Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian hoteliers lose gay room ban appeal

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Fantastic news. Religious bigots are not above the law.

    1. Erika Cart-Horse QC 10 Feb 2012, 4:07pm

      Unless they are abusing people in the street.

    2. Yet more proof that God is on the side of LGBT people.

    3. Billy Wingarten 12 Feb 2012, 3:33am

      Sri religious ultraconservatives. What you do in your home and your church is your biz.

      What you do in your place of biz – a hotel is the govts business if you dont agree with the law.

      Maybe you should be required to put a sign outside and announce it on your phone when everyone calls.

      “Gays not welcome”

      Thats fair and would eliminate embarrassment for all.
      It would be interesting as to what would happen with your str8 clientel who support equality for gay people.

      some christians are anything but I suspect Jesus would welcome gays with open arms, knowing they are just another oppressed group.

      1. Vauxhall-Boy 12 Feb 2012, 11:27am

        I see what you are trying to suggest, but how is your solution any different from the horrible “No Blacks” signs that were up in the 1960s in some guest houses?

  2. Craig Denney 10 Feb 2012, 10:51am

    This ruling at the same time as the NSS ruling into Councils praying at Council meetings. Coincidence or intensional?

    1. Either way, it’s a big slap in the face for the Christian Institute and their fundamentalist bullying!

      1. Craig Denney 10 Feb 2012, 11:05am

        It implies the Courts are against us by making a much bigger story.

        1. How is this the case? This case how now proven that you can’t use outdated religious beliefs to discriminate!

          If the Bulls have this view, then they should keep it to themselves and not try and blanket others with their opinion.

        2. It implies you are suffering from paranoia.

          1. Vauxhall-Boy 10 Feb 2012, 11:27am

            It implies there are several news stories happening on the same day. Is there anything more sinister than that?

          2. And how have you arrived at that conclusion, Dr Joss?

            I have no problem with people who have religious beliefs, as long as it isn’t used as a weapon, purely because I love a guy.

            I welcome all these different cultures, again… as long as it isn’t used as a weapon because I love a guy.

            When these religious nutcases start whimpering about “oooh, gay is wrong!!!” thats when the LGBT community gets upset. Why can’t we live together in peace and harmony? I live in a very diverse community… I accept the people around me for who they are, I don’t have any issue. The family which runs the local shop are from India and they have shown no ill feeling to me at all. I welcome them living near me… a little bit of a different culture. I have no problem with this type of community.

          3. TEEGB I did not reply to your comment.

            I was referring to Craig’s comment that the Justice system is conspiring against the LGBT community by ruling in their favour twice in one day…

        3. Craig Denney 10 Feb 2012, 12:05pm

          When this original case came to court the ruling was differed until after Christmas, so as not to upset Christians and now we have these to rulings at the same time.

          I say the Courts are against us and we should call for a Judicial Review!

          1. Would you not think it was actually to the benefit of LGBT people to have 3 rulings against religion on the same day????

            I doubt the ruling on this case, the NSS prayer case and the sentencing in Derby were scheduled with regard to each other!

  3. Great news. And the only rational outcome. Can you imagine what could happen if a precedent was set that religious faith (which can be neither measured nor proven sincere) was allowed to excuse someone from obeying the law of the land? They chose to open a business, and in doing to they agreed to be subject to all relevant legislation, from health and safety to licensing to equality legislation. You don’t get to cherry pick which laws you will follow and invoke a supernatural/fictional being as an excuse.

    1. “You don’t get to cherry pick”

      Cherry picking is what Christians excel at.

      1. I was pretty sure someone would notice that ;)

      2. Paddyswurds 10 Feb 2012, 12:17pm

        @Socrates..
        …Cherry picking is what Religion is good at, don’t you mean? I refer to the vile Levin chemical castration story and many others from all religions and creeds. Despicable all of them…..

      3. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:03am

        Everyone in life cherry picks. Otherwise we would all be robots. We all know that lying is wrong but, at times, we will justify doing it. We all know that tax evasion is wrong but will pay builders in cash. We all know that being unfaithful to friends or partners is wrong but will support friends who get into difficulties.

        Cherry picking is just another word for being human and realising that we are not perfectly logical machines but developed animals who have evolved from humble origins. It is something at which we all excel.

  4. The so-called Christian Institute loses the case but gets to keep it’s two manufactured martyrs.

    Why do the gays keep victimising and persecuting the “religious” anti-gay bigots?

    1. What is “The Gays”.

      Is it a band or something.

      1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:05am

        Similar to “The Jews” on the other story about the American rabbi.

    2. “The Gays” don’t victimise anyone, usually “The Gays” are the ones that are victimised!

      “The Gays” victimise and persecute “the religious” because… I guess… “The Gays” want to give them a taste of their own medicine. Its only then ”the religious” cry wolf and start appeals whimpering on about how ”The gays” have broken a code on morality and other false accusations.

      ”The Gays” have persecuted no-one. Mr Preddy and his partner only did what was right; they were discriminated against.

      Would you accept this discrimination if you was involved, Pavlos? Say if someone discriminated your partner because of a spot or scar, or had a chipped tooth, or a missing limb?

      1. I still get no sympathy for Xtians when they were persecuted during the Roman times on the hands of Nero and Domitian. They must had been a big nuisance to Roman society.

        But now, it’s the Xtians who persecute people they don’t like. However, good news like these means that Xtians aren’t going anywhere.

    3. Pavlos, if I decided not to let you into my hotel…would that be victimizing me or you? As gays, we are not trying to victimize anyone. We want the same right as heterosexuals. When that happens, everyone can go home for dinner.

      1. Edward – it’s humour! Pavlos is being ironic! Speed up dear!

    4. jamestoronto 10 Feb 2012, 3:22pm

      The Gays????

    5. You have misunderstood my ironic and rhetorical question, of course gay people do not victimise and persecute Christians but that is what we are being told…it was intended to be a joke but it went over some people’s heads here obviously. never mind let’s move on

  5. Think of all the money the Christian Institute has wasted on this? Could have bought emergency rations for starving kids, could have paid for malaria jabs in developing nations, could have got a homeless family a safe place to sleep for the night. All those would have been “christian”. What they do is a sick joke – bloody hypocrites.

    1. Vauxhall-Boy 10 Feb 2012, 11:29am

      I read somewhere that the Christian Institute are funded by several millionaires in who want to pursue fundamentalist Christain agenda’s. Why has no one exposed this?

      1. What is hilarious is that the CI exists as a “charity” for the “THE FURTHERANCE AND PROMOTION OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM” (their stated objective, their caps) when all cases like the Bulls do is foster contempt and help people clarify the image of christianity as – hateful bigotry. Did this law suit actually promote anything at all? Now think of how money that could be given to other charities – for food or blankets or medicine – is wasted on them instead.

    2. The Christian Institute is a Christian dominionist organisation, they believe in the literal truth of the Bible as they interpret it of course.
      Their ultimate long-term aim is a to create a situation like that in Uganda where homosexuality is demonised and criminalised so that homosexuals will be locked up or removed from society by other more permanent means.
      They have very close ties with the US Alliance Defence Fund and their lawyers are trained by same, basically they are the UK branch of the anti-gay Alliance Defence Fund in disguise.
      ADF’s stated goal is “defending the right to hear and speak the Truth(as they interpret truth) through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.”

      1. Come on guys a bit of perspective – where in their mission statement does it say “to create a situation like that in Uganda”, where does it say “to demonise homosexuality?” It doesn’t. At least offer a bit of balance in your comments.

  6. Suck it bigots.

    You are free to close your business if you don’t wish to obey the law.

  7. Like it or not, Peter and Hazelmary ARE extremistsm, no matter what they think of themselves.

  8. If only Xtians were not known for their idiocy and lunacy, I guess they will be accepted and tolerated by people who do not conform to their beliefs. But this is still a good news to show Xtians that they are not above the law. If Xtians can’t tolerate our laws and rights, they better leave the country and relocate to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. I’m sure they will get along well with the fundies and religious police there.

  9. Hahahah!!!! How I whooped for joy at hearing this.

    Now be good little dutiful Christians and pay the compensation.

    I fancy a little weekend break with someone special… anyone know of a good hotel, possibly on the Cornish Coast? Must have good views, close to amenities etc! :P

    1. ‘…pay the compensation.’

      I bet the Christian Institute won’t help them in that area.

      The Bulls will wake up one day and realise they’ve just been used by a bunch of fanatics.

    2. Yes TEEGB, a romantic getaway to the Bulls’ hotel sounds like a very warm and friendly gesture of reconciliation between our 2 communities!

      http://media.photobucket.com/image/troll face/agnosiophobe/troll_facebmp.jpg?o=13

  10. Vauxhall-Boy 10 Feb 2012, 11:27am

    Three great pieces of news today:

    The losing of the appeal by the Bulls demonstrating that religious beliefs do not trump equality.

