Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

QC argues Christian hotel owners are “entitled to outdated beliefs”

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jennie Kermode 9 Nov 2011, 3:50pm

    This misses the point entirely. Nobody is challenging the Bulls’ right to hold those beliefs (or any other beliefs). They are challenging their right to actively discriminate.

    1. But don’t nightclubs discriminate against people coming in all the time – bars, private members clubs – these are all private enterprises and all discriminate for a whole host of reasons – isn’t you’re too ugly just as bad as we don’t want unmarried people sharing a bed (obviously it wasn’t because of that, it was because they were gay) – but there is already precendent

      1. Yes but a bouncer will always use the excuse that a punter is drunk or disorderly or dressed inappropriately.

        If a bouncer states that he is refusing entry to somone based on their race; gender etc then he is breaking the law.

      2. @Jonathan

        If it was able to be proved that the doorstaff or management of a nightclub etc sought to discriminate against a particular group of people, then it would be feasible to bring a case against them on grounds of breach of the equality act (provided the group restricted had a protected characteristic).
        However, I suspect that in many cases that would not be possible due to those being refused entry being intoxicated or rowdy and the doorstaff or management either using that intoxication or rowdiness as a legitimate reason or excuse for the refusal of entry.

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 1:30pm

        A very poor/weak argument.

    2. “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. “QC argues Christian hotel owners are “entitled to outdated beliefs””

    Entitled to hold them, but not to impose them.

    1. @Will

      Exactly

      No one was trying to deny the Bulls their beliefs. They are entitled to believe anything they feel is right for them (no matter how reasonable or unreasonable this is).

      However, they are not entitled to demand imposition of those beliefs on customers – regardless of whether their home is also a business or not.

  3. They are absolutely entitled to believe whatever they like,

    They run a business open to the public however.

    They do not have the right to inflict their outdated beliefs on the rest of society.

    1. they should.
      I’m gay and it’s easy to see the right that it’s incorrect to impose our beliefs on them.
      Their business, their rules. If we disagree (and we should) we should simply take our business elsewhere.

      1. No, they have entered the public arena, and the modern law regulates the public arena. This isnt the USA where nutters get away with saying that it’s their private property so they can break all equality laws. These meople moved deliberately into the public arena of offering a service for money to the public. We do not live in Iran – gay people are entitled by law to equal service. Full stop. They are onto a loser.

      2. A strange thing to say Anon, no gay couples are likely to force the owners of a B&B to join them in the bedroom for a cuddle and a bit of kip.
        I wasn’t aware that gays had a set of special beliefs we could impose on anyone, what is this gay dogma and what is it’s source? I’m most curious.

        1. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 9:12am

          The “Gay Dogma”, as you called it, is equality for all.

          http://www.gayagendabook.com/

          1. “Does this include the male adult incestuous community who are currently unlawful but harm nobody.”

            Didn’t stop your parents being brother and sister, did it? Ao yeah, knock your self out there if you’re sister is as thick as you and wants to do that sort of thing….

          2. Keith your dull, Fu<k off somewhere else, christian websites are usually as dull as you why not go and bore them.

          3. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:44am

            Keith, your such a fake!

      3. “I’m gay and it’s easy to see the right that it’s incorrect to impose our beliefs on them.”

        I suspect you’re not gay.

        If you were gay, you’d know being gay is not a “belief”, we impose.

        1. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:42am

          Indeed, I mean a load of Keith.

      4. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:41am

        If only it was that simple.

    2. Exactly – they might have the religious “belief” that meat should be served raw and rotten – but they do not have the right to inflict that on persons who have a public contract of reasonable service with them.

      These people always want to have it both ways – they have the right to their superstitions – but the paying customer has the right to decent and equitable service. They can never see this.

      They ALWAYS push for exemptions and special treatment. Why can’t all their guests just have normal treatment?

      Why do the weird voices in their head tell them to pick on certain people and not others?

  4. Christine Beckett 9 Nov 2011, 4:02pm

    And that’s it?

    That’s the best argument they could come up with?

    Hope they are no strangers to disappointment.

    chrissieB

    1. C. McLuhan 9 Nov 2011, 4:15pm

      Incidentally, “the hoteliers’ policy was designed to obviate the sexual practices they objected to,” who knows WHAT goes on in the privacy of a couple’s life when they are in the hotel? If they did, their discrimination would probably be more wide ranging. No, they don’t want to see two men (or women) being too intimate anywhere within eyesight, and whatever that might mean is anyone’s guess.

    2. de Villiers 9 Nov 2011, 10:18pm

      The case has taken two days. I am sure that there have been other arguments that have not been reported by Pink News.

    3. They may not be strangers to disappointment but they do seem to be strangers to reality at least.

  5. Right, I tell you what… When Gay Marriage becomes legal in this country we should all book our honeymoons at their Hotel…We’ll see what their defence will be then…

    Not directly discriminatory indeed…

    1. de Villiers 9 Nov 2011, 10:19pm

      Why bother? Why would you want to go there?

      1. For the sake of seeing how uncomfortable they feel! Got to be cruel to be kind!

  6. Melanoma Phillips 9 Nov 2011, 4:27pm

    They were refused any room, not just a double. They were turned away. The Bull’s witnesses were inconclusive whether there were any other rooms available. All this after having made a booking over the phone and travelling there. Outrageous. And the defence is disingenuous.

