?

    1. Dave North 8 Nov 2011, 5:16pm

      They would not care.

      Their almighty skewed “faith” is far more important to them than actually exercising christian values.

    2. I imagine with the Bulls (like with Keith) it is the only thing that gets blown.

  28. keith Sloan 8 Nov 2011, 5:26pm

    Surely they should have refused any couple other than those married in Church. Least that would be consistent with their bigoted Christian views.

    1. No – but it is not a marriage sanction by your god unless vows are made in his eyes to him. Civil marriage is not a biblical marriage – whatever that is

      Oh here it is

      1. John Antrobus 8 Nov 2011, 9:11pm

        “homosexual civil ceremonies are not accepted under God”. Who says?

      2. Does it really matter where you get married and who you marry? The important point is that marriage is recognised as unity of two people. Get over this tosh of it having to be only between man and woman. Times have changed and its time to stop holding on to archaic values.

        Does it really matter what Sky Lurker says? If he says civil partnerships are not recognised, then thats his problem and he will have to get used to it… just like you Keith, will have to get used to the fact that there are LGBT people around you. One day you’ll meet a few of them, you probably have done already… so get used to it!

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:13pm

        They are from next month.

    2. As much as I hate to agree with such sad twisted child of hate and bigotry who demeans a great man of science but in this I unfortunately have to the bible does not make it necessary to have a wedding in church though it suggests that it if you are going to do something in the eyes of god why not do it in the sanctity of his house. damn that agreeing with him tastes bitter in my mouth.

      please dont let this sad occurrence happen again :(

  29. @Keth

    The new testament totally contradicts the old testament. The whole context of the old testament is about ironclad control and belief and any who do not believe in god shall be punished by the hand of man in the name of god. In contrast the context of the new testament is about love and forgiveness. the context of both is a contradiction to each other.

    It always sounded like to me that if the bible was the word of god that he had a mid life crisis when his kid was born and became softer in the second half of his existence lol

  30. We have already established you seem to know nothing about case law, and its application to either statute or common law

    1. Again you misrepresent what I said … you missed the clarifying clause in the same message which sid VERY CLEARLY to anyone with a gram of common sense in their body … racism and homophobia are illegal IF they are used in particular ways …. and that is correct.

      As for your “grasp” of law, seems the police agree with me, given the two issues they have crimed as hate crimes from me today and taken statements and intend investigating and making arrests. Good on the police, I say.

      1. @Keith

        I have never said that racism or homophobia in thoughts are illegal

        I HAVE said, and there is plenty of statute and case law (something you seem to struggle with) to demonstrate this, that acting on those racist and homophobic thoughts can be illiegal.

        You of course, prefer to twist and misrepresent what I said … but this will be no surprise to those who regularly participate in PN forums.

        Maybe, you will never get it into your thick head that acting on your bigoted prejudices is an offence – and thats why the police are investigating Alan Craigs for inciting hatred

        I suggest you consider section 74 and schedule 16 of the criminal justice and immigration act 2008, which creates an offense of stirring up (inciting) hatred on grounds of sexual orientation.

      2. @Keith

        Just as well as you didnt charge for your so called lesson – as I would be reporting you to trading standards for breaching the sale of goods act but rendering services that were not as described – beacuse your legal “so called knowledge” is inaccurate, false and thus in breach of any suggestion you knew what you were talking about …

    2. How we all laughed at (not with) Keith …

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:17pm

        And frequently do…

    3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:15pm

      Frack off Bully.

  31. Yawn Yawn Yawn

  32. Keith

    I remember taking a man, who had just been sectioned due to psychotic behaviour (during the psychotic episode he murdered his wife), to a psychiatric hospital. He believed that the police vehicle we were using to transport him was going to take us to Pluto. He made more sense (on the whole) than your last little tirade.

    You seem so obsessive about homosexuality that you are beseiged in mind of any possibility outside your blinkered view.