    The ruling about prayers at council meetings, taking us a step closer to separating church and state.

    (Hopefully), appropriate sentencing for the men in Derby who incited hatred on ground of homophobia.

  11. Spanner1960 10 Feb 2012, 11:28am

    Maybe I am the only one that does feel a bit sorry for these people. They have their beliefs and opinions, but these are obviously in complete conflict to human rights legislation.

    I’m sure we are going to see many more cases where one’s “human rights” interferes with someone else’s, so the courts are going to have to work their way through this politically correct minefield and define ultimately that some rights are ‘more equal than others’.

    I think the courts ruling was right in this matter, and I guess that people such as the Bulls have to accept that if they want to run a business that deals with the general public, that they have to conform to a lot of rules, such as health, safety, hygiene etc., and simply that they cannot discriminate against people because they think otherwise.

    If they want to stand by their beliefs, they are going to have to either conform or find another line of work.

    1. I have my beliefs and opinions… but I don’t go up to people and say it! They should keep them to themselves. The Bulls should have just accepted the fact. They lost business over this. That is their problem.

      if you feel sorry for them, thats fine by me; send them a bunch of flowers or something!

      Human Rights legislation was brought in to curtail this kind of problem. You cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If I was to run a hotel in Brighton say, and refused a booking for Christians, I’d have to answer the consequences. I accept people have these religious beliefs. BUT… I do not want it rammed down my throat!

      1. Spanner1960 10 Feb 2012, 5:52pm

        I can only base my statement on my own experience. I know many Christians who are good, honest and decent people, but have been often brought up in such a way to follow the Bible. However you may disagree with their beliefs, they have every right to follow them. They are not forcing anything on anyone, the couple arrived at their business, and they refused them – that is an entirely different situation to things like the recent case of Muslims actively spreading homophobic literature about.

        I have said that the Bulls were ultimately in the wrong simply because they wished to work with the public, which is going to put their beliefs head to head with the law of the land, so it was obvious from the outset that they were going to lose, nonetheless, I still think it was rather unfortunate that two decent people have lost their business due to their rather naive understanding of the law.

    2. No sympathy for them at all. What they were trying to do was cement the rights of bigots to put up signs that say “No gays, no blacks, no Irish” and justify it on the grounds that they BELIEVE hard enough. I’m happy that has been legally stamped on. I don’t want to live in a world where that would be OK and THAT is what the bl00dy Bulls wanted.

    3. It’s not a minefield. Human rights are layered. The rights of an individual based on gender, sexuality, race (things which you cannot change) override those of religious freedom and belief (things which you can).

      1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:17am

        I agree with the sentiments but not the examples. To talk of changing religion or belief is artificial. It is not a conscious choice in the same way as choosing a glass of orange juice over tomato juice. If a person is persuaded of something, they will continue with it until persuaded otherwise. A person persuaded of their religion cannot simply ‘change’ their religion any more than they can choose no longer to like the flavour of carrots which they have always enjoyed or to choose to enjoy classical music which has never previously interested them.

        Look, for example, at the other story on Pink News of the Jewish boy who was badly treated and abused by a Jewish sexuality-reprogramming boot camp but who still identified with his religion and wants to be observant. Or the followers of the Dalai Lama in Tibet who face torture and death rather than to renounce their religion and identity.

    4. Listen to yourself, Spanner1960 – when you say, “and define ultimately that some rights are ‘more equal than others’.” NOBODY’S RIGHTS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. We don’t have the right to discriminate – and neither do the Xtians. Get it?? Nobody has the right to discriminate!

      1. Spanner1960 10 Feb 2012, 5:45pm

        I disagree. Take for example the situation where a burglar cuts himself on barbed wire you placed on your house to protect your property. His rights will out weigh yours. These travesties arise again and again with alarming regularity.

        There are now so many of these “rights” that they eventually end up cancelling each other out.

        1. B@llocks

        2. David Myers 11 Feb 2012, 6:17am

          Utter claptrap, like usual from you.

          1. Spanner1960 12 Feb 2012, 9:40am

            Oh, is that why human rights are preventing dangerous offenders and terrorists such as Abu Qatada from being deported to face trial?

    5. Paddyswurds 10 Feb 2012, 12:27pm

      @Spanner…
      ….belief in a fictional deity is not a human right, but a human choice and lifestyle. Trying to use a choice and lifestyle to trump human rights can never be and will never be OK… Time for Man to consider how to silence religion forever.

      1. Spanner1960 10 Feb 2012, 5:56pm

        Having a belief IS a human right. Nobody can force you or I what to think.
        However, trying to impose those beliefs on others is not.

        I stated what they did was wrong, but I think they did it simply because of their mindset, and not out of any malice.

        1. David Myers 11 Feb 2012, 6:19am

          Their “mindset” is totally one of disrespect and malice.

        2. Paddyswurds 11 Feb 2012, 3:34pm

          That mindset being ignorance and hatred. Ignorance and hatred are not a defence in Law….

      2. Well, yes it is a right – and will be until thoughtcrime is made illegal. Your plan for a final solution sounds sinister.

        Justice has been done in this case. Leave it at that.

    6. Spanner would you feel sorry for them if they had banned a mixed race couple, and the law had said “no you can’t do that”?

      1. Spanner1960 10 Feb 2012, 8:43pm

        Yes I would.
        It’s not the discrimination that I am talking about here, it’s the the conflict.
        One could say the same if they said “No Dogs”>
        As a smoker I find myself considerably more discriminated against than as a gay man, but it has government support, so I am the one forced to stand in the rain to have a fag.

        1. Ok this could lead to some really deep philosophical / political debate about freedom / regulation and where you draw the line. But to answer your specific points.

          Saying no dogs is a little bit different – they may sh*t on the floor which I’m unlikely to do (although I might make an exception for the Bulls), the owner may be alergic – he/she is unlikely to be allergic to me (I hope).

          I’m a smoker, but even I can see people should be allowed to stop me smoking in their building if they want to.

          Finally I do not feel sorry for anyone who perpetuates a myth that made me feel sh*t about myself for such a large portion of my life – i.e. that I am a second class citizen.

          1. Spanner1960 11 Feb 2012, 8:45am

            I really don’t think that is the matter at hand here anyway.
            Apart from those few saddos on here that would visit this place just to rub salt in the wounds, who would seriously want to go and stay in a B&B owned by a couple that, right or wrongly, disapprove of gays? I sure as hell wouldn’t.

            In the past when I have wanted to stay somewhere I have specifically gone out of my way to find a gay B&B because I find it more comfortable and I don’t have to put on airs and graces. Just because all these other places are now forced to accept us doesn’t mean that many won’t still view us as “second class” as you put it. That’s life I’m afraid.

  12. Dr Robin Guthrie 10 Feb 2012, 11:32am

    Lovely comment on the Christian Institutes own site.

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christians-lose-appeal-in-bb-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+christianinstitute+%28The+Christian+Institute%29

    “Something has gone badly wrong with our equality laws when good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary are penalised but extremist hate preachers are protected.”

    What a pathetic association they are attempting.

    1. Good grief, if that is the standard of arguments that they use, it’s no wonder they bloody lost. Did they fail to notice that “extreme” preaching has led to people who published a leaflet being about to face a prison sentence? Or are they having difficulty telling the difference between a civil tort (the Bulls) and matters of criminal justice that tend not to have the same bloody rules in play.

      1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:20am

        It is also untrue in that extremist preachers are kept under constant and intrusive police surveillance and may be placed in control orders or in immigration detention.

    2. Yes, hate preachers need dealing with.

      Those who discriminate against people of grounds of orientation, race,nationality, disability etc also need dealing with.

      The two factors are not mutually exclusive!

    3. danielmclion 10 Feb 2012, 11:58am

      Damned! Sorry, but the like and dislike buttons are so small and next to e.o. that I accidentally gave a dislike. And it seems ireversible… Sorry again

    4. Anti-gay and anti-muslim I think you’ll find.

  13. Cambodia Guesthouse 10 Feb 2012, 11:39am

    Completely agree with Valksy. The ‘Christian Institute’ has been guilty of misleading the public… This case is NOT about this couples ‘right’ to discriminate IN THEIR OWN HOME… They are perfectly at liberty to do this already!

    This is about setting yourself up as a business, in the same place that you live, and then wanting to cherry-pick which laws you will obey. You just cannot do it… Whether you are ‘christian’ or not!

    It’s not about the right to hold bigotted views… It’s about your ‘right’ to impose them on everyone else. Listen and learn christian institute… You have NO such right!

    If you are going to start a business, you must obey the laws of the land you’re in… simple.

    1. I’m going to start a business, but I do not believe in paying VAT.

      Do you think I’ll get away with this?