    1. You don’t expect a lawyer from The Christian Institute to present the facts of a case accurately.

      1. de Villiers 10 Nov 2011, 11:49am

        I do actually. And I am sure the facts have been presented accurately as they will be contained with the judgment of the judge at first instance.

        It may be worth checking what are the facts – whether they really were refused any room. We’ll be able to see when the appeal judgment is released.

        1. @de Villiers

          With regards any agent or employee of the CI – I would HOPE they would tell the truth, based on my experience of the CI, I would not EXPECT them to tell the truth …

          1. You got it Stu!

  7. Nathan, they still would be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs, as outdated and absurd as the are. Religious belief trumps the rights of gay peoples’ rights.

    That said, I sincerely hope that gay businesses will be allowed to discriminate against anyone who has identical beliefs as these hoteliers based on what we choose to believe to be wrong and offencive to our own.

    1. No, see their entire defence has been they refuse none married couples, not gay people. I would like to know what their legal defence will be when Gay marriage is legal… that’s my point :p

      I mean they already lost the first case, and I can’t see them winning this appeal… If they did it would just open the flood gates for religious discrimination in all area’s: Sexual Orientation, Race, Opposing religious beliefs, Sex… The Judges just can’t allow that…

      1. Since they have extreme religious beliefs, I would surmise they would still use the same defence against gay people, married or not. To them, they believe in the one man one woman mantra to the exclusion of gay and straight unmarried people alike. I don’t think they’d find it difficult to persist in discriminating even if we win marriage equality. To them, marriage is all religion based between a man and a woman. There are no grey areas in their mindset. Whatever the bible says, they believe.

        1. “There are no grey areas in their mindset. Whatever the bible says, they believe.”

          Irrelevant. Human rights cannot exist when those who want to impose discrimination on others becuase of a stupid book they select passages out of, have their beliefs supersede the rights of the individual to exist without due persecution. The law is there to protect individuals and society form foolish old people who think they have a right to dictate “beliefs” to others. What they believe is irrelevant. They will lose this appeal.

  8. I think the main point of it is that they displayed a notice on their webpage saying no joint rooms for unmarried couples and in brackets stipulated “between a man and a women and excludes all others”. That is the bit they are arguing is discriminatory because they are stipulating who is allowed to be married. Actively discriminating against LGBT persons

    1. 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.”

  9. David Skinner 9 Nov 2011, 5:19pm

    The Bulls, do not question what hidden fancies couples who sleep in their beds might have. There might be men and women who occupy their double beds who entertain all manner of sexual predilictions: incest, paedophilia, zoophilia, sado – masochism, necrophilia , MSM, sex with wardrobes and the M5 motorway. All that they demand is that they are one man and one woman who are married until death parts them. Period. Preddy and Hall could have chosen out of hundreds of gay beds in Cornwall but no; they demanded the Hall’s

    1. Exactly. The demands of the vile, homophobic Bull couple were arbitrary, discriminatory, bigoted, and AGAINST THE LAW, while the gay husbands merely wanted to be treated the same way as everyone else.

      Being gay is not about sexual predilections. It is about love and partnership. Nice try, bigot, but you fail yet again – in this argument and as a decent, moral human being.

    2. David, you have mental health issues….What have your incest, pedo, zoophilia, m5 motorway fetishes got to do with a gay couple? Go and get some help.

      1. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 9:15am

        A Type I homophobe is a gay or bisexual person that represses their own sexuality. They tend to be viciously homophobic and self-hating closeted homosexual or bisexual homophobes. Usually, either they are religious or they live in a religious community. In general, this kind of people will have been bullied and brainwashed into believing being gay and engaging in a gay relationship is wrong, dangerous or undesirable.

        [Gay Agenda, 2:7] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#2_7)

        1. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 9:16am

          Once they have made the decision to repress their feelings, Type I homophobes need to denigrate gay men and women or gay couples to justify their own failure to accept themselves. Thus they will build a bogus narrative whereby civil marriage for a gay couple is evil, will destroy heterosexual marriage, will spread diseases, etc. They will often claim to have been “cured of homosexuality”, although in practise, these kind of people are often caught out. There have been numerous cases of “ex-gay councellors”, homophobic male senators and others that have been caught with male prostitutes [Gay Agenda, 3:6].

          [Gay Agenda, 2:8] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#2_8)

    3. Have you listened to your comments read out loud, David …?

      Do they not concern you about how demented they sound?

      Maybe its time to seek that help …

    4. Please ask a friend to read your comments before posting.

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

      So very dull.

  10. David Skinner 9 Nov 2011, 5:23pm

    Moreover, Hamilton Hall, Bournemouth, a gay hotel has been allowed to to discriminate against straight, or in your parlance, heterosexual relationships and behaviour on the basis that such relationships will destroy the gay ethos. This blatant discrimination is practised by many gay outfits. The public will tolerant this injustice only for so long.,

    1. Because providing a safe space for a bullied minority is exactly the same as imposing bigoted, hateful, archaic and irrational attitudes on that same bullied minority I suppose?

    2. Yawn…. more repetitive lies..

    3. then I challenge all these superstitious bigots to come to any gay pub or club and enjoy a relaxed evening where no one will victimize them –
      oh wait, they won’t enter a Den of Iniquity where sodomists lurk? because of their ‘religious ignorance and hate –
      oh and Dickhead err I mean David, not all clubs will stop you from going in just because of how you look!

    4. @David Skinner

      When did you last book into a Gay Hotel, and were then rejected for being Heterosexual?

