Reader comments · Christian hoteliers’ business ‘down by two thirds’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian hoteliers’ business ‘down by two thirds’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good. That is all.

    1. So a christian rest centre, eh? Open to all Christians or just straight married ones?

    2. Katie Murphy - ex cath family 15 Mar 2012, 3:38am

      more like good riddance. Some christians are anything but.

  2. I thought Cornwall Trading Standards had said the hotel was closed?

  3. The Chymorvah Hotel website still lists the Bulls’ policy of not allowing couples to share a bed unless they are in a heterosexual marriage today.

    So still showing their blatant homphobia! Serves them right!

    And do they really think that by turning the hotel into a Christian rest centre, that it will return to profitability? Seriously delusional the pair of them.

    1. I hope someone else sues them if they again refuse to rent a room to a gay couple. This time I hope the Equality Commission will do their job and enforce the order for damages.

    2. what happen when a gay couple who are Christians book in?


  4. Im straight but wouldn’t want to stay anywhere owned and run by narrow minded bigot such as the Bulls. They can keep their hotel!

    1. Or what’s left of it thanks to their hate and bigotry.

  5. Not Good.

    This will only provide the Daily Wail hate mongers with more reasons to be anti-gay.

    This old couple clearly should not be in business for themselves given their bigotry, stupidity and for being the puppets of the Christian Institute.

    I wonder if the Institute will provide them with a steady income now that they have almost lost them their business via their stupid court cases.

    One would have thought that all of the wholesome christians would be flooding to their doors.

    Clearly not.

    1. And I meant to add.

      Perhaps their GOD will provide!

      1. Lol I read your name as “David North”, a whole different ball game :P

      2. so, are you David North?

        1. Dave North 16 Feb 2012, 4:03pm

          Who’s David North? A celeb /footballer/ politician or something?

          I am called David North, but probably the boring uninteresting gay one.

          1. lol… :D

    2. Their policy is no more acceptable than the cards in boarding houses of the 50’s and 60’s saying “no blacks, no Irish”. If those cards are not acceptable today, then neither is a policy that discriminates against gay people.


      2. TROLL ALERT

        DO NOT FEED

        1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 12:19pm

          Oh come on, dAvid!! Keef is Elvis re-incarnated – and as such we should enjoy Elvisbombing his every poorly-spelled (and totally contrived) utterance. That we will never learn is true identity is sad – he obviously isn’t proud to be the person he is. Whereas I am! And I am the biggest poof that ever typed these lines!! In yer face, Keef (Elvis).

    3. Who cares what the Daily Heil thinks.

      It hates gay people regardless of how we behave so who gives a s*** what the readership of the Daily Heil thinks (remember that the Daily Heil is the newspaper of choice for the BNP, and that the Daily Mail supported Germany up until it invaded Poland in 1939.

      1. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 6:40am

        It didn’t realise Paul Dacre was that old.

        1. He’s not – it’s just to point out that the Daily Heil has been a paper of the extreme right for decades.

    4. Quite the contrary, this shows the Wail whingers that negative approaches to LGBT equality are wholly wrong in the eyes of most people and taking a holier than thou approach will win them no favours.

      Judge not, lest ye be judged!

    5. I quite agree with what you’re saying, just as long as you accept that these sorts of people are in a minority within the Church. The majority of Christians do support equality, and we should remember this before condemning the Church as a whole.

  6. perhaps the ‘married’ couples were fearful they had to show their marriage documents hahahaha wonderful !!!

    1. Yes, reminded of that episode of fawlty towers in which Basil is determined to catch the young unmarried guy with a woman in his room,lol.

  7. Seems some people learn their lessons the hard way.

    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. Amazing really.

      Stop being bigots. Business picks up.

      Keep being bigots. Businesses dries up.

      Not difficult to work out or are they really that stupid?

      1. Clearly yes.

        Then again they believe in some genocidal ‘god’ (their ‘god’ cold-bloodedly murdered the 1st born child of every Egyptian remember) so intelligence is obviously not their strong point.

        Their hotel looks like a nice place to arrange an orgy.

        1. No I prefer less chintz when I am having an orgy!

        2. Just one issue with what you’ve said there:

          God did not kill the first born child of every Egyptian in cold blood. The pharaoh at the time was responsible for all his people, and by crossing God, he incurred His wrath. God had a reason to do so, as such He did not kill them in cold blood.

          1. friday jones 16 Feb 2012, 11:30pm

            It was the very definition of killing in cold blood, not in actual anger, but “for a purpose” that was other than self-defense.

          2. Right I’m gonna go around killing peoples first born children cos someone pissed me off?

            How is that an argument he still killed a load of peoples kids?

    2. Shane, could you please make it clear whether you yourself have a function at the Chymorvah Hotel and are therefore using your own words, or whether you are merely quoting from the hotel’s publicity as an outsider?

    3. If you’re going to pretend to be one of the owners of the B&B and troll this site then you might want to get your name right “Peter”

      How sad your life must be.

    4. Except that there are plenty of christians in this country – the majority in fact, 61% of those who identify as such according to recent studies – who have absolutely no problem with gay marriage.

      So it’s NOT because you’re christians that you think this way. Most christians don’t. It’s because you’re homophobic bigots.

      1. @VP

        Many of that 61% actively endorse and support equal marriage.
        These bigots are not representative of most of us Christians

      2. The Bulls are among the hateful bigots that comprise of the 39% of British christians.

        I wish the Bulls a speedy bankruptcy.

        If they are still referencing their moronic homophobia on their website we must make sure they are driven out of business.

        Their ‘god’ will provide for them I am sure.

    5. DJ Sheepiesheep 16 Feb 2012, 12:38pm

      Tell us, Shane, do you have a website at Chymorvah, because we’d love to crash it!

    6. “Seems some people learn their lessons the hard way.”

      Like the Bulls? They sure did. Hauled through the courts to fail, and exposed nationally as a pair of bitter twisted bigots.

      I’d call that a hard lesson.

    7. You’ve all misunderstood Shane’s comment..

      Shane isn’t posing as the Bulls, he just cut and pasted the anti-gay rule from their website.

      And he is saying that the quote he posted shows the Bulls will have to learn the hard way.. since they haven’t removed the illegal rule.

      1. DJ Sheepiesheep 16 Feb 2012, 10:58pm


      2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 11:11am

        Totally agree, Peter S – it’s a cut and paste job from their booking form – but typically, the motormouths feel the need to mob. The Bulls are still enforcing their bigoted taste in marriage to unsuspecting couples. It’s a B&B, for x sake! Not a friggin’ church! They should be told!

  8. It seems that God didn’t feel the urge to step in and help them. Oh well!

    1. i wonder why…

      1. Mumbo Jumbo 16 Feb 2012, 1:24pm

        Because there is no such thing :-)

        1. It really is that simple.

          1. Mumbo Jumbo 16 Feb 2012, 6:58pm

            Indeed it is.