      1. I think HM Revenue & Customs might be sending you a wee little letter shortly! ;0

        ‘Dear Mr Socrates,

        I do not feel that you have reasonable grounds for withholding payment of VAT’

      2. If the Bulls had won, it is possible that you could have asserted that your decision to not pay was based on the doctrinal requirements of your deeply held and devout belief in the pink bunny in the corner that only you can see. No one can prove what you personally belief, no one can measure it or demonstrate it as sincere. Which is why – just in terms of pure logic – they could never have won.

        1. Its another use for a rabbit!

  14. If Mr & Mrs Bull don’t like having to provide a service to gay people they should shut up shop. Your ridiculous religion doesn’t overrule my human rights.

    1. David Myers 11 Feb 2012, 6:24am

      Succinct and concise and totally correct. Thank you.

  15. The CI is as usual spreading lies. Mr Calvert claimed this couple were “penalised for their beliefs about marriage”: not true – they were penalised for their actions while running a business.

    He also claimed “something has gone badly wrong when… Peter and Hazelmary are penalised but extremist hate preachers are protected”: not true – this couple were rightly penalised for discriminatory actions; speaking is held to a different standard to protect freedom of speech.

    Since the Christian Institute finds this confusing, here is how human rights law works.

    1. You can believe anything you like.
    2. You can talk about your beliefs, provided you don’t stir up hatred against a minority or encourage people to break the law.
    3. You can act in accordance with your beliefs, provided you don’t discriminate in the course of running a business, educational establishment or public service.

    If Mr Calvert has any more questions, he should try doing some reading.

  16. Paul Brownsey 10 Feb 2012, 11:51am

    It would be useful if Pink News could manage to tell us a little about what the Appeal Court said in rejecting the appeal. Some of us like to know such things.

    1. If the decision was just passed down, it may be a bit premature to have the court documents available.

    2. In the appeal, the judges acknowledged that all sides have strongly held beliefs, but ruled that the previous ruling was correct in concluding that the Bulls had breached the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations) 2007 (now Equality Act 2010). As the hotel is not a religious organisation but a business, it is not entitled to exemption from these laws.

  17. great news! now lets get together some gay groups and book a few weekends at the Chymorvah Hotel . just to make the point that this country operates under rule of law, not the slavish belief in supernatural beings.

    1. Hmm, yeah… sounds quite the plan… I was already considering a little weekend break away somewhere. I’m thinking of Cornwall, on the coast, with great views and all amenities a short walk away…. Hmm. Which hotel shall I choose? :D

      1. David Myers 11 Feb 2012, 6:29am

        I have an even better idea. Go ahead and book your vacations there and show up and be as charming an nice, without negating your so called gay life style and give them a chance to learn and change their bigotry. If they get enough gay/lesbian couples doing this they may even see that their bigotry was mis-directed and that they have nothing to lose and somthing to gain from opening their minds.

    2. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:24am

      Why bother spending your time deliberately to aggravate others? It would be unfortunate for anti-gay preachers to start demanding entry to gay pubs and clubs just to prove that they can enter our spaces and change their character. The hotel owners behaved unlawfully and have lost both cases. That and the message it sends should be enough.

  18. “good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary” – er, yeah whatever.

    1. I think that might be a typo on their part…

    2. Indeed. Their standard of decency and mine vary significantly. I think a decent person would spend the money on spurious and doomed court cases on actually helping people – that would be decent (and we are probably talking about well in excess of £60k-£70k to get this far, and this assumes they don’t have leave or grounds to take the final step). Frankly, I suspect that most “decent” christians are decent in spite of their faith, not because of it.

  19. Dr Robin Guthrie 10 Feb 2012, 12:03pm

    See:-

    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/sexual-orientation/judge-rules-against-christian-guesthouse-owners

    What is it with Christians that they are blind to how unchristian they are behaving.

  20. Paddyswurds 10 Feb 2012, 12:07pm

    It is really is time for Man to start a discussion as to how this religion plague can be eradicated from the Earth, permanently, before it destroys us all.

  21. Paddyswurds 10 Feb 2012, 12:11pm

    It really is time man started a discussion on how to rid the Earth of this religion plague once and for all, before it destroys the planet.If iran gets the “bomb” it will be a religious war to end us all.Think on!!!

    1. Those discussions have already begun, they’ve been going on for a while. The enlightenment in the 18th century for example. And Darwin’s theory of evolution eradicates the idea that the world was created in 7 days. Richard Dawkin’s if trying very hard at the moment to create an atheistic world. In time, all 3 monotheistic faiths will seem as ridiculous as the old polytheistic faiths. Atheism will rule, then it will be the atheist turn to destroy the planet (until someone says ‘it really is time man started a discussion on how to rid the Earth of the atheists plague). It’s not religion that destroys the Earth. It’s Man. Religion is just the excuse.

      1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:26am

        No-one seriously can suggest that the world was made in seven days or that the bible was written by god as a work of historical fact. It is a piece of literature to be reinterpreted by each generation.

  22. “Something has gone badly wrong with our equality laws when good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary are penalised but extremist hate preachers are protected.” Exactly. Christian or not, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is a good guide for life. Respect others’ beliefs (especially when in their home) and have your gay sex in another hotel where the owners don’t mind. And if you are concerned about gay rights, address your concerns to a country where gay rights really are abused – there are many countries where homosexual sex carries the death penalty.

    1. “Respect others’ beliefs (especially when in their home)”

      Well, this is a common error of those who don’t know what they are Gatling about. This is not their home. Its a place of business. It is defined as such under the law. If their beliefs are incompatible with business law, then they should so the moral thing and retire from providing this service for money.

      “there are many countries where homosexual sex carries the death penalty.”

      No one is denying that, but this is not “its worse there so let them off” comparison, is it? How can the UK stand up to the death penalty in other countries when we let some religions twits decide who they think is “gods favourites” and deny them dignity on such basis? This isn’t the dark ages, equality laws are there for the good of society. Grow up and quit the snivelling about the Bulls, they were wrong do do what they did, and it certainly wasn’t “Christian”. And now the courts agree too.

    2. Typical that you think about ‘gay sex’ rather than two men who just wanted to spend a nice break together.

      And what is ‘gay sex’? We all have the same equipment… Do the Bulls question straight couples about their plans for the bedroom to make sure they don’t plan to do any sexual activities not on the Bulls ‘Missionary position, Close your eyes and think of England’ List?

      ‘Do as you would be done by’ is how I live my life too, but I don’t think that gives me carte blanche to discriminate! I’d never seek to ban a Christian from my business – or, indeed, my home.

      You and the Bulls are the unchristian people.

    3. Maybe the Bulls should go to a country where homosexuality carries the death penalty and start their business there.

  23. In a word:- excellent.

  24. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Feb 2012, 12:33pm

    Thank you, Court of Appeals, well done!

    What is it about so called “christians” who just cannot distinguish between religious and civil marriage? Who do they think they are? The two are entirely different.

    I love the way these people claim they’re bening penalised for their beliefs. Absolute bull-sh_t. Nobody is telling them they can’t believe what they want to believe but when they’re licenced by the state to run a guest house, then they’re subject to the secular civil laws of the land. As others have said, nobody is above the law, not even religious nitwits. The court’s decision was absolutely right. Not only did this couple discriminate against gay couples but also against heterosexual couples who aren’t married.

    This couple’s case is being used in America by the National Organisation for Marriage (NOM) to foment anti same-sex marriage sentiment. NOM embellishes the case with an utter pack of lies and distortions as it does with everything.

  25. Always amazes me how many of these supposed ‘Christians’ see no problem with running B&Bs, shops, cafes and so on which require them to be open and trade on Sundays, when clearly this is against the Christian teachings.

    Exodus 20:10 is very clear on the matter-

    “but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.”

    And to add further confusion isn’t it amazing how many Christians are in favour of the Death penalty, but against same-sex marriage?

    Anyway, I hope dear Peter and Hazelmary our two Christian B&B owners can look further into the much relied upon Christian teachings and explore some of Matthew 25:35 where Jesus relays that:

    “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,”

    1. If that is what has been stated in Christian teachings, then clearly their case for refusing Mr Preddy and his partner a room, is clearly a load of…. Bull?

      I think its a splendid idea for perhaps 9 happy gay couples to simultaneously book up rooms there…

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Feb 2012, 6:02pm

      Exodus is in the old testament so the sabbath would have been referring to the Jewish sabbath which is saturday.