      1. He prefers parks at 4am.

        1. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:39am

          Oh, ain’t that the truth!! lol

    5. I’ve been into plenty of gay clubs down Canal St where heteros are welcomed, but normally you find there’s always at least one deeply insecure straight guy clutching his girlfriend like she’s a liferaft, even if the only gay contingent in the place is serving behind the bar.
      Had the pleasure of the company of onesuch charmer over New Years a few years back, propping up the bar telling everyone else within earshot who was minding their business and couldn’t care less “No offence but I’m not queer”.
      Was tempted to say “well I’ll ask you again after the next 3 lagers” just to wind him up.
      So I think you’ll find in general we don’t discriminate at the door, given some of the egits we put up with.

      1. We won’t allow people who look like they might kick off or cause trouble, this is what all clubs do so what’s the difference, straight people are perfectly fine aslong as they abide by our rules which is not to harrass or cause problems for the gay community who use the pub/club.

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

      Still very dull.

  11. If this hotel/b&b charges money for accomodation, then it is a buisness. Period.

    If the Bulls have these Christian beliefs, and I would suggest they are fundamentalists, then I trust that they are not open on a Sunday (the day of rest).

    Also I trust that when serving breakfast the do not include bacon or pork sausages (see Leviticus, a few verses about the one about .man ‘lying with man’ that fundamentalist are fond of quoting when slamming gays).

    1. @MarkW

      It certainly seems they operate their business on a Sunday (from their website), and as you can see on the link below they certainly serve bacon ….

      http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/menu.html

      1. Sure, looks like there is definitely pork on their menu–at both meals. However, fundamentalists tend to pick and choose what they want to observe.

    2. Wow, such a poor understanding of what a Christian believes. Try looking at Acts 10 when it comes to food. They are Christians not Jews. Moreover, you call them fundamentalists and appear to have no knowledge of what fundamentalists actually are. Someone who holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith has a very different set of beliefs to what you seem to suggest. Mind I suppose it’s ok to falsely label someone whom you do not know, that never causes any harm does it? Clearly you have made no research into their beliefs and you make stupid glib comments about Day of Rest and bacon. You do not understand the sabbath at all and have no clue about Christian dietary requirements either. Get a grip and stop falsely labeling people.

      You may (rightly or wrongly) disagree with their stance but the idea at heart is whether or not civil partnerships in law are the equal of marriage and they are not in the opinion of some. You think otherwise but who says you are right?

      1. Wow your own arrogance for a subject you clearly do not know anything about.

        Fundamentalist – to believe a literal sense of the bible this may include there views to evolution but also involves the use of the Old Testament to decide on the morals “such as leviticus”

        The segment which assertains that homosexuality is a sin is literally within a few lines distance from the bits that say no work shall be done on the sabbath or that pork should not be eaten, many people believe that the Old Testament can be ignored as Jesus wiped that slate clean however Jesus himself say’s no law shall change until the rapture falls, and even if they had that would mean that homosexuality is no longer a sin anyway so that falls flat on its arse.

        1. Fundamentalist is someone who holds to the five basic truths as put forward in”The Fundamentals” edited by R.A. Torrey with contributors such as H.A. Ironside and C.I. Scofield published in 1909. You know nothing of the topic if you use the stupid and pointless description you put forward here.

          Again, I cite Acts 10 which clearly shows the new law regarding food. Jesus and the Holy Spirit gave the first Christians a number of laws which superseded the older ones. Interestingly neither removed the fact that homosexuality is a sin alongside so many other things to Christians. I am glad that Christ’s newer interpretation of the message clarified the need to hold off on anger and judgment given everybody’s sinful and fallen status which mean we no longer stone homosexuals or adulterers etc.

          Please don’t dare to say I do not know what a fundamentalist is, you have no idea what I have read and studied. Your definition does not fit the definition held by most scholars of the subject.

          1. However Jesus say’s “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” meaning all the old laws still stand and regardless of the food laws the sabbath law still stands even in what Jesus say’s

        2. As an aside, you may be right about the origins of the term fundamental but it’s used much more loosely these days (check the OED), most obviously because it’s also used to describe extremist members of other religions.

          1. Ah, OED, the source of all knowledge. You need to research their views before calling them names. After all, surely calling names without understanding them is wrong isn’t it?

            The point about this is that they are not decrying homosexuality as something that is a far worse sin than anything else as many here think. It is not the worst sin at all as these Christians know. It is as bad as adultery and many other sins (the list is rather long) and they don’t allow (known) adulterers or those non-married to sleep in the same bed. The issue remains is civil partnership legally the same as marriage. Morally it may (in your opinion) or may not be but the legal case has yet to be proven.

            Further aside, interesting to note how many people on here quote from the KJV which any modern Christian knows is a flawed translation

          2. Unless you speak ancient times Hebrew you have no idea which translation is which as all translations have been twisted to fit the views of the translator of whichever Bible you use.

        3. So they choose to accept the law from Leviticus about homosexuality (allegedly) but not the bits about pork, shellfish, mixed fibre clothing etc – because they are new testament followers … well clearly they pick and choose bits of the old testament to suit their hypocracy

      2. The hipocracy of And what?’s statement is stunning. These bigots feel completely fine with stating mistruths about LGBTI folk and not accepting correction from our community but are sooooo quick to make their point about how missunderstood they are.