      2. Because they are not being true Christians. The message of Christianity is one of love and compassion for all our fellow human beings, a message that some “Christians” unfortunately seem to forget. The world would be a much happier place if this small minority of misguided Christians realised the true message and lived it out each and every day.

        1. Who are YOU to decide what ‘rue christianity’.

          Did you get a call on the hotline from ‘god’ to tell you that the Bulls’ version is wrong.

          As far as I know the Bulls use the same work of fiction – the Buybull – as the basis for their christianity.

          That makes them as christian as you.

          If you are basing your belief system on a badly written work of fiction like the buybull then please don’t insult your own intelligence by trying to enunciate what is ‘real’ and what is ‘fake’.

          It’s ALL fake.

          1. Well I study theology when not at work, so I’d say that gives me a better perspective than some.

            The true message of Christianity is the message that Jesus spread, not what all the other prophets said.

            The whole reason why Christians are Christians and not Jews is because we believe in Jesus Christ, and so we (are meant to) follow His teachings.

            Jesus spoke out against a lot of the rules laid down by the Torah, which makes up a large part of the Old Testament of the Bible. He saved an adulterous woman from being stoned, even though the Torah specifically stated that any woman caught sleeping with a man who is not her husband should be killed. You will find that Jesus spreads a message of compassion to others, but people like these hoteliers seem to miss that.

            As to your other comments, please use the proper spelling of “Bible”. Even if you don’t believe in it, you should show Christianity respect, then we might be able to have reasoned discussions and not descend into a flame war.

    2. de Villiers 16 Feb 2012, 11:23pm

      It is a bit simple to suggest that when millions perish in war and disease, god would intervene in a court case concerning a hotel in a minor English province.

      1. Well, he never intervenes, does he? And no matter what the scale of the tragedy. Either he can’t, he won’t or he doesn’t exist.

        1. Even if it existed I would not want ‘God’ intervening’ in anything,

          It’s a genocidal maniac – look at how it slaughtered the 1st born child of every Egyptian in cold blood.

          1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 11:18am

            Erm, that wasn’t Yahweh that ‘slaughtered the innocents’ – it was an unspecified Herod-type person. As most of the bibble stories are by and large baseless – God seems to be just an excuse for jewish perpetration of genocide on others (if indeed any such thing ever happened!).

          2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 11:21am

            Sorry I should say that waiting for God to intervene in anything is akin to waiting for a tin of beans to open by itself!

      2. de Villiers 17 Feb 2012, 1:59pm

        Well, even to suppose that “he” can intervene presupposes a certain conception of existence that cannot really apply to a indescribable concept.

        1. “Well, even to suppose that “he” can intervene presupposes a certain conception of existence that cannot really apply to a indescribable concept”

          LOL! Indescribable? Yet you seem to think you know what this god is. So you can describe what is “indescribable”, can you? You are so far up your own arse its nauseating.

        2. de Villiers 17 Feb 2012, 6:33pm

          You are always very rude, Rob. You are always ready to throw an insult. I recall Einstein’s statement:

          “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger… is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself to us as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the centre of all true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men.”

          This is to be found in Einstein’s article “Strange is our situation here on earth” in Modern Religious Thought, Pelikan page 225.

          One see from Heidegger, his view that there is not “a god” or object of cognition rather than “being”, and through its transcendence both being and Nothing.

          Understanding comes not through articulation but immersion.

  9. Not a massive fan of capitalism but this at least is one of its strengths. Even if it were legal to discriminate on the grounds of S.O. the public have show their distaste for this kind of prejudice.

  10. Marriage is a civil institution. The religious part is an option. You cannot get married in the UK without the civil registration. These people are seriously delusional. There’s no chance of rational discussion with them.

    1. They are christians though. So what do you expect.

      It is impossible to have a rational discussion who thinks that a murderous sky fairy (‘God’) invented the world in 6 days and took a happy finish day off on the 7th,

      1. While you may not agree with some of the teachings of Christianity, you could at least get your facts right.

        God does not live in the sky, and certainly isn’t a fairy. God is not actually given any form in the Bible, as would be befitting an omnipotent and omnipresent entity.

        Also, the world was not created in 6 days, it was created in 6 time periods, seeing as the hebrew word originally used in the Jewish Torah does actually just mean time period, not a specific amount of time.

        You should also remember that the majority of the Bible is metaphorical, and a lot of it could actually not be trully representitive of God’s vision. The Bible was written by humans, not by God, and so they would have put their own interpretation on what God was showing them.

        1. “You should also remember that the majority of the Bible is metaphorical,”

          You mean ‘fictional’?

          It’s a badly written work of fiction written to give meaning to the lives of desert-dwelling illiterate peassants, thousands of years ago.

          It has no relevance today other than as a historical curiosity.

          If I needed a work of fiction to give meaning to my life, I think Jackie Collins would be a better option,.

          Jackie’s books are better written and at least there are some sex scenes.

          1. “You mean ‘fictional’?”

            No, I mean metaphorical, or does your vocabulary not stretch that far? Metaphorical text is text which has meaning behind it, but is not intended to be taken at face value.

            It is wrong to take the Bible wholely literally, because through time as it was translated from language to language, peoples’ interpretation about what it is saying has caused some of the original meaning to be lost. This also happened when the Bible was first written as well, as the Bible was not written by God himself, it was written by humans, and so subject to human interpretation.

      2. de Villiers 16 Feb 2012, 11:25pm

        That shows a misunderstanding of religion and of literature. Works of art are not to be read literally.

        1. So you accept that the bible is a work of fiction.

          Do you also therefore accept the absurdity of christianity, islam and judaism – seeing as you yourself admit that all 3 cults are based on works of fiction?

          1. de Villiers 17 Feb 2012, 3:26pm

            It follows, that I consider that the bible are works of literature and allegory rather than historical records of fact. Most serious theology has never treated the bible as historical records of fact.

  11. Whats really sad is that they probably still dont understand why what they did was wrong.

    Im not standing up for them at all, but they are victims as well, victims of religious delusion and the Church, one of the biggest businesses in the world and one of the least moral.

    1. Rovex – you are correct. Delusional religious thinking enables people to commit all kinds of atrocities, such as mutilation of a child’s genitals, murdering of children, oppression of women – all in the name of “good”.
      Tell someone that their religious practice is harming others and needs to stop and it is they who feel persecuted and even more committed to carrying on.

      1. I’d just call them very stupid, and suffering from obvious mental health issues (their christianity being the main one).

      2. de Villiers 17 Feb 2012, 7:34am

        More people have been killed under fascism in Germany and communism in Russia, China and in atheist dictators than in all the religious wars combined. In China, young girls are abandoned because parents want boys and there is an unhealthy subjugation of women in Chinese life.

        All this happens or happened in countries where religion is or was outlawed. It shows that such behaviour is, unfortunately, part of human nature whether or not they believe in a concept of the divine.

        1. No-one wants to outlaw religion – it simply needs to back out of public life due to its disregards for democracy and human rights.

          Religion is a cancer.

          1. “HIV is a disease. It is disproportionate amongst the homosexul disorer communi times soty, in fact, 50 ties more so.”