    3. Christian teachings are not embodied exclusively by the Bible and most certainly are not exclusive to the Old Testament which has been fulfilled and nullified by Christ’s birth. Christians today must embrace His love which is something that the Bulls didn’t do thereby proving themselves to be merely book worshippers – just like the members of the so-called Christian Institute – and not really Christians. Such idolatrous, book worshipping, so-called fundamentalists give the normal everyday Christian a bad name and lead to the sort of hatred of Christians that – unsurprisingly in the circumstances – can be found in not a few of the comments here. It is really quite scary to read some of the anti-Christian bile and vitriol which one encounters from time to time at this site. The tendency of the people who insult us to lump all of us together with these fundamentalist nutcases is frightening even though it’s understandable. I am an out gay Christian and a member of an Anglican congregation

      1. Paul Power 11 Feb 2012, 9:21am

        If you really want to read something scary, please read what Dr John Sentamu, Anglican Archbishop of York has to say about same-sex couples and marriage and equality for them particularly in relation to how gays are treated in Uganda, his home country. Now that really is scary. And before you lecture me or anyone else here on Old versus New Testaments in the Bible, I respectfully suggest you begin in the hallowed halls of your own Anglican Church which very often relies on Old Testament to discriminate and stir up anti-gay hatred.
        Paul

      2. Paddyswurds 11 Feb 2012, 3:50pm

        @John MJ….
        ….How very sad that you subscribe to the deist cults. Don’t you have a yearning to be free and be able to use your own brain and reasoning powers. The fact that you also claim to be Gay is doubly disturbing in that you would seem to have succumbed to the will of your suppressors and those who either openly or secretly hate you.
        Don’t waste your time protesting that they really do love you because you can never know anyone’s inner thoughts and deist worshipers are adept at deception.

        1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:27am

          It is much easier to declare god not to exist than to grapple with the theological concepts of existence, meaning and divinity.

        2. I think, Paddyswurds, that I will not accept your rather patronising invitation to believe, as you do, in the completely unprovable position that there is no God. I shall stick with my completely unprovable belief that there is.

          By the way, the only religion that is permitted by its so-called prophet to practise deception is Mohammedanism. Generally speaking Christians speak their minds which is, of course, why so many of us speak arrant rubbish about homosexuality – but no one in my congregation has ever indicated in any way at all that they have a problem with the out gay people – I’m not the only one – who are members.

  26. Just look at the reviews on Google:

    http://tinyurl.com/7owfxty

    1. David Myers 11 Feb 2012, 6:33am

      Homophic?

  27. Craig Denney 10 Feb 2012, 1:20pm

    Eric Pickles insists that councils may pray, saying it’s a “fundamental liberty”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025

    1. Anyone who asks God for help in making council decisions should never be elected.

      1. Craig Denney 10 Feb 2012, 1:50pm

        Exactly Matt,
        I tried to join my local Council but the religionists blocked me, first by blocking me from being co-opted onto the council and then by preventing the local newspapers from publicizing my campaign.

    2. Agreed it’s a fundamental liberty but they can do it on their own time can’t they.

      I don’t recall the bible saying, ‘and God said unto the obese little bald man, “Thou must pray before deciding on the colour of the new wheelie bin and the location of the newest two meter long cycle path, lest I smite thee for not consulting your creator, on such an important decision.”‘

      1. Of course the ability to pray is a matter of religious freedom. They do not have to exercise it in a council meeting. In fact, it would be irresponsible to exercise it in a council meeting as this could impinge on the right to freedom from religion of others.

    3. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:28am

      It is a fundamental liberty – just not a function of the state.

      1. It is a liberty. It does not need to be exercised in public meetings.

  28. DJ Sheepiesheep 10 Feb 2012, 1:47pm

    Hahahahahaha! Looks like it’s time for the innkeepers to pay unto to Caesar what is due unto Caesar.

    However, I’m not sire I’d like to stay at their guesthouse. I wouldn’t feel comfortable knowing I’d given them my money. I’d rather stay with people who were truly happy to have my custom.

    1. DJ Sheepiesheep 10 Feb 2012, 1:52pm

      Oh, and one more thing, in the Old Testament the word innkeeper was often used as a euphemism for something else. In the book of Joshua, the Hebrew word for innkeeper is “zonah”. In modern Hebrew, “zonah” means prostitute!

  29. From the Christian concern article posted by Dr Robin Guthrie:
    “With full homosexual marriage now on the horizon, protecting conscience will become more important than ever.”
    Yeah, because as we all know by giving same sex couples the equal right to express their love via marriage it will be the end of civilisation as we know it.
    One battle down, more to come methinks!

    1. Didn’t you hear allowing homosexuals equal marriage rights makes decent traditional fathers burn their children and Tsunamis devastate Japan.

      We shouldn’t be selfish and expect to be treated like the superior, religious, pious, folk we have to think of the children and the Japanese. It’s best if we chemically castrate ourselves now…

      Who’s first?

      1. Vauxhall-Boy 10 Feb 2012, 3:00pm

        Can we choose how and where to use this power? If so, will someone let me in on the secret how to do it … I have a few targets in mind … :-)

      2. Spanner1960 11 Feb 2012, 8:47am

        I bet you haven’t got the balls to. ;)

        1. I don’t need balls I have ovaries:

          “Castration … is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testicles or a female loses the functions of the ovaries.”

          I believe it’s possible to stop ovaries from functioning using chemicals, if not a scalpel is a good alternative ;)

  30. I am very pleased with the ruling. But I am appalled that the Equality Commission “has no intention of enforcing its entitlement to legal costs.” I think that is outrageous. This couple’s choice to appeal the ruling should have costs attached.

    1. John Antrobus 10 Feb 2012, 7:30pm

      Who funds the Equality Commission? If it’s the tax-payer, then I think they should have an obligation to recover their costs. It’s our money and I don’t want the Bulls to benefit from. A penny of it.

      1. Majority of the Equality Commission’s funding is from taxation …

        So, unless they had an unusual source of funding for this particular case then there is a duty to recoup as much funding as is reasonable as possible.

        Perhaps the Audit Commission would be interested?

        1. It sounds like special lenient treatment for religious persons once again, more special privileges extended to so-called Christians simply for claiming to be Christians.

          Consider how that lesbian couple Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson were financially ruined when they tried to have their perfectly legal Canadian marriage recognised in UK, they lost and had to pay the governments legal costs and well as their own, a punitively enormous sum.
          “Peter Tatchell said that the government’s aggressive opposition to same-sex marriage and their successful demand of £25,000 from the couple damaged their “gay-friendly credentials”. He also claimed that the demand in legal costs was designed to financially damage the couple so they would not be able to appeal. “

          1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 3:23pm

            Pavlos, I have responded below to another person on this. I wonder, however, do we know if the government enforced the costs order?

    2. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:33am

      It is enough to win and win graciously. Although we were in the right, others have yet or be persuaded. It will not help to create unnecessary martyrs by bankrupting the Christian couple and making it look like us and not them who are the bullies.

      1. When should public bodies seek to reclaim their costs in a legal battle and when should they not?

        How should that decision be made?

        In times of austerity would it not be right to reclaim as much of the cost as possible?

        Why is this case different?

      2. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 3:21pm

        Really, Chas, the issue of austerity is neither here nor there. When the national debt is one trillion pounds, even a bill for £20,000 would amount to 0.00000002% of it.

        The issue is the benefit in enforcing the costs bill against these two people. What benefit is there other than bankrupting them. And if it did bankrupt them, what do you think would be the public response to that – do you think it would benefit us or harm us?

        1. If we let every £20000 go, then no wonder we have so much public debt.

  31. Lmao!

  32. It is likely that the case will now be appealed to the ECHR.

    1. Vauxhall-Boy 10 Feb 2012, 4:01pm

      and lose

    2. It was the EU who devised these laws.

      Idiot.

    3. “It is likely that the case will now be appealed to the ECHR.”

      And lose?

      Like this one?

      http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/02/09/swedish-anti-gay-flyers-not-covered-by-free-speech-rights/

      LOL! Now, place you’re hand on your head, extending the thumb and index fingers leaving the other fingers closed to create the letter L, and look at yourself in the mirror….

  33. great news, real relief to be protected in law.

  34. next stop…..rooms available in the Papal Apartments…lol

    1. Scott Lovely 10 Feb 2012, 7:33pm

      Already happened…don’t you re ever the Vatican rent boy scandal?

  35. According to scripture the actual sin of the Sodomite people was that they refused safe hospitality to strangers… Hello Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

    1. Whre in the bibe and under which law does it mention inhospitality as a capital offence and the inhospitable to be executed?
      Chapter and verse please.
      Jude verse 7 makes it quite clear why the Sodomites wre destroyed.
      GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
      “What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.”

      1. Matthew 10: 14-15

        1. Keith.(It gets worse) 10 Feb 2012, 7:49pm

          There is no mention of any law regarding inhospitality or the death penalty for it in Matt 10:14-15.
          Your ignorance is on a par with your stupidity.

          1. God contrasts the hospitality of Abraham with the inhospitality of the men of Sodom, Genesis 18-19.

            God commands the Jews not to treat strangers with inhospitality.

            “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” -Exodus 22:21.

            The prophet Ezekiel, writing under inspiration of God, precisely describes the sin of Sodom, listing six huge transgressions committed by the people of Sodom. Don’t you find it interesting that homosexuality is not among these sins but inhospitality definitely is?