  12. Yes, and if they had the outdated belief that it was acceptable to murder gay people because that’s what Leviticus tells them to do then I’m sure it would also go as far as the Court of Appeals before the case was laughed out of the justice system.

    Outdated views are not an excuse for flouting the law of the land. The law says you aren’t allowed to discriminate here. End of story.

    1. In a nutshell. Precisely.

  13. They turned down the two men to ‘obviate sexual practices they objected to’ – an object solely directed at a gay couple. And they weren’t discriminating???

    1. This was a mature civil partnered gay couple, who says they intended to have sex at all, they might have been planning no more than to get a good nights sleep and have breakfast in the morning, for the Bulls to assume anything beyond that is a speculation to far and frankly absolutely none of their business.
      For example, on the night they turned away the gay couple were the Bulls planning to have geriatric heterosexual sex in their own room? is this sort of prurient speculation a legitimate concern of anyone’s?
      Certainly the Bulls seem to think it’s acceptable to speculate about gay couples activities in just this prurient way.

  14. The Bulls keep on about being Christians, but no church, not even their local church ever associates itself with them. They are just being used by fanatics at the Christian Institute.

    Only week, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds even had to apologise on behalf of Christians in general for the ‘sinister and vicious campaign that sought to misinform’ by the Christian Institute against two members of the House of Lords.

    1. Absolutely right about that vicious campaign the so-called Christian Institute conducted, the most unfortunate thing was that their vile campaign of lies achieved it’s goal, there is no end to the depths they will stoop to achieve their fanatical aims.

  15. Matthew Walken 9 Nov 2011, 6:11pm

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

    1. Thanks for keeping us up to date :)

  16. They are entitled to their beliefs. Their just not entitled to discriminate. Which they did.

    If their beliefs didnt translate into actions, this lawsuit wouldnt be happening.

  17. i feel the problem is that although there is a law saying u can’t discriminate against us, we don’t have the same rights as straight people, give us all the same rights as then that will show the rest of this country that we are equal but by saying we are equal except when it comes to marrage it just sends out the wrong massage. equal should mean equal no exceptions!!!

    1. Agreed, Tanya. It is a bit of a mixed message to say that all people are to be treatd fairly and equally underr the law when there is homophobic legislation that contradicts that sentiment.

    2. Yes, unequal rights for gays in law helps to legitimise anti-gay homophobia and bullying by confirming that gay and lesbian people are less-than in some way.

      1. Absolutely right. It tacitly sanctions homophobia by implicitly suggesting that OUR rights are up for discussion while other people’s aren’t.

        You can see that reading comments on this case in the newspapers. Yes, you get the occasional racist comment (I wouldn’t have X in my shop, etc) but they are rare. However, so many people seem to think it’s perfectly OK to make homophobic comments and two reasons for this are the law and the public comments of some religious groups.

  18. People are absolutely entitled to outdated beliefs. They are entitled to wholly irrational beliefs. Every human being is entitled to hold their personal belief, without exception. Their personal beliefs are just that, personal. Acting on beliefs, especially when that action harms other people is a totally different matter altogether. The Bulls already have freedom of belief. They are not entitled to freedom of action if that ation harms others and breaks the law.

  19. The essential problem here is that the Bulls aren’t good fundamentalists.
    Were they good, fundamentalist Biblical Christians, they would, of course, have to refuse accomodation to ‘spiritually less evolved’ individuals – for example Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bahai’s, Zoroastrians, Jains, Jedi and adherents of the recent Giant Spaghetti Monster. Even if they were all legally maried.Because that’s what the Bible teaches.
    Also, they wouldn’t allow any black people through the doors unless they were slaves. Of course, the upside to this would mean they wouldn’t need to pay minimum wage because all they’d have to do – according to the Old Testament – is nip over to France and enslave some Johnny Foreigner. Because that’s Biblically alright.
    This is what anoys me about these ‘fundamentalist’ Christians. They’re all so half-arsed in the application of their beliefs. They believe that oppressing the gays is enough to gain entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven.
    Silly so-and-sos. They must try harder.

    1. they just don’t want to move out of the 18th century I think

  20. I doubt even the QC believes what he’s saying.

  21. I believe in the outdated belief of how the bible deals with adulterers, fantastic where is my ex I shall now put him to death as that is the punishment.

    ok ok keith mr I am a bigot sorry “Out of Context”

  22. Penzance is in Cornwall, so why in gods name are you calling it a Devonshire hotel PN!? As a proud Devonian I find it highly offensive you are associating us with deepest darkest Kernow!

  23. If they won – and I’m certain they won’t – wouldn’t it effectively mean that any hotel business could put up a sign in the window saying ‘no gays allowed’?

    It really would be 1938.

    1. but if they win on their outdated belief case think of all the fun people will have pleading to courts that they only stoned so and so or killed what’s his name because they believed it was the right thing to do and they can quote these fools the Bulls as precedence. I cant wait I am scouring the bible and other religions to find what I shall do first mwhahahahaha.

      1. Well yeah, if you can break one law on religious grounds, why not all the others?

      2. de Villiers 10 Nov 2011, 3:02pm

        I really doubt that stoning will take place if this case falls the wrong way.

        1. Naive … am certain there will be those who will take advantage due to their “belief system and world view”

    2. If they win, then gay businesses should be allowed to put up signs saying “no religious people wellcome.” Fair is fair. This will open up a can of worms if this is allowed to stand.