            So what?

            Breast Cancer is a disease. It is disproportionate amongst women, in fact, 5,000 ties more so.

            You are soooooooooo stupid Keith, you really really are.

          2. And what’s a “disorer communi times soty”?

            Oh, wild guess, drunk again?

            Not hard to figure it out.

    2. Katie Murphy - ex cath family 15 Mar 2012, 3:41am

      time to outlaw any kind of religious education until people are grown up. Stop the brainwashing and watch the churches end up being museums . To teach our children and grandchildren about the curse fo humanity – Religion.

  12. Her face would be enough to put people off.

    1. Absolutely, what a suck-faced misery as well as being an idiotic bigot.

  13. “Judge not lest ye be judged”.

    They did, and were.

    1. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 6:45am

      “The Lord moves in mysterious ways” as they say…

  14. Contact their local traing standards to inform them that this hotel is STILL breaking the law on their website.

  15. I have no sympathy.

  16. a Christian rest centre sounds good. After all it must be very tiring attacking the human rights of gay people. Resentment and hatred can be so exhausting, and what with all that praying.

    1. Turning this into a Christian rest centre won’t help them – they still won’t be able to break the law.

      1. The only way around the law that I have seen debated that might allow them to continue discriminating in such a callous way is to form a religious charity and offer services to those who share their “values”. This would not be able to be a business asw profit making could not be an objective of the charity unless it was used to finance other initiatives. They would also have to comply in full with charity law, and its difficult to see how this could work without significant changes to the manner the “hotel” is managed and organised eg a board of trsustees may have control over the entire building including the family home.

        The should just close down and accept their errors.

        1. David Myers 17 Feb 2012, 9:08am

          Actually if they were to declare that they have now realized that they were in violation of human rights codes and had been lead that way by their christian hate sponsors and that they recognized their errors and were now prepared to formally change their discriminator policies in print and in practice and would in the future welcome all guests regardless of sexual orientation or state of marriage and would not interfere with peoples double bed requests, then we could in good faith, reward their “redemption” by giving them the chance to prove that their “change” was real and true by using their facilities as tourists and making a show of our willingness to reward those who were willing to change and treat us like everyone else. It would be a success story all around, and a valuable lesson to others who might want to recondiser their previous bigotry.

      2. While there are (to my disgust) some religious exemptions to equality legislation (this is why women cannot sue the catholic church to be allowed to be priests) I suspect that your belief in this case is probably right. The exemption probably requires an action or behaviour to be a well established and understood practice of the faith. And unless christians want the Bulls to assert that homophobia is an intrinsic part of what they believe in, then the exemption probably won’t stand. An easier example – Sikh men wear turbans, it is a well established concept of their faith. Cases involving the wearing of turbans have been won because of this. Cases involving the wearing of a crucifix have failed because wearing a crucifix is NOT a basic requirement of christian faith and is not supported by doctrine. In other words – a religious exemption must be distinct and specific.

  17. If they are still advertising as having a policy that only allows heterosexual married couples to stay, why haven’t they been closed down by trading standards? Surely they are still breaking the law?

    1. I don’t think it quite works that way. You aren’t legally allowed to discriminate, but merely saying you have such a policy is not a crime. It only becomes an offense when you actually do turn someone away on those grounds. There are advertising standards rules on the matter, but I’m pretty sure that all the ASA can do is force you to take down offending advertisements and fine you if you don’t. I don’t think they have the power to close an establishment down for simply advertising that it does something it isn’t allowed to.

      1. The ASA do now cover internet advertisements.

        Complaints could be made here

      2. It is unlawful to advertise statements indicating discriminatory practices and it is an area for trading standards to involve themselves in

  18. The couple should retire.

  19. They should sell the property before they bankrupt themselves. I’m fine with either result. What I find truly heartening, are the heterosexual tourists who are now shunning the place. Yet another reason for Yanks to love Brits!!!

    1. Ben Foster 16 Feb 2012, 7:23pm

      exactly! I wonder if they’ve done their maths and realised that straight people must be going elsewhere, too. And some of them would be in that 61% of Christians.

  20. Good. Let’s see if the Christian Institute, who has been playing them like puppets, will step in on their bankruptcy or not. Perhaps they should have read their odious buy-bull and noted the instruction to “render unto caesar”. In other words, obey the bloody law.

    1. The Christian Institutre will drop this couple.

      That’s typical christian behaviour.

      And the Bull’s hotel will go bust.

      And it’s entirely their own fault for being so wilfully stupid and bigotted.

  21. Sister Goodlove 16 Feb 2012, 1:01pm

    No business sense. With Hazelmary’s looks, that place could do a roaring trade with a through-year Halloween theme.

  22. Maybe their god is trying to tell them something. Don’t hate people – love people and you business will flourish.

  23. The Romans had the right idea on how to deal with christians.

    Religion really is a cancerous boil on the arse of humanity.

    1. What a gross thing to say!
      Whilst I condem their bigotry, I do neot condone your comment, which basically says we should allow these peole to be mercilessly ripped apart by lions.
      Do not make us out to be as bad as the bigots!!

      1. Christians would get off on being mercilessly ripped apart by lions though

        It would arouse them to think they were going to meet their make-believe ‘god’

      2. Thats typical judgemental dAVID though, John-Paul

        He is so extreme in his reaction to religion that he is vile regardless of whether it is bigots like the Bulls, evil organisations like the Christian Insittute, supportive Christians like the Bishop of Salisbury or gay Christians like myself.

        He seems to think that because some Christians are bigots that justifies his vindictiveness and aggression to all religious people.

        1. Glad to see I’m not the only one disgusted by dAVID’s comments on any religious matter.

          But then, I’m disgusted by the comments that a lot of people on here make about religion, especially Christianity. To think that religious people have a mental illness is exactly the same as when homosexuality was thought of as a mental illness. There is no basis for the claim at all, and it should not be spread.

          The people that comment on these articles don’t seem to realise that the majority of Christians are pro-LGBT. It is only a small minority (which happens to involve these horrid hoteliers) who actively go against the true message of the Bible and shun us. The sooner the people on here realise this, the sooner we can start having meaningful and thought-provoking comments posted.

          1. Well said, Mark

            I think there is a comparison between the theory of homosexuality and that of religion being a mental illness.

            Neither is correct.

            Of course the extremist atheists like dAVID will say religion is a choice (which of course it is), but mental illness is not a choice.

          2. de Villiers 16 Feb 2012, 11:29pm

            Well – it’s not a choice if you are persuaded by it. It is not like choosing an apple over an orange. One no more “chooses” their religion or to believe in god than one “chooses” which economic theory they think makes the most sense or which piece of art they find the most stimulating. It is a conclusion to which one is driven.

          3. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 6:51am

            You may, make the statement “Religion is a choice”, but I have seen it in many a family where the Christian meme has been enforced across all the children who have never even considered there being no other way but the Christian one, and have gone on to indoctrinate their own children with the same message.