    1. Its not for your benefit that I am minimizing my comment towards you …

      You believe in your little mind that you proved a point, that doesnt mean you did … and again, you were lacking in logic and reason

      People have already explained to you that provision of toilets for men and women separately is not discrimination … but of course, you have your mind up – and it must be right if you thought it …

      Not going to be pigeon holed into answering any of your inadequate and irrelevant comments

      1. Blow it out your ear, Keith. Talk sense, willya.

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:24pm

        My Gaga Keith you do talk a absolute load of sh!t!!

  33. John Antrobus 8 Nov 2011, 9:00pm

    Keith, you clearly do no understand. Discriminating between different characteristc is not the same thing as discrimination against certain characteristics. In the provision of separate male and female toilets, there is discrimination between the sexes, but neither sex is disadvantaged by it so no-one is discriminated against.

    The couple were discriminated against by the Bulls because they were denied equal treatment on the basis of a characteristic protected in law.

    1. and you will be proved wrong because you have no concept of what equality in law actually means as your meandering and mischievous diversions regularly prove

  34. John Antrobus 8 Nov 2011, 9:08pm

    Keith, your company would be perfectly legal, as would your service, provided you offered it to everyone equally. So, what’s your point?

    1. Strawman

    2. John Antrobus 9 Nov 2011, 8:43am

      You’re still missing the point. There’s a difference between discriminating between people and discriminating against them.

    3. Pity so few agree with your tripe Keith, maybe the law would work in the favour of backward freaks like you who think the sky is falling down because two gay people live together. Well, it doesn’t.

      Reason trumps your nonsense. Its why you’re here, no one else will put up with you.

      Ever get that “scat” obsession looked at?

      1. “But the law IS in my favour as I have demonstrated.”

        You demonstrated nothing other than you’re mental heath issues and a disturbing penchant for being a sexual risk to others.

        “Scat is not my obsession, rather a tool”

        Please! You’re obsessed. More likely you use tour tool in scat.

        The rest was your usual bollox, so ignored.

        Thank you, please try again.

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:26pm

        My God Keith you don’t ‘alf talk a load of scat!

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:28pm

        Not as fatal as your ignorance which kills more innocent people than any disease.

    4. Keith,

      Again you are showing your stupidity,

      That club is in New York, which is in the United States of America. They are no longer governed by Britain in case you didn’t know.

      1. “It is you who’s morals are twisted.”

        Oh, who cares. You’re just another idiot red-neck bible bester American with delusions of the divine. Reality check on your “morals”: no one cares, no one will care, and no one think you are of any consequence especially when you morals seem obsessed with sex with your sister and scat.

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:29pm

        Keith only knows stupidity, nothing else, he’s not educated and never will be.

    5. I also should have pointed out that NY has passed equal marriage laws so the word marriage covers both heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

  35. There is no god. So no trump. Martyr equals mentally ill person in a time of profound ignorance about just about everything. True Christian means nothing.

  36. … and a prominent senior Tory figure affirms they should be allowed to refuse service to gay couples. Not a word from the PM about this… Guess who that is?

      1. Beberts,

        How is this relevant – it’s from April 2010 for a start. It’s like me pointing out the bigotry of labour because they believed CP’s were enough to bridge the discrimination gap and equal marriage was not necessary. Big deal !

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:31pm

          Exactly. Bit dated, I remember we had such discussion then. Just in case you’ve forgotten this is November, 2011!!

  37. thye’ve got no chance of winning….this is more to do with publicity and should be rejected outright..CP/marriges are the same when it comes to the law, we’re treated the same…there no point playing with the word marriage. they got refused the room becuase they were gay…discrimination …in’t not a home, it’s a business…and they should be made to remove that offending line in their terms and conditions!

    1. Spanner1960 9 Nov 2011, 9:07am

      They are *almost* the same, and most importantly, they are not called Marriages.
      This is the crux of the whole LGBT vs Church argument. It’s just a word, but the gays want equality, and the Church seem to think it belongs exclusively to them.

      Marriage ®33BC Holy Roman Empire and it’s representatives. All Rights Reserved.
      “Holy Matrimony” and “Sanctity of Marriage” ©1534 Deluded ministers in white sheets.

  38. DonHarrison 9 Nov 2011, 9:31am

    That is homophobic, not Christian.
    There are just 5 places in the whole bible that could be misconstrue as reference to homophobic. Both wars and owning a slave are also in there.