  24. Do they refuse to take in unmarried straight couples?

    1. No but they refuse to allow them to share a bed. Have you not read the story on any other site than this?

      1. They clearly don’t comprehend the possibility of sex in a single bed. Not much imagination.

      2. How do they enforce this and establish whether the heterosexuals are married or not … ask for a marriage certificate?

        If so (which I severely doubt) then they presume that gay couples are not in a marriage (although in law a CP is as valid as a marriage currently) … thus per se they are discriminating particularly against LGBT people and also against unmarried couples and arguably non-Christians …

      3. Obviously not…but disregarding gay or straight..you cannot and should not descriminate against people who WANT to be together and share a bed! Not EVERYONE in the country are married, such as my sister and brother-in-law. They marry next year, but at the moment they live ‘in sin’! So these people would also descriminate against them. But as Rehan has said…how do you prove marriage with out your licence?

        So all in all this really does mostly get down to blatant descrimination against LGBT couples!

    2. Their website says:

      “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.”

      Flagrant discrimination.

      Once the anti brigade stop rattling the cage, we’ll have equality. People keep banging on about gays having more rights as opposed to married couples. We’d have the SAME rights is the anti brigade just kept quiet.

  25. Johnny33308 10 Nov 2011, 1:35am

    In public accomodation, all people are to be treated EQUALLY! This is a civil matter, since this is not a ‘religious’ organization, nor is it a church-this accomodation serves the PUBLIC, therefore falls under civil laws, not religious ones. Simple common sense, really.

    1. Couldn’t agree more!!! They’re running a busniess AND a service as you have said, so there for their own beliefs cannot and should not come into this.

  26. Sure they are entitled to have those “outmoded beliefs”. They just shouldn’t be able to use them to be able to discriminate.

  27. Diana Taylor 10 Nov 2011, 5:52am

    As a child in this country, I remember vividly, the signs in my home town’s boarding house window’s reading “No Blacks, Irish or Dogs” as this type of discrimination has been made a thing of the past so shall be discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and gender…

    1. dave wainwright 10 Nov 2011, 7:21am

      I believe Dogs are still discriminated against and still unable to access accommodation without prejudice.

      1. Rubber Ducky 10 Nov 2011, 11:40am

        sept guide dogs :P

        1. Keith is a dog, I believe.

          1. I hate resorting to name calling, I always thought it was a bit crass and unnecessary but when your right your right and he seems to be getting more rabid with each posting he makes, maybe we should turn to the fundamentalist christian and bigots point of view and have him put down before he spreads his sickness to the rest of society? lol

          2. No, seriously, the man is an animal. Not being facetious, he is. Its a fact. We all know it. We all see it. Sure, even he must have some idea of how debase he is.

          3. Ohh i know and I totally agree with you, after seeing some of the stuff he has written and his general treatment of us on here my comment, although trying to be humorous, was quite genuine in feeling though.

            He is a very psychologically and emotionally sick person and if he is like how he types in real life I hope someone reports him to the authorities

          4. A wild, rabid one that is foaming at the mouth and hates anything. Literally.

  28. dave wainwright 10 Nov 2011, 7:19am

    Entitlement to religious beliefs however outdated does not entitle one to discriminate with prejudice to insult and humiliate, nor to break the laws of the land. HOMOPHOBIA is a HATE CRIME.

    1. what you mean like you, with reference to our uncleanliness (yes I am taking it out of context) dammit you definitely can’t be gay, most gay men well most of the ones i know are fastidiously clean ohh and dress better.

      It is sad little Hitler’s like you that we need to defend ourselves against, with your diatribe of pure hatred and verbal bile. If god exists and he made me then he made me who I am, I was gay when I was born, I was gay before puberty, I was gay when I hit puberty and guess what I am still gay. and in my brief attempt at online dating it was straight men that kept contacting me wanting to have unprotected sex, strangely enough all the gay men (including myself) wanted to go out for coffee and if the occasion arose wanted to stay safe. So please just go away and join your homophobic pathetic hate inciting brethren on other forums where you can discuss our uncleanliness to your heart content and not have to force us to defend ourselves.

      1. I like probably many others on here do not frequent christian forums and force you to listen to similar faeces based comments (and I am not saying there arent those that dont do that) so have some respect and when voicing your opinion do so in a polite manner and dont be a jerk.

      2. ohhhh back to that contradictory and hypocritical book you keep banging on about. as I have said before you are a bile filled expression of loathing and hatred and have no respect for other people or your own religion. or are you just an old testament flunky. Your hypothesis are not backed up by science, only backed up by a flawed book written by many different hands, translated from anther language that does not have all the same words that english has and has been edited by so many people, and idiot we don’t live in a religious society. sigh tbh you are not even worth the energy spent trying to enlighten you and I think your rhetoric so sad I now pity you. your god is gonna have some serious words with you before he throws your arse in hell for using the word of god to spread hate and love (well depends if you believe in the old testament fire and brimstone god or teh fuzzy luvvy god the new testament)

      3. @Dafy

        That contradictory book which appearently he doesn’t believe in because he won’t admit to being a Christian, which must mean he is denying Christ and thus not a Christian – so why he would value a historical narrative and set of poetry that is contradictory, who knows?

      4. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:25am

        “there is no gay gene”

        Ok Fake man, prove it… and while your there prove there is a ‘straight’ gene, too.

    2. “WHO FROTH PROFUSELY AT THE MOUTH”

      Says the inbred-hick using block capitals to spew forth his unrequited anger…. LOL! What a tosser.