            I think it unfair to accuse these people of hatred and bigotry when often they have known nothing else but what they were taught and brought up on, so to a certain extent there never was a choice.

          4. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 11:49am

            Sorry Mark and Jessie below (ooh, matron!), but perhaps you should learn some history before being disgusted by a comment of incorrect history. No christian was ever thrown to the lions. Also exactly what ‘true message’ can be gleaned from 1000+ pages of incoherent mumbo jumbo of people who may (but probably didn’t) exist, Mark? Why shouldn’t we poke fun at your obvious religious psychosis?! If I saw you repeatedly hit your head on a nail, I would try to stop you doing it. If you decry and say what harm does it do? Read all the anti-religious comments here and wonder why THAT is… if you can be arsed – search for “what harm does it do”.

          5. @Spanner1960: Only the more extremist, socially insecure Christian parents would “enforce” their beliefs on their children, but that does not mean that they cannot choose for themselves. I grew up in a Christian family yet I was never forced to follow the faith. I went on a personal spiritual journey and when I reached the end I found God. I am Christian because I believe in God, not because my parents were.

            @ Mr. Ripley’s: “No christian was ever thrown to the lions” They were, however, persecuted for their faith by the Romans, and many died in jails. ‘Thrown to the lions’ implies death, and there was a lot of that among early Christians.
            Also, religion is not a psychosis. This has been debated many times before by authorities with greater knowledge than you and I, and they have deemed religion to not be a mental illness, the same as homosexuality. It’s unfair to compare religion to hitting my head on a nail, because religion is causing me no harm at all.

    2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 11:26am

      Erm, completely incorrect historical fact! The romans never ‘threw christians to the lions’. Perhaps perpetuated by christians playing the victim (and they love it so!!) but completely false. Now if you want to speak about what christians did to the cathars…

    3. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 11:33am

      Elvis! Listen easy, you can hear God calling – walking barefoot by the stream. Come on to me, your hair’s softly falling on my face as in a dream, and the time will be our time, and the grass won’t pay no mind. Sing!

      Are you drawing from personal experience again, Keef? You should search for reparative therapy for your god addiction.

    4. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:57am

      Like yours you mean?

    5. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:58am

      Your the biggest diseased arsehole I’ve ever known.

  24. What marvellous news. Now just another third to go then….

    1. Lovely compassionate response here from Will.

      I presume he believes that it is wrong for a hotelier to ‘ban’ any form of activity from taking place in their hotel?

  25. They broke the rule: ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ and so the God of Abraham has smitten them for their wickedness. Or some such malarkey.

    But no worries, as the birds in the field…… Such a rich source, the Bible.

    La la la

    1. What’s god gonna do with all that junk?
      All that junk inside that trunk?
      He’ll a get, get, get me drunk,
      Get me loved up off my humps

      1. You are the most disgusting person I’ve ever had the displeasure to meet.

        I don’t care if you don’t agree with Christian teachings, that is no reason to be disrespectful.

        1. de Villiers 16 Feb 2012, 11:30pm

          He is a bigot who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

          1. How is your ‘god’ doing deVilliers? Has it expressed any remorse for performing genocide against the 1st born Egyptians?

            Can I recommend the last Harry Potter book as a religious text for you?

            It’s far more entertaining than the buybull?

            Oh and by the wa y – the way I speak about christianity is far kinder than the way YOUR religions speak about YOU.

            Christianity has no more validity than the tooth fairy and you are being arrogant in the extreme by trying to pretend otherwise.

          2. de Villiers 17 Feb 2012, 3:35pm

            To speak of how “god” is “doing” reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of the divine. Even to say god “exists” is to try to place human expression on the ineffable. The nature of god is reached through action and understanding rather than abstract description.

            One cannot describe in abstract the spiritual movement to which one is subjected by powerful music or brilliant art. It exists on a plane other than rational description, its properties being incapable of description rather than feeling.

            So no, Harry Potter would not be a good suggestion. The Latin, the holiness of religiously inspired music and requiem, of religious buildings, art and aesthetics would be better suggestions. To say that such work is no better than the tooth fairy is to suggest that Hamlet by Shakespeare has no more meaning than the tooth fairy. Both are fiction but one has hidden meanings and revealed truths of life and existence.

          3. @ deVillers

            What load of utter tosh. I always though you a patronising tosser. Now I can see you’re a patronising idiot. So you think you knows what the “truth” of god is, do you? We’re all supposed to accept that load of catholic inspired arse wipe, are we?

            LOL! What a tool.

          4. de Villiers 18 Feb 2012, 8:55am

            There is no hidden truth with you Rob. Just ugly reality.

          5. “There is no hidden truth with you Rob. Just ugly reality.”

            Compared to the truth of you being a insufferable pretentious ass? Yeah, REALLY attractive qualities you have there deVillers.

          6. de Villiers 18 Feb 2012, 7:14pm

            And yet they’re still more attractive than yours.

        2. keith is way more disgusting

          1. I’ll give you that, yes

  26. shelleybear 16 Feb 2012, 1:58pm

    I know they are ass holes, but I admire them for accepting the consequences of their ass holiness.

  27. Case settled and now the Bulls are paying a terrible price for their mjsjudgment. Times have moved on but they seemed to live in a pass where ‘No blacks’ were hanging hanging in guesthouse windows. That said we could also learn something from this. To resist the urge to gleefully jump on their grave and instead forgive their misdemeanour and move on stronger and win respect for doing so. We should be showing the very values we demand from the Christian lobby; compassion and tolerance for the Bulls’ in their worst hour. THAT would advance our cause far more quickly than catty displays of oneupmanship.

    1. How can a person be forgiven if they have not renounced their hateful and bigoted views?

      I don’t see that they have done that,

      Until they come to understand the error of their ways, they are still guilty of homophobic bigotry.

    2. These people are part of a cult that wants to destroy our democracy and impose its dangerously lunatic beliefs on the whole of society.

      It is not a good idea to be forgiving and magnanimous towards people who want to destroy us

    3. “We should be showing the very values we demand from the Christian lobby; compassion and tolerance ”

      The ONLY think I demand from the christian lobby is a pledge to stop perverting our secular democracy.

      I neither want or need their compassion or tolerance.

      I simply want them to f*** off from trying to diminish my human or civil rights.

    4. Ian and dAVID I understand what you are both saying but this is a great opportunity to gain the upper hand here. Forgiveness is supposed to be one of the central tenets of Christian teaching. So in forgiving our radical Christian oppressors we out-Christian them! Hatred just breeds more hatred, and It takes one side to break the chain in order to move forward towards a more tolerent understanding and acceptance from both sides. Forgiveness also helps us to let go of a lot of the hateness and bitterness we hold on to, and until we do we cannot possibly hope to forge a new paradigm of universal peace and harmony between all creeds, sexualities and cultures. It could equally be argued dAVID that Christians think radical gays “are part of a cult that wants to destroy Christians’ democracy and impose their dangerous lunatic beliefs on the whole of society.” You see, it works both ways, but it only takes the better side to gain the upper hand by not returning hate with more hate but, as I am advocating, forgiveness.