    Jesus said “Love thy neighbour as yourself” but did NOT say as long as they are not gay.

    1. burningworm 11 Nov 2011, 9:17am

      To be fair those passages you refer to are based upon wording.

      Customary and uncustomary. That is it. The rest was shaped by King James wanting a very specific document to be disseminated through the English speaking world.

      And the confusion remains.

  39. Dave North 9 Nov 2011, 9:42am

    Yet again, this Keith idiot is commandeering the Pink News forum with slanderous an libellous hate speech.

    I have had enough of this.


    You have been reported to the police for inciting hate.

    Pink News will be in receipt of a summons to identify your IP address thus your ISP account.

    1. What pathetic rubbish, he was having his opinion and view, which he is entitled to. Grow up and grow a thicker skin instead of being a big girls blouse. The Police will do nothing.

      1. Uh huh. And will they be doning nothing before or after they’ve freed the man who set his dog on an innocent woman? Will they be contacting you, a self-professed person who, according to you, makes your living from giving others the benefit of your views?

        Forgive me if I don’t value your knowledge of legal matters, Matthew.

        Dave North – kudos to you.

        1. “Forgive me if I don’t value your knowledge of legal matters, Matthew. ”

          Yeah, its not like this uneducated coward has demonstrated any real intelligence let alone learning. Too poor, perhaps?

        2. @Iris

          Given some of the idiocy and inaccuracy of Matthews comments in the past 2-3 days, I certainly don’t value his legal (or moral) opinion.

      2. @Matthew

        Well the police seem very interested in investigating Alan Craigs for incitement to hatred, so I suspect that they will also take Dave’s allegation equally seriously.

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:33pm

        But I guess you think your bullying will?

    2. @Dave North

      It wasn’t Keith that I reported to the police for inciting homophobic hatred (that was two other issues identified on Pink News) …

      However, if the police need statements from anyone else who was offended by any of Keiths outbursts on here, feel free to ask me.

      1. Noted … and if police seek a statement from me or others – I am more than happy to identify the level of harassment, alarm and distress has been caused by your bigoted intemperant views that you constantly display with vitriolic comments and offensive language which I personally regard and demonstrating hatred.
        I suspect either public order, communications or protection from harassment offenses will be complete with aggravation by hate inspired motivation

        Dave – the offer remains should you wish to volunteer me for a statement

        1. Thats interesting …

          Given your lack of law knowledge that has been fully exhibited on these threads and makes me laugh

          Would you cound my LLB as having little knowledge in law?

    3. Well, they’ll get you some day for sexual offences towards your sister….

    4. Well, given that I have another month of sick leave for my recovery, tomorrow I shall start collating through as many of your hideously worded comments as I can and provide a dossier to PN and urge them to act, through the courts if need be. If they fail, I shall forward the dossier to the police myself, regardless of the other investigation into you and given your lack of knowledge of legal matters you will not be concerned but I look forward to robust action being taken against you.

    5. Clearly you know NOTHING about law as in English law, a court order to produce evidence can be dealt with by way of summons …

      1. Its because he’s a yank… some inbred swamp critter for the south and the product of “ex-gay conversion” – go figure.

  40. Ok, should be be allowed to discriminate against any unmarried couple? In my view no. They should still lose the case even if homophobia wasnt the motive.

  41. Keith,

    You may believe that gods law trumps man’s law but that is simply part of your delusion. It is true that you are perfectly at liberty to follow your gods law even when it conflicts with the laws of the state but you will have to take the consequences – that is what being a martyr is !! I doubt you have the cajones for it. (See a wee word there from a country where the marriages between heterosexuals and homosexuals are indistinguishable just like it will be here soon and all the furore over the Bulls is helping this case as it is the only way to solve this issue – so thank you Keith for working for the cause xxx)

    1. Don’t tease, that was from January 2011.
      I can’t imagine in what way the situation has changed at all since then that the judges ruling would be overturned on appeal, apart from The Christian Institutes heavy lobbying of MP’s with a campaign of propaganda and misinformation about the alleged persecution of anti-gay Christians whose freedom to discriminate against gays has been curtailed by equality legislation, inconveniently for them.