      2. My version of the bible says “Anyone who is against gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual rights is a loser and shall have his [it's still a sexist version unfortunately] armpits tickled for eternity by a giggling leprechaun”

      3. Scott Lovely 10 Feb 2012, 7:27pm

        Ezekiel 20 is quite specific, it was inhospitality and haughtiness.

        1. Keith.(It gets worse) 10 Feb 2012, 7:50pm

          Ezekiel 20 neither mentions any law nor death penalty for inhospitality or perhaps you would like to be more specific (probably not) and quote th verses to which you refer?
          More clutching at straws and desperation fro the homosexual brigade that know nothing of scripture, and why would they???

          1. Ezekiel 16:48-50

            As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (NIV)

            Ezekiel Chapter 16 is an allegory God used to compare unfaithful Jerusalem to an adulterous wife for committing religious adultery. As you can see God listed the sins of Sodom. No homosexuality is listed there. Those detestable or abominable acts mentioned refereed to the religious rituals popular in that time.

          2. Stop feeding the Troll.

            It has its very own version of the bible completely different from everyone elses and no doubt personally autographed by its god.

            Just ignore it.

      4. Scott Lovely 10 Feb 2012, 7:30pm

        Obviously Keith has the Ugandan New Revised Mistranslated Evangelical Version, oh yes, mistranslated for Americans in 1995 I see.

        1. Exactly, Scott; another comparison of the promised judgment of Israel to the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Once again the theme is religious unfaithfulness, not homosexuality.

          Matthew 10:11-15

          “Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

          1. Keith.(It gets worse) 10 Feb 2012, 9:14pm

            And the reason for entering the towns as disciples was to preach frepentance and forgiveness. Apparently, those that paid no heed would be adversely judged, such as the homosexuals of Jude verse 7!

      5. My god your thick.

        I have a rat that shows more intelligence than you.

        Freako. Thick stupid freako…

        1. It gets worse!,, 10 Feb 2012, 11:08pm

          Hope the rat has been checked for HIV.

          1. Yes. You infected it.

  36. Perfect Ruling! This is great news. Now, I say we put them to the test! Who is up for a trip? How about booking a gay weekend, we could rent all the rooms and show these folks that we are not evil people! They must be hiding their “Fear” of us behind their church. I know Plenty of Christians who may not agree with us, but are fine with us!

    1. Scott Lovely 10 Feb 2012, 7:25pm

      They remind me too much of the couple with the pitchfork in that American Gothic painting. They look quite scary to me.

      1. Yes, well spotted. They look a right pair of suck-faced lack-joys although the couple in the American Gothic painting look to have had a hard and austere life as farmers which gives them an integrity totally lacking in the Bulls with their petty anti-gay nastiness.

        I guess life is miserable for bigots when after years of getting away with it they are finally prevented from discriminating against those they have an irrational prejudice against, what a gruesome and unhappy couple .

  37. I wish this decision had gone the other way.

    If the Bulls had been allowed to put a sign up saying ‘no unmarried couples’, thus allowing them to ban all gay couples, it would categorically prove that CP is not equal to Marriage and that gays are second class citizens under the law.

    Of course the judiciary doesn’t want that and know that it can’t allow that – otherwise they’d eventually be forced to end the ban on gay marriage.

    1. Spanner1960 11 Feb 2012, 12:25pm

      I don’t think that is such a bad suggestion. Only the blinkered idiots would mark this post down.

      If nothing else it would have demonstrated that CP’s are not considered equal by a lot of people, and the law would have to be changed. Look at it from their perspective: “The government has not allowed gay marriage, so therefore they are different, possibly unequal, and we don’t have to apply the same standards.” These people are not lawyers, and are often ignorant of the implications.

    2. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 9:37am

      Are you mad? The judgement was carefully considered and decided on the basis of the statute. The suggestion that three senior judges decided this in order to prevent gay marriage is, frankly, deranged.

  38. Scott Lovely 10 Feb 2012, 7:21pm

    I wonder what the Christian Institute/ Christian Concern ( for tis the same person) position on the anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda is? As they do not have a commments section on their websites it’s hard to raise the question with them.

    1. They refuse to respond to questions.

      They apparently do not believe in democracy.

      I thought it was Biblical to accept scrutiny and honesty.

      1. I thought they were all for free speech.

        Looks like only their speech is free and everyone elses is stifled.

        How I hate these religous loons.

  39. Their advert still says that we can’t have a double bed though!

    Surely they should now be made to change this offensive advertising as well.

    “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.”

    1. Gavin Regan 11 Feb 2012, 1:40am

      It says unmarried couples, not directly aimed at homosexuals, as already said on this page, they can just refused without reason. They are not legally obliged to give you a room or tell you why.

      1. CPs are marriages in all but name and in any case we will soon have “gay” marriage so there will be little point playing with words then.

        Yes, they can make up a story if 2 guys turn up on their doorstep and ask for a double room ie they can say they are full but if you’ve made a booking online/phone via some website/tourist board then you have a contractual legal obligation mate to provide that room. You aren’t obliged to tell them you are gay as well.

    2. Very much married 12 Feb 2012, 2:22pm

      As a trans woman who’s still legally male cos I’m still married to my wife (and very happy we are too), I suppose we would be fine to trot down to Cornwall and bag a double bed. No problem presumably, despite looking perhaps like a lesbian couple.

  40. Keith.(It gets worse) 10 Feb 2012, 9:24pm

    @Carl.
    “God commands the Jews not to treat strangers with inhospitality. ”

    This was not a law neither did it incur punishment. It was a directive, like “honor your father and mother” (which dishonor also carried no punishment) or “discipline your children”.
    More importantly however, it applied to the Israelites (whom you wrongly called Jews) alone. The Sodomites were not under the Mosaic law code or any other code which was a covenant between God and the Israelites exclusively.
    There was no inhospitality law that applied to anybody, let alone the Sodomites (who had their own God’s) and there certainly was no published death penalty for inhospitality.

    You also have not read Jude 7 which clearly identifies the punishment for hmoosexual acts.

    1. Ben Foster 11 Feb 2012, 8:24pm

      will you ever give it a rest. We don’t CARE what an old book of fairy tales says. The law of England and Wales in the 21st century is quite clear. YOU and your sort are WRONG.

  41. Keith.(It gets worse) 10 Feb 2012, 9:34pm

    Carl sadi
    “Ezekiel 16:48-50

    As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (NIV)

    Ezekiel Chapter 16 is an allegory God used to compare unfaithful Jerusalem to an adulterous wife for committing religious adultery. As you can see God listed the sins of Sodom. No homosexuality is listed there. Those detestable or abominable acts mentioned refereed to the religious rituals popular in that time.

    My reply…
    What do you think the ‘detestable things’ were in your quote then???
    Also, have you read Jude 7?
    Which sin does it refer to? How about 1 Corinthians 6:9?

    Also, homosexual acts are fronication which is also condemned throughout scripture,

    1. Tripe Tripe Drool Dribble. MORONONIC FREAK.

    2. Jude does not define exactly what sexual “perversion” he is referred to here. It seems to be sexual in nature, because it is coupled with a condemnation of fornication. Jude might have been referring to:
      The intent of the mob to rape the angels. Rape is a clear perversion of God-given sexuality.
      The fact that the angels were non-human. This would have made their sin of rape even worse; bestiality would have been involved but not homosexuality.

      According to the Bible myth, the attempted gang rape of angels by the men of Sodom does not and cannot describe homosexuality as angels are neither human nor are they men.

      1. It gets worse!,, 10 Feb 2012, 10:50pm

        And I am sure you would argue black is white.
        Let me spoon feed the truth to you.
        Jude 7 says
        “GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
        What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.”
        The destruction of the cities had already been determined even before the angels arrived, in fact the reason they were there was to warn LOT and family!
        As for homoexual acts , Leviticus 20:13 says…
        “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
        Not much room for interpretation there regarding whether Sodoms homosexuality was a sin.

        1. The sin that Jude condemns is humans having sex with or attempting to have sex with angels. He does not mention or condemn homosexuals and lesbians. Isn’t that interesting? Yet many anti-gay Christians take the verses out of context to condemn gays and lesbians. They assert (falsely) that v. 7 is a negative attack on lesbian women and gay men.

          That’s interesting because he uses the Greek word, heteras, (meaning different) from which we get our English word, heterosexual, instead of the Greek word, homoios, (meaning same) from which we get our English word, homosexual.

          The careful choice of words indicates that the point at issue with God is not homosexuality. The sin that Jude condemns is humans attempting to have sex with angels. The sin was attempting to have sex with someone too different, heteras.

          1. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 10:20am

            To suggest that Jude is warning people not to attempt have sex with angels pretty much shows that you have lost the plot. Must protect those helpless angels.
            What is your take on Leviticus 20:13 other than ignoring it?

          2. @Keith

            I suggest you go back and re-read the passage, read around it, understand the context, read commentaries on the passage – and then come back to me to explain exactly why my theological understanding is wrong reference Jude. Otherwise, for the moment I will presume that you have the same knee jerk reaction to the Bible as you do to the law (you have been proved not to understand law by Bob already once today, so why should I believe you really understand the Bible – which is in part law anyway!).