      1. Dan ….yes the legal issue may have been resolved but they are still providers of a service. People who are incapable of providing a welcoming smile and good experience to a gay couple while staying in their B&B shouldn’t be running a B&B. There are strict accrediation schemes run by tourists boards and I hope they are taking note of this B&B/Hotel. It gaves English tourism a bad name and give the hotel/b&B business a bad name. There is no place for the Bulls in tourism.

        They now say they are going to set up a caritable christian rest centre based on their rules..They haven’t learnt at all really, have they?

    5. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 12:02pm

      What compassion and tolerance are these catholes showing us?! Misdemeanour? So it’s acceptable to you to humiliate gay people whose only “crime” was to think they could sleep together whilst enjoy a break at their guesthouse – where it doesn’t advertise that they are a christian B&B?!

      No, I don’t feel sorry for the Bulls, in fact I laughed when I read the headline that they were trading badly – as it seems to me that they have learned exactly NOTHING from their defeat in the courts, and seem to have been used by the christian institute to get back at, and make an example of, the poofs, like. Dan – get a life, learn to spell, etc.

  28. The best solution would be for them to sell up completely and move on.

  29. Janet Lameck 16 Feb 2012, 5:30pm

    I’d have revoked their business licence.
    Glad to hear their occupancy is down.

  30. Janet Lameck 16 Feb 2012, 5:32pm

    Christians had no problems sexually abusing me when I was young. Is this double standards or what?

    1. “They merely professed to be Christians.”

      Like you.

      1. Ben Foster 16 Feb 2012, 8:09pm

        in public anyway.

        To quote the old song….

        “No-one knows what goes on behind closed doors…..”

      2. “Homosexual abuse i’ll wager!”

        Also like you.

    2. Commander Thor 16 Feb 2012, 7:15pm

      There are no true scotsmen.

      No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

  31. Good. Discrimination shouldn’t pay.

  32. “The Equality and Human Rights Commission who funded Mr Hall and Mr Preddy said they would not be enforcing an order for costs against the Bulls, ”


    The Halls were funded for their court case, and they should pay the costs if awarded against them.

    If costs are not charged back to the Halls, it means we pick up the tab, and really given the circumstances, I’d rather not pay for their bigotry and stupidity.

    1. I think you mean the Bulls.
      Yes I agree the Bulls should have to pay court costs, it seems they are getting some special treatment here again simply for being devoutly bigoted Christians.

      1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 12:29pm

        Ah the privilege of religion – like a mob, they can do and act as they please and play the victim when secular Britain is revolted by them and extends their big finger. The christian institute should be made to meet all costs. We shouldn’t be made to pick up the tab for religious bigotry.

  33. So if hoteliers discriminated racially against a couple… would they be treated so leniently as this couple is being treated?

    1. Fallacious comparison.

      For starters, the same-sex couple were not discriminated on the basis of their ‘sexuality.’ They were not allowed to share a bed on the basis that they were 2 men – it didn’t matter whether they happened to identify as ‘bi,’ ‘hetero,’ ‘gay’ etc…

      And secondly it is totally wrong to compare this to a hotel not allowing black people to stay. For starters, this hotel had no problem with people who identified as gay staying any more than they had a problem with those who identified as straight staying.

      1. @Jonnyc

        Where your argument falls down is how they would treat a gay couple in a CP compared to a straight couple who were married? Or whether they asked all straight couples for marriage certificated? If not, then there is clear prejudice to people based on their orientation. The court saw that and foound them to have broken the law and acted illegally. The court of Appeal considered their case and uphgeld the conviction.

        Your stance is like an ostrich with its head in the sand

  34. Business is down 75% eh? What? Am I supposed to be sympathetic or something?

    Its to become a Christian rest centre. I wonder if they will apply the same exclusions there.

  35. This “hotel” was advertising under the banner of “quality of tourism” and when I complained about them got th following response

    “Our records indicate that this property lapsed from our scheme in June 2009 and as a result does not hold a current or valid assessment rating with Quality in Tourism.

    Quality in Tourism, on behalf of EnjoyEngland, takes the improper use of our signage very seriously. I have recently been in touch with this property to ensure that all improper signage is removed and Trading Standards have also been notified.

    Many thanks for bringing this case to my attention. …”

    They were using the tourism signage when they shouldn’t have, they kept conning people by continuing to advertise that they were part of the quality in tourism accrediation scheme.

    They should close, they won’t offer welcome to gay couple and their advertising about double beds still remains very offensive!!!

  36. In a way it is sad their business is suffering as it only adds to the problem with recession atm though admittedly such a tiny amount that it is negligible. But at the end of the day how could they expect anything else but to lose business for a rule and decision to exclude someone in a society that is supposed to be discrimination free so what little sympathy I would of had is lost in the scorn I feel towards how they acted

    1. not really. other cornish hotels will benefit from the extra custom.

      1. thats a good point, strike the sad bit then lol

        1. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:54am

          lol just seen this. ok then…. :)

    2. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:50am

      They kinda brought this on themselves, nothing to do with the recession. Unlike most decent, accepting business that may genuinely be struggling because of the recession.

      For the Bulls this was entirely through choice.

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:53am

        This is not the first time we have heard their business is suffering because of how they acted. If they had the support they thought they did surely equally bigot-minded Christians would be propping up their business but clearly they are not.

        That says something doncha think?

  37. I am bi and married and would be allowed to stay there, but I would rather sleep in a cardboard box than use this bigoted pair’s hotel.

  38. Staircase2 16 Feb 2012, 8:54pm


  39. “genuine sympathy” for the couple.”

    My sympathy is entirely with Mr Hall and Mr Preddy the couple who were treated so shabbily by this vile pair of bigoted ignoramuses Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

  40. I have an idea. Say ten gay couples get together, and all visit this hotel all at once demanding accommodation. Might that not make a fine political ‘happening’, and cause quite a stor?

    1. There is only seven bedrooms though!

    2. de Villiers 17 Feb 2012, 7:39am

      Why bother?

      What would you say if a gay bar was invaded for an evening by anti-gay Christians in order to change its character – or if they stood in the middle Soho, altering the mood – with it advertised on Christian websites to exercise their lawful rights not to be discriminated against?

  41. I meant to say ‘poitical stir!’

    But ‘political story’ is good too!

  42. They should be concentrating on paying their fines, instead of planning to set up a charity for their own benefit. What next!?!

  43. Gay Christian Guy 16 Feb 2012, 11:13pm

    A Christian rest centre could be very useful to my husband and me. We run a gay Christian group, and it can be very exhausting. Going to a nice Christian place for a few days rest after that would be great.

    Fortunately we have both a civil partnership and a church blessing on our relationship, so we should be OK with them.

    I wonder what would happen if I tried to make a booking….

    1. try it and see

  44. “We are trying to become a Christian rest centre, a charity, and in that way our biblical beliefs can be part of what we do for people who want to come here. They will have to abide by our rules.