    3. “Many decent peole have a ‘ratioanal ‘ aversion to homosexual acts due to their uncleanness and ungodliness.”

      You’ve clearly coined the term ‘ratioanal’ to try and justify your rectal obsessions, poor dear. (PS: if you meant ‘rational’, what has reason to do with ‘godliness’?)

    4. Keith

      I would remind you of this legislation:

      http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/circular-05-2010-sexual-orientation-stirring-up-hatred.pdf

      Section 74 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which provides that:

      “Section 74 amends Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (the 1986 Act)
      so as to create offences of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of
      sexual orientation.”

      The Act amends six existing offences under the Public Order Act to extend them to cover the stirring up of hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. The offences cover:
       the use of words or behaviour or the display of written material (section 29B(1));
       the publishing or distribution of written material (section 29C(1));
      the public performance of a play (section 29D(1));
      distributing, showing or playing a recording (section 29E(1));
       broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service (section 29F(1); and
       possession of inflammatory material (section 29G(1)).

    5. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:21am

      Fake, nothing you say can be taken seriously!! It’s just for attention and you know you’ve been busted.

  29. dave wainwright 10 Nov 2011, 7:31am

    The Christian Institute and The Christian Law/Legal Centre are shameless in the amount of money that is thrown at this and similar cases that could and should be used to feed the starving in this world or at very least to help the poor instead of the poor in spirit. Just how much have these cases and appeals cost ? (I am thinking of the other cases where people refused to do the work they were employed to do in public service when it applied to gay people.). After this a line should be written in the sand and no further cases and appeals to be countenanced when sought by these institutions .

    1. They are in league with the US Christian Alliance Defense Fund, indeed the Christian Institute has now set up it’s own Legal Defence Fund. This from their website.
      “The Christian Institute has set up a Legal Defence Fund. The aim is to fund the costs of legal action and the associated campaign work in cases of national importance for religious liberty.

      There are a growing number of cases where Christian freedom is being restricted by official bodies, often acting completely outside the law. Parliament and the courts have laid down many precious rights and freedoms in the UK. These freedoms need to be used. We want to use the Legal Defence Fund to protect Christian religious freedom and restrain those who are unlawfully harassing and discriminating against Christian believers.

      We also want to use the fund to intervene in strategic court cases where precedents could be set which may affect Christian religious liberty.”

    2. From the Christian Institutes Legal Defence Fund page

      “We want to use the Legal Defence Fund to protect Christian religious freedom and restrain those who are unlawfully harassing and discriminating against Christian believers.”

      So I guess that will be LGBT’s who are harassing and discriminating against Christian believers by simply just existing and trying to get on with their ordinary everyday lives, if they should as much as cross the path of a fundamentalist Christian they will be persecuting them and their beliefs.

  30. Maybe they do have a right to hold their beliefs. Yes. Hold them, not inflict them upon others.

    Stupid rule about not allowing unmarried couples to share the same bed.

  31. These Christian hotel owners should not be allowed to discriminate against people. It is against the law. If they continue it, then they should have their licence taken off them.

    1. “licebsed”? Couldn’t hit the keyboard with your face quick enough to get that one out, could you?

      Try block capitals next time, it makes your argument so “intelligent”, doesn’t it? And a whole day so far without a mention of the misspelled faeces. Good for you, Keith, stay on that wagon!

      1. damn did I spell it wrong or is it his constant use of it whilst being misspelled you meant? lol

        1. Oh, most certainly our erudite Keith poor spelling… although the hissy fits and the poor mental state make him lose coordination of his fingers! LOL!

          He’s a produce of a failed US education system and a inbred parents who thought the bible was all he needed to read. The result:- Thick as a brick.

          Poor Keith, an animal with access to a laptop. Probably stole it…..

        2. I wonder which browser he uses maybe if we knew then we could instruct him how to add a spell checker onto his browser so we would not have to suffer poorly spelled obtuse homophobic rants. lol

        3. I suppose which ever browser is authorised by the hospital he confined to….

        4. Ohh that will have to be that dismal MS one then err internet exploder or something, ohh well lol

        5. Keith luvs ‘dem der kom-put-ers ‘nd theirs porno sites that dey have ins thems….

        6. David Myers 11 Nov 2011, 9:08am

          Dafy: Somehow I don’t think correctly spelled obtuse homophobic rants (particularly from Keith) would be any less insufferable ;-)

  32. I laughed when I read this pathetic defence. Surely anyone with two brain cells could dismiss that in a moment?

    The haters at the UnChristian Institute don’t really care about losing cases, so will take on almost anything, because although winning would be a bonus, the whole point is to stir up hatred and try to suggest that Christians are being persecuted in some way. They repeat this lie enough times and hope that people will think it’s true.

    1. Yes, manufactured controversy through relentless vexatious litigation is the way they work.

      1. Beautifully put

        I could not agree more

        Vexatious and vacuous, I might add.

        1. And yet if their silly cases were stopped they’d only whine on about being persecuted even more. For them it’s a win-win situation.

          So – let them make asses of themselves in Court but make damn sure everyone realises the extent of their lies and attempts to misrepresent cases to further their own aims.

    2. “the whole point is to stir up hatred and try to suggest that Christians are being persecuted in some way.”

      Yeah, makes you laugh that they somehow blindly think that discrimination is the “word of Jesus” – its simply proof that they just grasp at straws to back up their hate for others. “Christian” in nothing but name, alas.