            As for Lev 20:13. the passage about lying with a man being an abdomination, well it states (in Hebrew) V’ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam. Now there is a death penalty associated with this text, that is undeniable at face value – when considering the full text and contextualising it one finds that death is sometimes required by the Hebrew Scriptures as the punishment for ritual transgressions. These included the worshipping ////

          3. /// of other Gods, gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32), ineligible persons acting as priests (Num 3:10). Only extreme Christian Reconstructionists and a few Christian hate groups wish to revert to the mass executions of LGBT people today. Most Christians and Jews have rejected the literal interpretation of Lev 20:13.
            The passage is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man ‘as with a woman’ insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property.” This passage is not part of the 10 Commandments, but merely part of almost 600 additional rules put forth via Israel’s religious leaders. If you look at the whole chapter, a lot of things come in for capital punishment that no Jew or Christian today would support, so those who choose to include homosexuality as being subject to capital punishment are selective in their reading.

      2. It gets worse!,, 10 Feb 2012, 11:05pm

        The angels had materialized as men, hence the rectal lust and homosexual intent of the perverts who were unaware that they were angels.intent n the threefold sin of sodomy, rape and fornication.

        1. Seems someone is claiming black is white. Its very clear that this passage is not about homosexuality but about sex with angels.

        2. Dress a gorilla up as a man it is still a gorilla and an attempted gang rape of it would not be homosexuality any more than attempted gang rape of angels would be homosexuality, different species altogether not same sex in any way and it is rape not consenting sex , my word you really are an ignoramus Keith if you are so incapable making basic distinstions..

    3. Moses was about to die and he predicted the scattering of Israel and the destruction of the land like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This destruction of Israel was not prophesied because of homosexuality but because of religious infidelity. This is quite in line with the context of the entire Bible. Of course God promises their restoration in Deuteronomy chapter 30

      Amos 4:11

      “I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. You were like a burning stick snatched from the fire, yet you have not returned to me,” declares the LORD.

      If you read the book of Amos you find that God promises to overthrow Israel as He overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah for three things: turning away from God which is religious unfaithfulness, being evil to the poor and living selfishly. Homosexuality is not even addressed.

    4. Matthew 11:20-24
      Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
      Here the Lord again makes reference to Sodom’s destruction as he talks about unrepentant cities that refuse to believe in him or his miracles. This is about religious unfaithfulness and unbelief, not homosexuality.

    5. I see its Clopazine time again…. if you didn’t drink so much Keith, you’d have the social security money to buy the meds you need.

  42. So does this mean that we can have a doble bed but they can still make a verbal attack at you for being sinners and plaster their bedroom walls/tables with offensive anti-gay material?

    Don’t know where they do their advertising but I hope the tourists boards in Cornwall are keeping an eye on this B&B and do somekind of self regulation on them. If an hotel is dishing out homophobia then it shouldn’t be on their websites.

    I think the hotel will never change despite this ruling and the service offered to gays would contine to be appalling. It should ideally have closed down….

  43. It gets worse!,, 10 Feb 2012, 11:00pm

    Carl…Let me remove the scales from your eyes regarding the detestable practices of Sodom which included but was not exclusively idol worship.
    Romans 1:27 says…
    “In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion.”

    Like an arrow of truth to the heart. The scriptures clearly condemn over same sex relations as unnatural, sinful and perverted.

    1. In Romans 1:27 Paul is speaking of people involved in an orgy.

      The persons involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. They are condemned because they went against their nature — their heterosexual orientation — and engaged in same-gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamentall nature — their homosexual orientation — and engaged in opposite-gender sexual behavior would also be sinning. Partly the sin was going against how they were created by God.

      1. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 10:16am

        He does not use the word orgy nor imply it. He uses ‘indecency’ referring to the homosexual acts. You also preposterously sugest that Paul is saying ” you can only carry out homosexual acts if you are of that orientation” By your reasoning, bestiality would be ok with God but only if that was your inclination???
        Where in he ibe is the law condemning sex with angels?
        Why have you deliberately ignored the fact that Leviticus 20:13 condemned
        same sex relations which carried the death penalty? Why have you ignored the fact that
        Sodom had been judged fit for destruction even before the angels arrived (to warn Lot’s family)
        And where in the bible does it say that the penalty for inhospitality is death. Remember also
        that the People of Sodom and Gomorrah were not bound by the Israelite covenant or law and
        that they had their own Gods.
        You have constructed a clumsy twisting of scripture to divert from the bible’s clear condemnation of same sex relations.

        1. @Keith

          Thats where our debate ends when you start to deliberately twist things to imply a link between homosexuality and bestiality.

          Only desperately hate inspired people would employ such devious and underhand tactics based on lies, falsehood and oppression.

          I am more than prepared to engage in reasoned and honorable debate. You have shown yourself incapable of doing so.

          As for the Romans passage I suggest you go and read some of the commentary on Romans by Ross A Taylor.

          1. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 1:57pm

            Same sex relations and bestiality both carried the death penalty for the Israelites. You of course would like to ignore this small fact. It is all there in scripture.

            Yes, I do hate homosexuality. Psalm 97:10 mplores moral ones to hae what has been defined as bad, including same sex relations as in Leviticus 20:13, which you ignore.

        2. Parting comment:
          Re Romans passage:
          In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean “passions” or “lust” as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living — the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the “frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.” It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan “fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome” at the time. Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan “Great Rite” is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.

          1. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 3:36pm

            So when God condemned same sex relations in Leviticus 20:13 he was just kidding then in you opinion?

          2. @Keith

            Do to your incivility our debate is at an end.

            I have alread replied re Leviticus above.

            Your chose to be offensive and hate filled. Thats when I stop debating because it demonstrates the pointlessness of debating with a loser like you.

    2. “Like an arrow of truth to the heart.” (LOL)

      More like a returning boomerang that hit the thrower keith smack in the face.
      I love it when “religious” bigots display their total ignorance of what is described in scripture, no wonder they are confused about the human condition when they have such obviously poor cognition.

  44. This is disgraceful, why do these homosexual minorities think they should have ‘special’ rights over anyone else. It was these guys freedom of choice to be gay as much as it’s the Bull’s freedom of choice not to have unmarried couples sharing a room in ‘their’ property. It always makes me laugh the way minorities want equality and then a little extra.

    The bulls must now remember to just refuse without reason given.

    I will pray for them, and for help for the sins of homosexuals.

    1. Thank you so much for praying for the sins of homosexuals. In return, I trust that some gay Christians will pray for your sins as well. I assume that you are also praying for the sins of Mr and Mrs Bull. It is worth remembering that all sinners are equal in God’s judgement, save those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

      Perhaps you might benefit from a remedial course in English grammar: “these guys’ freedom”, “the Bulls’ freedom” (note use of apostrophe). In the first sentence the comma is used incorrectly and there is no question mark at the end of the sentence. The only thing worse than bigotry is ungrammatical bigotry.

    2. I shall pray for you to develop an open mind and heart and not fall for the lies that you have clearly been told. Learn to critically analyse and reason, James.

    3. Clasp your hands together and talk to yourself if you so desire, just don’t do it for me please.

      It’s neither necessary nor wanted.

    4. “I will pray for them, and for help for the sins of homosexuals.”

      LOL! Yeah, really useful that. That’s why you lost, you see.

    5. Excuse me if you are anti gay why r u looking on the pink news website, homosexuality is a natural thing, its all biological no one can choose to be gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay, lesbien or bisexual. Treat everyone with respect. How you would want to be treated.

  45. Gavin Regan 11 Feb 2012, 1:37am

    Perhaps we should go Stand to their salons and Evangelise to them whilst they cut our hair or go to their night clubs and post passages of the Bible on the walls.

    After all surely they aren’t allowed to do anything…….oh wait its only a one way street isn’t it the Homosexuals get ALL their way whilst Christians aren’t even allowed to practice their faith.

    I’m glad to heat that the street preacher was cleared, that’s one to the Christians.

    1. Yes, that’s right, gay people do nothing but cut hair and go clubbing. None of them have read the Bible either. Of course Christians are allowed to practise their faith. They just aren’t allowed to use their faith as a justification for discrimination in the provision of goods and services. There are laws to protect people against the kind of harassment you are recommending. Equally, gay people are not allowed to turn up at a church and lecture people on homosexuality and stick quotations from gay literature on the walls of the church. Nor are gay people allowed to ban Christians from staying in hotels. Your point was stupid as it refused to compare like situations.

    2. Of course Christians (whether gay Christians or straight Christians) arent allowed to practice their faith, Thats why the government has embarked on a nationwide programme of closing churches and using the sales value to reduce the national debt. Thats why a government minister stood up yesterday and said prayers in public were wrong and should never happen. Oh, sorry Christians do have full freedom to practice their faith, they just need to do so with responsibility!