    I don’t know what a Christian rest centre is supposed to be – an old people’s home for Christians, a healing/gay cure centre or what but they will still have to abide to British law and will stil have to provide double beds for gay couples …

    Are there dody rest centres out there in the UK which have somekind of opt outs which allow couples like this to continue being discrimatory? Do christian rest centres (whatever they may be) need to come under scrutiny????

    1. Dave North 18 Feb 2012, 8:52pm

      In certain circumstances, religious or belief organisations, including charities which fall into this category, can restrict, because of a person’s religion or belief or their sexual orientation.

      Religious and belief organisations can only make restrictions because of sexual orientation if this is necessary to comply with the organisation’s doctrine; or avoid conflict with the religious or belief-based convictions of many followers of the religion or belief on which the organisation is founded.

      The above is taken from the Charities Commission web site.

      In other words, the old buggers have found a loophole in order to carry on being discriminating bigots.

      1. Dave North 18 Feb 2012, 8:55pm

        PS: They can also claim many tax exemptions.

    2. is it the same as a glorified rest room i wonder ?!

  45. Oh what a shame

  46. GingerlyColors 17 Feb 2012, 7:03am

    I know the Isle of Wright ferry comes out of the back of Cow(e)s, I wonder what comes out the back of Bulls?

  47. The most effective way to effect social change is to go for the wallet. It’s amazing how corporations bow to consumer boycotts when it impacts their bottom line. So let these hoteliers learn the hard way and see how committed they are to their “Xian” literalist principles when it means letting their business go to hell. Maybe they will become liberal believers instead.

  48. Don Harrison 17 Feb 2012, 3:42pm

    D.McCabe a day ago

    The Chymorvah Hotel website still lists the Bulls’ policy of not allowing couples to share a bed unless they are in a heterosexual marriage today.

    Quick someone tell The Sun

  49. TOUGH that is all i have to say to that i hope they lose more money teach them to be outdated bigots in future

  50. What I wonder is how many other gay couples were turned away in the past but never said anything?

    1. er . who gives a toss ? i dont !

  51. It can’t be that business is in a slump because of the gays, so I guess the straights are taking their business elsewhere as well.

  52. I am weeping over my Bible! Not!

  53. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:42am

    I have no sympathy for them. They choose their religious lifestyle which included being bigotted. It’s entirely their own fault.

    1. Firstly, pease learn how to spell ‘bigoted’ before using the word. Then perhaps you could search for it in a dictionary and you’ll discover the meaning of it.

      You may be surprised when you learn that it actually refers to someone who is intolerant/hostile to the views/opinions of others. In fact the elderly couple in question are not bigoted at all – they merely did not want sexual activity outside of marriage to take place in their hotel. Whether this activity was between people who identified as ‘gay,’ ‘straight,’ ‘paedophilic’ or ‘bisexual’ was irrelevant. The Bulls had no opposition to homosexual attraction or the rights of two men to be in a relationship together, they just opposed the act of ‘sex outside of traditional marriage’ in the same way some hoteliers may oppose the act of ‘drinking alcohol.’

      It’s rather ironic really – the majority of posters on here who are lambasting this elderly couple ‘bigots’ are far more ‘bigoted’ themselves in their own hostilities!

      1. Did you spot my ‘misspelling?’ (I’ll give you a hint – it’s first line, second word!)

      2. @Jonnyc — I think bigotry’s more to do with hostility to the rights of others rather than the views of others.

        That makes the Bulls bigots. And that makes you a bigot.

  54. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:43am

    Who says they went their to have sex?

    Seriously sex between men is all you can think about you say we have a problem. Your obsessed.

  55. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:46am

    Actually this ruling meant they did get their compensation, loser. Read the facts, stop assuming you Man sex obsessed freak.

    1. Dave North 19 Feb 2012, 6:03pm

      Ignore it. It does not deserve to live.

  56. @Keith — I object to your language “abominable perverted practices”, “vile perverts”, and “filthy sodomites” which I find is filled with hate, and your coming on this forum to promulgate your views, which I find threatening.

    1. @Keith — the fact that you’re devoting so much time and effort to promulgating your views — a hatred of homosexuality — on a forum for LGBT people — suggests an intention to threaten.

      You are deliberately seeking out a meeting place for LGBT people and describing them as “vile perverts”, and “filthy sodomites”. You continue to do this despite people telling you to stop.

      I have a fear of irrational views — and irrational people.

      1. @Keith — this is a forum for LGBT people. It is intended for LGBT people. There is no test to determine suitability. I cannot comment on your sexuality, though wonder why someone who claims to be heterosexual is now the fourth most frequent poster on the site. Your statement about denial of service on the grounds of sexual orientation is spurious: no one is seeking to do this, only in your imagination.

        Freedom of expression does not grant the right to shout anything anywhere. You are abusing the open nature of this forum.

        Your words are intimidating, unpleasant, and hate-ridden.

        Can you think of any situation in which somebody’s words could be construed at threatening ?

      2. MODERATOR.

        Would you try MODERATING this.

        This is clearly threatening HATE SPEECH.

        Either you do it or someone else will.

      3. I am posting a copy of this thread to all of Pink News advertisers PR departments and Stonewall.

        I’m sure they will be happy paying revenue to an alleged Gay Paper that allows its target audience to be subject to severe hate speech.

        As it say in the “Advertise with us” blurb.

        “Reach our unique audience, sell to them, amaze them. Stonewall Diversity Champions get an automatic 10% discount.”

    2. Keith – in a civilised society, you should have absolutely every right to oppose any acts you like and this includes any type of sexual activity, as well as countless other things such as the consumption of alcohol, murder etc…! You should have the right to oppose sex between a man and a woman if you so wish – and the right to be vocal in your opposition!

      It becomes a problem when you start to actually oppose people on the basis of either a ‘innate characteristic’ or a ‘lifestyle choice.’
      Innate characteristics are things like race, sex, eye colour etc – as they are known at birth. Lifestyle choices are things like naturism, having tattoos etc – those which we can safely say are not innate/genetic. Obviously it is worse to discriminate on the basis of an ‘innate characteristic.’



      We then come to ‘sexuality.’ Some people believe that one’s ‘sexuality’ is innate – such as many of the posters here. However many others (myself included) believe that without evidence of it at birth and proof, regrettably we cannot honestly treat it in the same vein as race or sex.

    4. Besides the point, this couple were not discriminating on the basis of perceived ‘sexuality.’ They did not want 2 men to share a bed in their hotel – whether these men identifed as ‘gay,’ ‘straight,’ ‘a-sexual,’ ‘bi-sexual,’ or ‘paedophilic’ is beside the point!

      Those arguing that what the elderly couple (Mr & Mrs Bull) did was wrong are arguing that a hotelier must put with any form of activity whatsoever, even if they disagree.

      So pity the hoteliers who are running a family B&B and object to naturist guests walking around unclothed! Or the atheist hoteliers who object to a theist couple praying/saying Grace before a meal!

  57. One must never gloat over misfortunes of this kind. It’s just that I find myself overcome by howling, immoderate laughter.