  42. Perhaps if they should go into a shop… someone should say that they can’t be served as the shop owner doesn’t allow Christo-fascists to use the shop!

    Then they might know what its like to be excluded.

    1. Well, you’re a member of the scat community (you just love talking about that crap – literally), so you tell us, princess poo.

      1. Well, wash basins are provided! They can be used to wash after such activity, can’t they? How many times do you think people go to the toilet not wash hands and then do their shopping, picking through the vegetables? I think you are desperate need of psychiatric help. Go talk to your doctor.

      2. If you cant understand my answer to your question in plain Engllsh – then its not just mental health support you need, but education … (we all know you need education in any event)

      3. psycho-babbling Keith

      4. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:39pm

        No-ones avoiding awkward question just ignoring your using hijacking of irrelevent questions. They are pathetic and it’s no good ou throwing a tantrum coz no-one wants to play martyr…

  43. Matthew Walken 9 Nov 2011, 3:49pm

    The Appeal ended in a reserved judgment, which will be published with in the next 3 months.

    1. Look forward to hearing the common sense that the majority or all of the appeal is thrown out

  44. Oh Keith… or is it Rich… no its Keith again. Having run out of names to choose from, you’re back as your old original self. Full of hate and incomprehensible rage. Do take a chill pill dearie, might calm that blood pressure.

    You are discriminatory. Yes. You are! You cannot deny that. And nor can we!

    1. Dribbling moron? Bit strong isn’t it dearie? I’ve been called far worse things, so a dribbling moron doesn’t even move me one iota.

      As a gay guy, why would I want to use women’s toilet facilities anyway????

  45. You’re missing vital points in your familiar rush to abuse. White facilities were infinitely better than those for blacks; and the latter were subject to huge restrictions on movement and settlement that whites were not. Toilets segregated by sex are only unjust (the only morally significant meaning of discrimination) if there are discrepancies in availability or quality, which admittedly there sometimes are; but there is no unacceptable discrimination per se.

    1. Strawman again!

      1. @Keith

        You try even my established patience…

        So sorry, you shall be getting my retorts to the comments I decide to make them too and not when you do or do not want them …

    2. Good grief..are you still obsessing on scat?

      so boring.

  46. There is no safe way to practise heterosexuality either, including monogamously. The presence of risk does not per se invalidate any activity; it is a question of what dangers can be minimized or avoided and whether the rewards can reasonably be considered as outweighing the hazards. I am not, moreover, aware of anyone on these threads who would suggest that any action can be justified if its origins are innate. As usual, you fling out straw man arguments. Emotive question-begging ones too – phrases like ‘clean sexual morals’ reveals nothing but your subjective sense of disgust and your assumption that this is a valid moral guide.

    1. How do you explain one of my former patients then?

      She is an evangelical Christian who is in a monogamous relationship with her husband. They are both committed Christians and have two healthy daughters. Neither of them had sex before marriage (according to their beliefs).

      My former patient is HIV+, neither of her children are, nor her husband (fortunately).

      Neither her or her husband have ever been unfaithful.

      So … now explain how homosexuality had some involvement here – as you seem to propose that every transmission of the virus has something to do with homosexual people.

      I know the answer, having had frequent occasions to deal with my former patient …

      I await with interest to see how you presume this had happened …

      1. Keith

        Try as I might, I am unable to ignore you due to how prolific you are on these threads …

        I suspect I am probably playing into your “game” but nonetheless your ignorant comments are such that I will not stand by and see such heinous comments as yours go without response

        She contracted the HIV virus after the birth of her first child and was diagnosed when pregnant with her second child. Her husband has had numerous tests and remains HIV negative as is the second child (fortunately). She had gone to Namibia to do some relief work and became unwell which resulted in her receiving some blood products from a clinic in Windhoek. It is believed that this was the source of the transmission.