    3. Ben Foster 11 Feb 2012, 8:31pm

      posting passages of the bible on the walls of a club without permission from the owner would be vandalism.

    4. Wow.

      What a small mind filled with stereotypes.

      Nobody is stopping nutters drooling over their “Faith”

      Just do it in private.

    5. “I’m glad to heat that the street preacher was cleared, that’s one to the Christians.”

      LOL! Yeah, you’re real winners, what with all the court loses and all…. pity you can’t be real Christians, though.

  46. Something that still confuses me is that this case apparently rests on the notion that discrimination against a gay couple in a civil partnership is unlawful on the grounds that a civil partnership is equivalent to marriage (by the way, it isn’t: if it were, there would be no need to continue the fight for same-sex marriage). Are we supposed to accept that it is lawful to discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple or a gay couple not in a civil partnership? Surely the only acceptable position must be no discrimination against anyone on the basis of sexual behaviour provided that behaviour is between consenting adults. The year is 2012. People have sex, whether they are married or unmarried, in a civil partnership, or not in a civil partnership. If you are providing a service, don’t make it conditional on the customer’s perceived sexual morality.

    1. Spanner1960 11 Feb 2012, 8:53am

      Does that mean you allow pets as well then? ;)

    2. The law is clear that marriage and civil partnership are to be treated equally in law.

      1. Spanner1960 11 Feb 2012, 12:22pm

        Yes, but we all know they are not.
        If everyone is “married” there is no excuse for ambiguity.

        1. I agree Spanner. We do need equal marriage to remove the ambiguity – hopefully soon. Until then, we should seek to enforce equality law that gives CPs the same legal protection as marriage.

          1. Spanner1960 11 Feb 2012, 2:51pm

            Yes, but that is simply appeasing the architects of this useless and unworkable legislation that should never have been allowed in the first place.

          2. It probably shouldn’t. We cant change history, just make it better.

        2. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 11:04am

          THe legislation is neither useless nor unworkable – as this case has shown.

      2. In a wide range of legal matters the law does require the married couples and couples in civil partnerships be treated equally. But that is not to say that marriage and civil partnership are the same thing. In the Christian context I would highlight that it is expressly forbidden for civil partnerships to be formed with any religious ceremony. There is certainly a theological distinction between marriage and civil partnership. I am an atheist, but I can assure you that you will not find many theologians who will tell you that a civil partnership and a marriage are equivalent. We still need full equality in this country, meaning same-sex marriage. I have friends who are putting off having a civil partnership because they want to wait and see when same-sex marriage will come in. Clearly they see that there is a distinction and they would rather wait and be treated with full equality by being allowed to get married in name, not just in effect, and be called husband and husband.

  47. once again brainwashed twats have lost the 21 century is taking religion out and they know its going

    1. Don’t get complacance.

      History has shown that these nutters fight back viciously when cornered and bear in mind the religiosity of the current party in power.

      1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 3:25pm

        Everyone fights back viciously when they are cornered.

  48. At least the Gay men only ‘bum and breakfast’ establishments will still flourish! Long live equality……

  49. To Carl, Zack et al –
    Very informative and reasonable but don’t expect to make much headway with a fundamentalist nut like Keith. He once equivocated like mad over whether a psalm blessing the murder of Babylonian children reflected the will of his God or not. And please remember that most of us don’t ascribe infallible truth to an incoherent old text.

    1. Hi Riondo

      I realise a sizeable majority of people on here will not share my faith. I in no way seek to try and convince anyone one way or the other. When an idiot like Keith abuses the Bible for hate filled purposes then I will speak out – provided they debate reasonably. The moment they become offensive and crazed then they have lost.
      As a gay Christian, I realise that I will have attackers (and supporters) from both sides. I am passionate about gay rights and religious freedom. With both come responsibility. Faith is largely a matter for an individual to decide.
      I will try not to step on toes of people on here in terms of my faith – but idiots like Keith do a disservice to Christians (unfortunately there are too many people like him and the Christian Institute who act in a very unChristian attitude).
      Thanks for listening.
      Zack

      1. @Zack

        Pretty much sums up my approach. Keith is an idiot, he thinks he sets traps with his so called knowledge of Scripture, but is shown to be ignorant when challenged and can just resort to offensiveness and ridicule. Totally unscriptural and wrong.

        Thanks to everyone on here for the opportunity to debate interesting topics.

        1. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 3:32pm

          Dissimulation and ad hominen does not work with me.
          You have to show where I got it wrong with the bible. Just saying so does not make it so. Do you want to try for the title with me? Nobody yet has been able to successfully refute bible truth on here.

          1. Keith

            I have responded to all your responses until such point as you became offensive.

            That was a decision you made to start becoming impolite and aggressive.

            How many different ways can I tell you – the debate is over. I will not debate with someone who engages in vile assimilations and ad hominem as you do.

            Its apparent to anyone with an ability to critically analyse that my arguments are far more cohesive than yours.

            Debate over. You became abusive. You lost. Good bye.

          2. Ben Foster 11 Feb 2012, 8:34pm

            Yes, they did, several times. But you are too thick-headed to notice.

          3. Ben Foster 11 Feb 2012, 8:37pm

            besides, neither you nor anyone else has actually proven that the bible IS the truth. All you’ve done is discuss translations and interpretations of a book of fiction. It is no more valid in a court of law than a debate in an English literatire seminar about James Joyce’s Ulysses.

          4. “Dissimulation and ad hominen does not work with me.”

            Nor us, you piece of filth.

            The key difference is we do not get deleted.

        2. Thanks Carl and Zach.. :)

      2. Hello Zack -
        I certainly am not one of those who attack you – I simply don’t share your beliefs. But I appreciate your presence among those with a still widely held religious faith and your capacity to challenge their still pervasive bigotry on these issues. Keep at it.

        1. Thanks Riondo, thats appreciated.

    2. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 3:26pm

      No-one should ascribe infallible truth to an incoherent old text any more than any piece of literature. It is to be constantly re-investigated and re-interpreted.

  50. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 5:16pm

    @ Carl.
    Leviticus 20:13 clearlt states te death penalty for same sex relations. That means God judged same sex relations disgusting.
    To lump this sin in with other’abominations’ betrays a misunderstanding of the scriptures.and the seriousness of the sin. Firstly, the sin of same sex relations was recognized as seprate from the Mosaic law covenant and it’s rituals, by which Christians are not bound. However, Homosexual cts are condemned both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
    Secondly, The Hebrew nouns she′qets (loathsome thing) and shiq·quts′ (disgusting thing) ant the the word ta·ʽav′ (detest) and the related toh·ʽe·vah′ (detestable thing) are often both translated as ‘abomination’ though they have two completely different meanings.
    IE Shellfish…loathsome
    Homosexuality…detestable.
    Ditch that gay friendly bible and check out the extant manuscripts.

    1. You are an offensive troll. Debate over. You lost. Good bye.

      1. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 7:40pm

        Oh dear! Trolls do not usually quote original Hebrew do they?
        Sorry you find the bible offensive but you should not have trie to twist it!

        1. Ben Foster 11 Feb 2012, 8:38pm

          you are a troll. and you LOST, get it! Shut up. you idiot.

          1. It gets worse!,, Keith 11 Feb 2012, 9:40pm

            Are you another of Stu’s alter egos? You can always tell by the lack of objectivity and general frothing at the mouth!

          2. The santorum is all yours Keith, get yourself a roll of tissues.

          3. Carl, you have to ignore Keith here, he’s a ex-gay drunk with all the intellect and humanity of something lying on its back at the bottom of a pond. He can’t make an argument to save his life, and when he loses (which is often), he throws a tantrum.

    2. “The Hebrew word “to’ebah” appears in both passages and is generally translated as “abomination.” These passages refer only to male Jews who engaged in same-sex behavior in Pagan temples. The term would better be translated as “ritually improper” or “involving foreign religious cult practice.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, the same word is used to ban wearing of clothing made up from two materials (like cotton-polyester in today’s world), or having a tattoo, eating shrimp, eating pork, seeding lawns with a mixture of grass types, etc. None of the passages invoking “T’ebah” are valid for non-Jews today.”

    3. Are you calling for the execution of homosexuals then?

      Better get ready for that knock on the door sometime soon.

      Enjoy prison.

  51. “The Hebrew word “to’ebah” is generally translated as “abomination.” These passages refer only to male Jews who engaged in same-sex behavior in Pagan temples.
    The term would better be translated as “ritually improper” or “involving foreign religious cult practice.”
    Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, the same word is used to ban wearing of clothing made up from two materials (like cotton-polyester in today’s world), or having a tattoo, eating shrimp, eating pork, seeding lawns with a mixture of grass types, etc.
    None of the passages invoking “T’ebah” are valid for non-Jews today.”