    1. Immoderate laughter is fine! I found myself whooping for joy upon hearing this!

  58. This kind of abuse – ‘perverts’, ‘abominable’, ‘filthy sodomites’ – coming from somebody who believes themselves to have a superior moral compass, is probably one of the main reasons why society has become much more sympathetic to the rights of gay people with Christianity being left behind.

  59. FYI
    This hardly ever seems to get reported but it was in the Daily Mail in 2010 that business had been going down BEFORE the incident and court case in question.

  60. You don’t like gay sex we get it, well how about you stop thinking about it stop telling us about it and leave us to practice it in peace?

  61. If you don’t like gay sex so much, why don’t you just leave those of us who do like it to enjoy our hedonistic sinful life styles to our hearts content and then if your faith is true you will be the one laughing and I will be the one who doesn’t give 2 craps.

    1. Why am I here if not to incite religious hatred ……. hmmm tricky one it could be because this is a gay new site and I’m gay.

      1. And persuasion are you ‘Keith’ ? Unhealthly obsessed with gay sex ?

      2. “And persuasion are you ‘Keith’ ? Unhealthly obsessed with gay sex ?”

        He’s ex-gay…. wink wink.

  62. David Wainwright 20 Feb 2012, 3:30pm

    The Bulls are being led like Martyrs by the Christian Institute , and had they been required to meet the full costs of this appeal instead of being let off lightly , then perhaps the appeal process would end here instead of which we are likely to see The Bulls and The Christian Institute play the public purse all the way in their “RIGHT” to treat people with disrespect and rudeness as is further displayed in the comments of ItGetsWorse!,,Keith , who is obviously a grand ambassador of christian and God’s love, tolerance and understanding .

    1. You have no evidence either that ‘he’ exists, or that ‘he’ says anything at all. Please take your hallucinations somewhere else. We are pretty fed-up with them.

  63. @Keith — it is open to everybody by the grant of the owners; it is consistent with equality legislation.

    Just so we know, how do you know what constitutes morality ? And what authority has charged you with this mission ?

    There’s a difference between opposing views — welcome here — and your hate filled unpleasantness.

    Don’t think I mentioned anything about physical threat. I can’t comment on what’s in your head.

    I would be glad to know if you post on a forum for support of people like you. I imagine you’d be anxious to avoid charges of hipocracy and tells us the name of that forum — or do you just obsess about gay sex ?

    1. But you said you hated religion.

      Hypocrisy is pulling people up for slips whilst making far more errors oneself.

      It isn’t of course avoiding the question of why you are obsessed with gay sex … you are the second most frequent poster on this forum this week. That, if it has a name, is obsessional weirdness.

      You say you think god is the moral arbiter, and you arbit on people’s morals … so the conclusion is inelecutable: you think you are god.

      I find your words threatening. I find that someone so irrational and arbitrary, who devotes so much obsessional energy to posting on a LGBT site and yet purports to hate gay sex and who describes gay people as filth, to be unstable. Your hate-riddled comments, together with your unstable, irrational, and obsessional personality are threatening.

      The fact that you continue to post on this forum despite your comments almost instantly being rated so poor as to be hidden suggests a near pathological self-belief.

      1. @Keith — “I do hate religion as it grossly misrepresents the bible for it’s own ends, puts it’s sheep under financial compulsion and promotes war and political meddling, all opposite to Jesus ministry.”

        “I believe God to be the moral arbiter.”

        I guess only you can’t see how inconsistent those statements are.

        I can’t articulate any more how threatening I find your words. And why should I ? And why do you feel the compulsion to continue writing in such a vein ? Please stop.

  64. The Bulls should have every right to discriminate against activity that takes place in their home.

    Those who compare the Bulls’ policy to those of ‘No blacks, no Irish’ are seriously deluded. These B&Bs in the 60s and 70s were saying that they did not want black people or Irish people to stay. This is a form of outrageous racial bigotry as race is known as a genetic and innate characteristic and was entirely wrong.

    However, the Bulls had no problem with people who considered themselves gay. (If they did, then this case would be homophobic.)

    What they didn’t want however was activity to take place in their hotel which was i) homosexual or ii) outside of an opposite-sex marriage.

    Therefore, they removed the means of Mr Hall & Mr Preddy having sex (if they’d so decided) by asking them to sleep in separate beds that night.

    1. “The Bulls should have every right to discriminate against activity that takes place in their home.”

      Definitely ! But the hotel is not their home.

      Homosexuality is genetic. Proven, no debate. The Bulls displayed outrageous sexuality bigotry.

      “What they didn’t want however was activity to take place in their hotel which was i) homosexual or ii) outside of an opposite-sex marriage.”

      But i) implies ii), I imagine, as I see no evidence of the Bulls supporting marriage equality. See above.

      We have no admissible evidence for the claim that the Bulls are not homophobic. See above.

      Question. Why are the Bulls so obsessed with what other people do in bed ?

      1. Harry – sexuality has not been ‘proven’ to be genetic any more than religious belief has been! Until it is apparent at birth there is no way you can treat it in the same way as race or sex. I’m sure you and many others (myself included) believe it to be so, but it’s simply not honest to do so at this point.

        Also, may I repeat – had the Bulls said that they didn’t want someone who considered themself gay to stay in their hotel – then yes, I agree that would be wrong. But they weren’t saying this – just that they didn’t want what they considered to be ‘buggery’ to take place. This is in no way different to a hotelier not wanting naturists to walk around naked or dog-owners to bring their pets to their hotel, which does also happen to be their home!

        1. There has been plenty of studies showing it is most likely you are gay from birth, no it has not been shown to be genetic but it has been shown to have all sorts of factors all of which are unchangeable.

  65. This is no different to prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in your hotel by those who are alcoholics, or asking naturists to cover up. In these 2 scenarios, the hoteliers are not banning alcoholics/naturists from being guests, they are merely not permitting activity from taking place which they disagree with.

    1. The point is that they expected their religion to dispense them from obeying antidiscrimination law while running a public commercial service. Not on, sorry.

      1. This has nothing to do with religion – even if this couple were atheists or deists, they must (in any decent society, at least) have ultimate discretion over what activity takes place in their home. This couple did not want ‘buggery’ or sex outside of marriage to take place – surely they should have the right to remove the means of this activity happening.

        As I said in my original post, a hotelier must on the same lines be able to ‘ban’ guests from drinking alcohol or walking around naked, if they so wish.

        This has absolutely nothing to do with the men identifying as ‘gay’ – even if both men identified as ‘straight,’ the Bulls would have not permitted them to share a bed. They were opposed to homosexual activity rather than homosexual people.

    2. @JonnyC — quite; they’re banning somebody’s private life. What a pathetic, ridiculous, illegal thing to do.

      1. I disagree. It seems far more pathetic to me for the state to force people who own hotels to put up with activity that contravene their beliefs (whether religious or not.)

        In your eyes a hotelier must have to put up with any form of activity whatsoever – whether this be guests playing archery in their lounge, dogs sleeping on the sofas etc…

        This sounds a far more ridiculous situation to be in to me, but you may well disagree with me!