      I mean look at Keith, that depth of depravity and ignorance is what there is to look forward to if you become “extreme christian”…

      1. Just over the last few years a number of my friends who’d previously identified themselves as Christians in a moderate kind of way are now quite vocal atheists or agnostics. The main reason for this is the actions of the churches and ridiculous cases like this. So at least in that way the UnChristian Institute and their cromies are doing everyone a favour. Keith too! Seriously, he’s the perfect example of ‘religion gone bad’!

  33. Imagine the consequence if the judge finds in their favour – It would mean that the codified sovereign rule of law is inferior to personal beliefs. Given that the scope, sincerity and quality of a belief in an unprovable talisman cannot be measured, then a precedent could be set where a personal belief in the invisible pink bunny in the corner of the room is justification to break any law. The Bulls have to lose, or it will be legal carnage.

  34. burningworm 10 Nov 2011, 12:20pm

    Even the guilty deserve a defence. Its a legal defence “entitled to outdated beliefs”-a poorly constructed one.

    Tis the law.

    I’m ultra confident in reason in this moment and at this time in history. Right and rights shall prevail.

  35. Are there any legal experts who can tell me if it is actually legal to turn away unmarried straight couples from a B&B or hotel?
    I have tried to discover this before but not managed to find any answers, it sounds like something that might have happened up until the late 1960’s but in the 21st Century?

    1. Father Dougal 10 Nov 2011, 2:21pm

      As I understand it, it’s against the ECHR to discriminate on the grounds of marital status. But I could be wrong.

      1. Plus there is our legal right to privacy where we do not have to divulge this information if wish and the b&b are not legally allowed ask. I am pretty certain that is the case with law on those grounds (though I may be incorrect)

    2. de Villiers 10 Nov 2011, 3:03pm

      The prohibition is against discrimination on grounds of marriage or civil partnership. It is not unlawful to discriminate against someone on the grounds of them being single.

  36. Father Dougal 10 Nov 2011, 2:18pm

    Aren’t this so-called Christian couple just acting like the religious police in other countries?

    1. Yes, good point, I’d say they definitely are.

  37. does anyone know who the three judges in the court of appeal were please?

    1. Constitution:
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT
      LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
      LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY

      1. Anyone know what these judges are like in terms of their religious affiliations, views on liberal democracy and human rights etc etc?

        1. Yes. No religious affiliations though I doubt a senior judge at that level would allow personal beliefs to affect a judgement.

          I would say all three would be considered more liberal, or at least, enlightened and civilised than not and all three would be keen to protect human rights. Let’s see.

          1. Thanks, Andrew

  38. I cant believe nothing has been done about Keith and his ilk who spreads his poisonous sick and foul rhetoric despite my reporting him and I guess many others. I have no issues with intelligent discussion (not to be confused with intelligent design) or heated debates but this guy has no interest in that. His foul verbal diarrhoea not only crosses the line into homophobic stereotyping of us being the cause of disease and a blight on the earth but also insults many christians who believe in the main spirit of their faith, forgiveness, tolerance and the other things this guy jesus died to supposedly teach us. I am no longer going to participate in PN comments due to this, to those I have had interesting discussion with on here TY and I hope you guys can maybe teach him some tolerance and even the value of his own religion.

    1. And I thought i had found a nice place to talk to people about topical gay issues :,(

      1. @Dafy

        I am disappointed but understand that you feel unable to continue ..,.

        I feel PN have a responsibility to ensure that the discussion rooms are safe places and should be moderated to one extent or another. The fatuous and hate filled bile that Keith and his ilk continually display isn’t just ignorance, its an attempt to ignite hatred and spread vile bigotry.

        I hope PN will clean up their act and eradicate the heinous Keith (and others from PN).

        Thanks for your contributions, I have found them thoughtful, honest and interesting and I hope you will reconsider but nonetheless, I understand why you might not.

        1. Thank you Stu, I may reconsider once I see how my letter of complaint is dealt with before I decide to return to commenting. Unfortunately he succeeded in his hurtful and spiteful comments to illicit an emotional response from someone and I lowered myself to his level which upset me almost as much, which is no doubt part of his agenda.

          On a whole the experience of speaking with both like minded and respectful objectors has been a positive one but him and his kind as few as they are here have certainly dulled my enjoyment of speaking with similar people over current affairs.

          any way thank you :) x

          1. Ignore him, Dafy. I used to dislike him but now I feel only pity. He clearly needs help and support.

            You’ve made some good comments here and I’d like to read more. Please stay if you’re able.

            I completely agree with your comments about PN. I hope you emailed them and made your feelings known. They do respond when necessary – just not always to the ‘report’ button.

          2. Absolutely, Dafy

            Keiths whole raison d’etre is to provoke a response … he is fully aware that some of the things he says are so inflammatory that it is almost impossible to ignore him … unfortunately he revels in the responses and it leads him further and further into more insidious responses … he thrives on twisting the argument to his agenda and loves to try and look clever (when he actually looks as intelligent a Telly Tubbie) by claiming to know about everything and anything, however he is often easily caught out …

            I hope the letter of complaint goes well. I hope you take the chance of a break from Keiths diatribes, and look forward to welcoming you back …

            There are some great contributors on PN, its interesting that sometimes I find commonality with the people I least expect to, but there are some great well thought out arguments and questions …

            Then there are the ones like Keith whose aim is to spoil it
            xx

    2. Are you a Christian, Keith?

      1. Oh, tantrum now. Nice. Very erudite.

      2. I shall wait for your answer, as I have already answered your question …

        I suspect the way you have answered means you are not a Christian as Christ calls on his followers not to deny him … or so the Bible says …

        You seem to be denying him …

      3. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:15am

        No Stu, he’s just one big fat ol fake!