    1. It gets worse!,, Keith 12 Feb 2012, 10:37am

      You have missed the point/s.
      Homosexuals argue that since the word abomination is applied to eating shellfish and same sex relations, therefore, same sex relations are no worse than eating shellfish and anyway Christians are not under the dietary law.
      The grave error here is the translating of two Hebrew word with different meanings into one word ‘abomination’,
      In the original Hebrew, same sex relations are ‘detestable’ (capital crime) whilst eating shellfish is ‘loathsome’ (ritual/ceremonial infraction). The penalty for same sex relations was death. Not so with the eating of shellfish wherby you would be ceremonially unclean.
      furthermore, the law on same sex relations was carried over into Christianity wheras the dietary law was not .Incorrect translating of two different meanings into one word has caused misapplication of scripture.

      1. Is that so?…perhaps according to the book of trolls.

      2. Yawn. We’re not interested.

        1. He makes this stuff up. He’s juts pissed of this case was won (again!) and he probably can’t find any drink. A cockroach as more intellect, not to mention more usefulness.

        2. “It is above your mental capacity”

          No, I’m above you’re drinking capacity and outside your ability to do anything about it. Nice to see you bluster on a story where we won. Again.

          So many comments lost. So tragic. LOL.

  52. Seriously, the Bull’s should have known better than to use the Bible as the basis of belief.

  53. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 10:25am

    1. The restriction to married couples having a double bed was absolute. A gay couple could not comply with it because each party was of the same sex and therefore could not marry. Therefore, the restriction discriminated on grounds of of sexual orientation: reg.3(1) and reg.4, James v Eastleigh BC [1990] 2 AC 751 followed. 

    2(a). It could not be said that a refusal to allow gay couples to share double-bedded accommodation offered to the public would breach the Bulls’ rights under art.8 and art.14 of the Convention. 

    2(b). To the extent that the Regulations limited the manifestation of their religious beliefs, such a limitation was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Bulls’ faced no difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs, they were merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context that they had chosen: Ladele v Islington LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 and McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880 applied. 

  54. Help us end hate for LGBTs in AFrica and around the world.Express and follow us on Twitter; Endthefearnow
    ONELOVE

  55. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 11:18am

    One must distinguish between discrimination which off­ends the respect due to the individual and that which merely requires rational justification.

    The first type cannot be justified, eg that it is rational to prefer to employ men rather than women because more women than men give up work to look after children. That off­ends the notion that everyone is entitled to be treated as an individual and not a statistical unit. However, diff­erences in treatment in the second category eg. on grounds of ability, education, wealth, occupation, usually depend upon considerations of the general public interest.

    There may be borderline cases and there are shifts in the values of society on these matters. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is now in the first category. Discrimination on grounds of old age may be borderline. But there is usually no difficulty about knowing when individuality of a human being is at stake as opposed to merely a question of general social policy.

  56. david skinner 12 Feb 2012, 5:37pm

    Our laws, that at one time were unashamedly based upon Biblical teaching, protected marriage, the family and the life of the unborn child, have been discarded; in their place we are now dominated by another theocracy that of Secularism and Cultural Marxism . The consequence is that the whole of western civilisation is engaged in industrialised abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Put in a mix of homosexuality and we truly have a culture of death. Islam does not have threaten us with terrorism or suicide bombing, all it has to do is breed.

    http://uk.search-results.com/videos?qsrc=167&o=100000051&l=dis&q=christendom%2C&dm=ctry&atb=sysid%3D406%3Auid%3D81edcdb23610e07b%3Auc%3D1327563739%3Asrc%3Dhmp%3Ao%3D100000051%3Aq%3Dchristendom%2

    1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 6:34pm

      Perhaps you could refer to those Parliamentary statutes that were unashamedly based upon Biblical teaching?

      Even if they were, I am not sure where that takes you. In France after the revolution, the secularity was established as a pillar of the Republic. No-one in France complains about French laws being based on the principle of secularity.

    2. Oh well david skinner, on the bright side you already appear to be suffering from total brain death so whatever the future holds it should be painless journey for you from now on.

    3. When did all this rot actually start, David? When the Normans gave us feudalism? When we stopped killing people with the wrong religious beliefs? When we gave direct control of the Church to the king? When we abolished slavery?
      The advent of plural and multi-party democracy? Votes for women?
      Lots of dates to choose from – lots of highly non-Biblical ideas going back many centuries. You must hardly know where to start.
      But you’re just talking bull, anyway. As usual.

    4. That YouTube is full of untestable propositions, and no reference is given.

    5. “Our laws, that at one time were unashamedly based upon Biblical teaching, protected marriage, the family and the life of the unborn child,…”

      That is an untestable proposition, and you know it.

      Like the Garden of Eden, the Golden Era of the good old days is a myth, nothing but a myth.

    6. “Our laws, that at one time were unashamedly based upon Biblical teaching, protected marriage, the family and the life of the unborn child, have been discarded;”

      Yep, we moved out of the dark ages. Welcome to the 21st century. At your age David, you probably don’t need to worry about the crippling fear that grips you daily for very much longer….

    7. I stopped reasing at the suggestion of theocratic secularism. What next? Carnivorous vegetarianism?

      Moron.

  57. david skinner 12 Feb 2012, 5:41pm

    Homosexuals are puppets in the hands of Marxists and Marxists are puppets in the hands of Islam . Twenty, thirty years from now Britain will reap what it has sown. But no matter, eat, drink and be merry for as a nation we are dying.

    1. de Villiers 12 Feb 2012, 6:41pm

      It is generous for you to enlighten those of us on the right that we are puppets in the hands of Marxists and, therefore Islam. I had thought myself to be a centre-right French Citizen supporting the principles of the Republic, which includes the secularity of the state.

      France has been secular ever since the Second Republic in 1848 and formalised by the 1905 loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Églises et de l’État. It traces back to the Revolution in 1789.

      In all of that time, France has not died as a nation. I doubt, similarly, that the UK is in much danger, let alone facing a threat to the life of the nation, from any perils of secularity or, indeed, homosexuality.

    2. So what Skinner, you’re kind are losing. Anything is better than the nonsense you fasist freaks promote.

      No f-cuk off loser.

    3. You know this is paranoid nonsense don’t you ? You know you’re not well don’t you ?

    4. @david skinner . . . before you go to sleep this evening, one word of advice.

      Check there are no Marxists under your bed!!!

  58. Reply to david skinner:
    Ever considered changing your name to Cassandra? If not you should.

  59. The judgement’s available here:

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2012/bull-v-hall-and-preddy

    and is worth a glance through. Paragraph 62 discusses Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights (“Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”), and emphasises that part 2 of the article says “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

  60. If religions determined truth and facts on reproducible evidence, there would be only one religion.

  61. That ridiculous name, Hazel-friggen-Mary should also be banned.

  62. here’s an email I received from Cornwall Trading Standards after a complaint I lodged about the hotel website still containing discriminational conditiond of service provision:

    Thank you for your enquiry. Although this service has no direct role in enforcing anti-discrimination legislation we are aware of the recent legal case involving this hotel. At present, the premises are closed. As the recent judgement was only made late last week, it is assumed that the owners are still deciding their future plans. I do not think it is possible for them to continue to trade on their current terms, assuming that the legal process is indeed concluded. If the premises reopen for trade, we will of course check that their terms and conditions comply with the law.

    Yours sincerely

    Carl Tanner

    Trading Standards Officer

  63. As a gay man, I believe that this is wrong. Tolerance should work both ways with the gay community and religious groups. It was their property and they kindly expressed what their views were. They didn’t even tell them to leave but they could stay in separate rooms. Now this couple has to pay thousands of pounds which they probably don’t even have to give. We are not going to kill homophobia this way but create more of it!

    1. @George — I don’t think we’re going to get rid of homophobia by not challenging it.

      Tolerance should be mutual, but ignoring illegal victimisation is not the way for gay people to show tolerance.

      It was their property and a place of business where the law requires them to act with certain standards. I do not know why you say they “kindly expressed their views” as I suspect you were not there. But one can express abhorrent views in a gentle manner, and this is what the Bulls did. You should probably read article 2 of the ECHR which discusses the difference between holding a view and exhibiting it.

      The couple does not have to pay anything as their case was funded by The Christian Institue. Even were it not, it was their choice to appeal the original judgement.

    2. Correxion — I should have written article 9> of the ECHR.

  64. Hey this is a very interesting article! Thanks! Maybe you’re interested in Abercrombie Fitch Online Shop

  65. Dennis Lloyd 22 Feb 2012, 12:37pm

    This is a ruling for common sense, A few years ago we were turned away from a guest house in Fort William in Scotland for the very same reasons. At last the law has caught up with the homophobic hotel and guest house owners. Does anyone now want to test Chymorvah Hotel to see if they are obeying the ruling?

    My advice to the owners would be to obey the law OR sell up and retire gracefully and take your homophobic views with you.

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