        What this case illustrates is that your insistence that HIV is a “Gay” disease is wrong. HPA stats more than sufficiently evidence this in any case. It also evidences that mothers with HIV do not necessarily cause their unborn to be infected, nor does sex guarantee transmission

    2. Red herring, as usual. Abstinence until a faithful relationship with a same-sex partner would have the same result. And STDs are hardly the only risk, as you well know – vaginal prolapse, complications or worse in childbearing, and cervical cancer associated with smegma under the male foreskin are all risks for heterosexually active women, married and faithful or not. The guys have it relatively easy here.

  47. I suggest you look at the law that I have supplied you with and see how homophobia, racism or other forms of prejudiced views can be then directed at a person and it is the use of words or the perpetrating of acts that are motivated by those prejudiced thoughts that make a crime complete. Of course you try to demonstrate your facetiousness repeatedly, but fail …

    1. So you’re a racist too? What a surprise. Nothing as pathetic as an American fascist.

  48. @Keith

    Abstinence until marriage clearly worked for my patient – didnt it … You didnt say safe from STD you said safe from HIV …

    I shall find your accusation that HIV is a gay disease when I begin collating my folio on your hatred tomorrow … I know you said it …

    Some mothers do infect their babies – this is true – kill them … depends where they are born but if they are in the UK and get ARVs then they do not have a reduced life expectancy …

    The fallacy that gays infect unborn babies demonstrates sufficiently your lacking real ability to evaluate evidence and facts … gay men do not infect unborn babies …

    1. Bisexual men might …. gay no …

      As for your quote – that one may say what you claim you always say – but I know that when I have finish collating your thousands of vile and inhumane posts that I will find numerous which state exactly what I remember you saying

      1. Well, you never answered the question put to you about your obvious mental health issues or ex-gay conversion. So, why would you possible think anyone here would care they you’re having a hissy fit because no one is paying attention to your perverse comments……

        ……which are being deleted as I speak? LOL!

  49. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:28am

    A Shameful act by shameful people just because they want the right to discriminate.

    They don’t end of.

  50. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:41am

    Shame the same can’t be sad about you.

  51. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 11:42am

    Chosen religious lifestyles can never trump how others are born. End of.

  52. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 12:18pm

    What a bore.

  53. Stu’s broadband connection was lost for a few hours, then had some sleep and went to see his boss re his sick leave then came back on line – thanks for enquiring and caring about my welfare, troll

  54. Faeces boy is off again…. must be getting desperate now that his repugnant comments of idiocy are being removed.

    (smiling already)

  55. “Mr Dingemans (legal argument) is playing up the non-married side to the maximum. He is reported in the Guardian as going as far as saying that: “[The Bulls] have prevented hundreds of unmarried couples sharing double beds.” Claiming that the Bulls discriminated against both unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples might well muddy the legal water over whether they unlawfully directly discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation.

    Yet the claim that the Bulls did not rent rooms to unmarried straight couples was flatly contradicted by NSS council member Ray Newton who revealed that in 2006 he and his female partner stayed at the hotel in a double room. They signed the registration book with different names and at no stage purported to be a married couple. Mr Newton said they were never asked whether they were married – and it never occurred to him that it would be an issue.”

  56. “Mr Dingemans (legal argument) is playing up the non-married side to the maximum. He is reported in the Guardian as going as far as saying that: “[The Bulls] have prevented hundreds of unmarried couples sharing double beds.” Claiming that the Bulls discriminated against both unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples might well muddy the legal water over whether they unlawfully directly discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation.

    “Yet the claim that the Bulls did not rent rooms to unmarried straight couples was flatly contradicted by NSS council member Ray Newton who revealed that in 2006 he and his female partner stayed at the hotel in a double room. They signed the registration book with different names and at no stage purported to be a married couple. Mr Newton said they were never asked whether they were married..

    Mr Newton said: “We made no bones about our not being married and nobody asked any questions either before we arrived, while we were there or after we left.”

    1. Excuse double posts above, my original post didn’t show up until half an hour after I posted it.

  57. May I suggest to everyone that we cease to respond to that lunatic Keith in any way? He thrives on the attention and its only consequence is to fuel his factually inaccurate spewing of cuasi-pornographic hatred and obsession with (only some) gay sex.

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.