      4. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 9:16am

        Yet again, Keith add no relevence and deserves no answers.

    3. So your not a christian even though you believe in Christ (not very clever are you dear)

  39. Staircase2 10 Nov 2011, 3:58pm

    lol James Dingemans QC, for the Bulls, isnt too bright is he….

    Like Jennie says – they can hold whatever nasty small-minded opinions they like – they just arent at liberty to enforce them on other people or choose which clients they will take on on the basis of them…

  40. If the Bulls win this case will we see businesses refusing to emply women (“It might be outdated but we think women’s place is in the home), will we see certain races turned away from shops because someone holds outdated beliefs about them? Because that’s the logical result of this ridiculous appeal.

    Any why stop there? Why not reintroduce a few slaves (“slavery might be outdated but I believe it’s a great idea”)? How about stoning some adulterers to death? Hey – it’s old-fashioned but it’s your belief so how dare the law try to interfere and stop you acting it out?

    I feel sorry for the Bulls – used by the UnChristian Institute and encouraged to pursue a stupid appeal when surely a moment’s thought would have shown them it was pointless, not to mention hypocritical (do they let menstruating women sit on their chairs?) and intrusive. What other people might do in bed is none of their business. I strongly suspect they don’t quiz straight couiples on what they plan to do in bed.

    1. The impertinent assumption that partnered gay couple Mr Hall & Mr Preddy were planning to have sex at all in their B&B is prurient and uncalled-for, it is not the Bulls business to make such a speculation.

      The couple were going to be tired from travelling and looking forward to a civil welcome, a good nights sleep and a decent breakfast in the morning , that is all the Bulls needed to concern themselves with providing, unfortunately they didn’t but instead the Bulls chose to behave like self-appointed religious police more along the lines of those religious police we hear of in foreign countries (as Father Dougal so aptly suggested).
      Beyond that, the action the Bulls took was just plain rude, uncivil by anyone’s standards.

      1. Exactly! I find the Bulls attitude very offensive and intrusive. Seriously, religious people seem to spend most of their waking hours thinking about sex. What’s their problem? Because whatever it is – obsession or repression – they shouldn’t take it out on others.

  41. Jock S. Trap 11 Nov 2011, 1:30pm

    Don’t think anyone stated they weren’t entitled to their ‘outdated beleifs’ but acting on them is entirely a different situation.

    Fact if you open a business and restrict your clients then the answer is simple, don’t have a business, close and do us all a favour. Your ‘outdated beliefs’ entitle us to not having to put up with bigots.

  42. 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. David Millar 13 Nov 2011, 10:37am

      Muddying legal water is relatively easy.
      What we should be more concerned about is that last friday saw the Min of Justice close public consultation. On what? Their Commission examing repealing the Human Rights Act.Did anyone write in?
      Seems that too many guys n gals (RIP Jimmy S.) won`t know what they`ve got till its gone.

  43. Both sides give arguments that depend upon acceptance of discrimination against unmarried couples. The hoteliers argue that they discriminate against all unmarried couples; the gay couple argue that their civil partnership should be deemed equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Do they accept that discrimination against gay couples not in civil partnerships would be acceptable? Do they believe that discrimination against unmarried heterosexuals is acceptable? Is it lawful to discriminate in the provision of services on the basis of people’s relationship arrangements? My parents are unmarried and have cohabited for 35 years; should they be denied services on those grounds? I would accept an exception for genuine religious institutions; it would be nice if my parents, or a gay couple, were welcome to stay in a monastery, but I would also respect the monks’ right to their beliefs. However, this is a hotel, a business, not a religious institution; the owners just happen to be Christians.

    1. I keep asking but nobody seems able to confirm yes or no whether it is legal to discriminate against any couples gay or straight on grounds of their relationship arrangements.
      It appears that the Bulls are not so strict about refusing unmarried heterosexual couples as their defence lawyer has tried to present them as being.
      The Bulls assisted by the so-called Christian Institute are pursuing a legal test-case for allowed anti-gay discrimination on the most tenuous claimed religious grounds, so let’s hope justice prevails and the judgement finds against them or there may be NO GAYS signs displayed all over the country and it will be perfectly legal to display them.

      1. I have no idea, but I’d like to find out. The Human Rights Act would seem to prohibit discrimination against unmarried couples by public authorities, but I don’t think that it would apply to a hotel. The problem with the current line of argument is that it accepts discrimination on the basis of lack of marriage/civil partnership. This means that most gay couples, i.e. those not in civil partnerships, and many, perhaps most, straight couples, i.e. those who are not married, are still liable to discrimination. So it’s not just “NO GAYS” signs we need to worry about, but “NO SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR THAT WE DON’T APPROVE OF” signs. According to the particular beliefs of the hotelier this could mean “NO ORAL SEX”, “NO ANAL SEX”, “NO WOMEN ON TOP” “NO MEN ENTERING FROM BEHIND”, “NO BIRTH CONTROL”. How about banning single people, or indeed married couples, who might masturbate or look at pornography in their hotel room? How about we just stop worrying about sex, as long as it’s legal?

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all