  66. @Keith, I want you to prove without using bible quotes that god exists and that it is your gay hating god, if you can do this I will personally go around and protest against LGBT rights with you.

    1. “Homosexualityacts are wrong in my opinion”

      Without proof, this is an opinion based in ignorance. Without alcohol, you’re grammar is better. And without you, some other child in Africa could be fed and do something worthwhile with their existence.

    2. So you admit, this whole god hates fags thing is just your own bigotry rather than anything of any importance, so why should we give a crap what you think?

      I think bigotry is wrong along with other mental disorders but you seem to be doing that regardless of my views so how about you take your unimportant and dull views and go and tell em to someone who gives a rats arse, your psychiatrist might be interested I mean that is what you pay him for right?

      You have no reason to think homosexuality is wrong and it has nothing to do with you, so get rid of that god complex that says you are even remotely important or that anyone cares what you think and F*** Off!!

      1. You suggest that no sexual activity at all is the only safe thing to do.

        Please follow your own advice. I imagine you will find little opportunity to do otherwise.

        1. Keith, you seem to have a bizarre fascination with regards to the lifestyle we live. You seem to spend all day musing over these matters. You seem obsessed to the point of madness with what we do in bed. Does that make you feel uncomfortable in some way? Are you jealous perhaps that we can do things that you can’t? Perhaps you are insecure with your own performance in bedroom twister. Perhaps you long to experiment with the other side of the pitch. I don’t know and frankly I don’t give a damn. I am in a loving relationship with my boyfriend, I have been for some 20 years, and neither you nor any other religious, bible toting nutcase will ever change that fact. You cannot force someone to love someone they cannot get on with.

          Why not go and find a nice cactus to sit on eh? You never know, you might like it. Honestly Keith, you really do waste your time keep trying to hurl insults at us! Has your brain not cottoned on to this fact? Its not worth it you silly buffoon!

          1. Keith opposes buggery, but so what? Surely he should every right to disagree with whatever practice he wishes to?

            I don’t agree with him as I see no logical reason to hold this view, and I believe a same-sex relationship is in no way inferior to a mixed-sex relationship and a polygamous relationship. The only difference is that a typical couple comprised of a man and a woman is the only means of procreating naturally and is why marriage is (and should remain) as it is!

          2. Keith’s reason to oppose buggery seems to be because the Bible says so. Well, it says a lot of things (many of them contradictory,) including forbidding the consumption of shellfish or mixing cloths. It’s important therefore to remember the Bible was translated from Hebrew into English many years ago, so even if it is the ‘Word of God’ (which I don’t believe it to be as I don’t believe God exists,) it is riddled with human errors, and as such is not sensible for basing one’s life on. Actually the English Translation Bible is far harsher on divorce than it is on homosexual activity (it is not opposed to homosexual attraction at all.) Jesus himself never mentions gay sex yet is extremely critical on divorce.

          3. @Jonnyc — “Keith opposes buggery, but so what ?”. Really ? You think that’s a reasonable thing to say ?

            Opposing people’s private life — that’s a nasty, wicked, small-minded, petty, pathetic thing to do. Oppose things that affect you or other people, but don’t oppose the rights of others.

            They want a private life. Keith and you want to stop them.

            Stop obsessing over gay sex, and get a life !

        2. ”pleasure seeking homosexual hedonistic community..”

          Why yes. I also have my nipples pierced, which my b/f loves to play with. Does that offend you as well, body piercings? Of course, your so narrow minded, you probably don’t know what they are, let alone what they mean!

          Why are you so concerned about the lifestyle of gay men? Does it really matter what we do? How does this affect you? Do you feel like you are missing out on something? Do you feel inadequate or insecure with your own sexual prowess?

          Honestly mate, you are seriously in need of help… All you have on the mind is the lifestyle of gay men.

        3. A) It’s not Abstinence just because noone will sleep with you!! B) “44;50 times greater than normals” you’ve completely just made that up haven’t you can I see one unbiased article, written fairly recently that has that statistic in it?

      2. I have no problem with scat, and although I have a knee jerk reaction to father-son incest you have a point if it is consensual then it is not harming anyone, its one for me to mull over thats for sure, however monogamy is 100% protection against HIV and these days gay sex is just as dangerous as straight sex, so whats your problem?

  67. i personaly think as it.s THEIR property & THEIR business . then it.s up to THEM who they allow to stay . too many gay ppl jump on the “homophobia” band wagon . seekin compensation ect . GROW UP ! if ur not wanted somewhere = ur not wanted …. DEAL WITH IT !

    1. It was not except able to ban black people or irish people from using hotels why should we accept it, if you don’t challenge homophobia when you see it it will never go away!

    2. @kian — you’re not wanted here ! It maybe their property and their business, but it is also their responsibility to comply with the law.

      It is not their business what people choose to do in their private lives, behind closed doors.

      Some people are gay — deal with it ! Stop obsessing what people get upto in bed ! Stop twitching those curtains.

  68. it.s THEIR home . THEIR business . THEIR choice …. DEAL with it FFS !

  69. GET A LIFE springs to mind with ALOT of u !

  70. @Hamish
    “I have no problem with scat”
    So you don’t find scat disgusting? I would say you DO have problem! Of course , if you do find scat disgusting, why should I not find homosexual acts disgusting?

    “I have a knee jerk reaction to father-son incest you have a point if it is consensual then it is not harming anyone, its one for me to mull over thats for sure”
    When you have “mulled over it” (why do you have to even do this?) let me know your answer and why you should have a knee jerk reaction over a consensual adult sex act yet condemn me for the same with regard to my knee jerk reaction to homosexual acts,

  71. I’m thinking about my knee jerk reaction as I don’t like it, not for any logical reason, but rather just because society has told me its wrong. A sensible person thinks about why he thinks certain ways and challenges himself when he is wrong, however if you did that you wouldn’t believe in god would you!!

    And as for scat, its not my personal thing, but if people wish to do it let them I won’t judge them and it has nothing to do with me, I just put it down to each to there own and stop thinking about it, I suggest you do the same.

    1. And in the first sentence I see I am arguing with an idiot, I don’t take my views from society thats what I’m saying. I have been brainwashed all my life in to having certain views and the brilliant thing about being a mature member of society is that I can now think about those things and come up with views of my own. This means I do not discriminate against members of society that society has told me I shouldn’t like without having a good reason first.

      And as for scat, I have been very definite I don’t personally find it attractive and I wouldn’t want to do it personally, HOWEVER I have no issues with those that wish to do it doing it, I don’t like straight sex but I don’t spend my entire life ranting at straight people about how disgusting I find their sexual activity ….. but then I have friends so I don’t need to spend all my time ranting online.

  72. David Nottingham 1 Mar 2012, 9:09am

    Business down by 2/3 and their website still clearly states their homophobic “policy”? Is it just possible that the two are linked? Maybe if the Bulls complied with the law concerning the provision of goods and services business would be better. I have no sympathy for them.

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