Reader comments · Christian B&B couple take same-sex bed ban to highest UK court · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian B&B couple take same-sex bed ban to highest UK court

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Decent people do not deny other people goods and services because of bigotry and ignorance.

    1. Craig Denney 15 Aug 2012, 1:16am

      Yes some people do have more rights than others, namely Christan’s to impose hatred and discrimination on Gays.

    2. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2012, 10:01am

      Except “This is a gay bar, so you can’t come in.”

      1. Do Christians need a safe space to protect them from LGBT people?

        1. That’s what their churches are for…

          1. I would argue churches are for LGBT Christians too!

            A B&B should not discriminate on the basis of orientation, though – but then nor should a church!

      2. Which gay bar BANS Straights, Spanner1960? Management have the right to refuse admission to those who will cause a nuisance like annoying existing customers but barring straights has not been a feature of gay bars in my experience. Perhaps I haven’t been in enough bars recently …!

      3. Thats illegal in the UK.

        1. Still doesnt stop some people – they believe they theocratic views are above the law -0 they are wrong

    3. yes Rovex, but they are not decent people!

      1. I think that was the point Rovex was making!

  2. And they will lose, again. And squander more “christian” money, again.

    The simple facts: Anti-gay animus is NOT a key aspect of christianity, no matter how hard they try and insist it is. Therefore it is their unique interpretation.

    Now, given that faith can be neither measured nor proven sincere, nor is the dogma agreed upon, a positive finding in their favour will be legal carnage. Why? Because it sets a precedent that anyone can disregard any law if they just claim that they BELIEVE hard enough.

    When you set up a business in the UK you are subject to all laws, from health and safety to licensing to the Equality Act. Faith cannot be used as an opt out without causing an utter bloody disaster.

    The precedent would mean that I would be able to say that I can flout whatever civil law I want because the invisible pink bunny in the corner told me that I could. Prove that I don’t believe that, prove me insincere.

    1. To disclaim – I’m not a lawyer. This just strikes me as the only possible consequence of a finding that allows “faith” to usurp the law of the land that we are all subject to.

    2. I agree. A victory for these people would simply gut the law.

      1. Indeed – grow drugs, sacrifice virgins, rape children, imprison women. Anything at all in your house as long as you say “this is my religious belief.” It won’t succeed simply because it can’t.

        1. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 12:57am

          ….. and I am secretly hoping they win because I am thinking of becoming a Rastafarian and I’m damn sure not paying good money for my weed so if they win, I will be starting a “garden” next year because if they win i can….

    3. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 12:37pm

      I know American lawyers love the jargon term ” animus “, but there’s a perfectly good English word: animosity. Otherwise, good points.

    4. Hi so sorry i am using ipad and pressed like but it actually pressed report. I agree with you 100%

    5. We would be going back to days of “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish”.
      Christians could bar Jews, or indeed any faith as “idolators”. Moslems could bar Christians.
      I wish this evil couple could be refused service by an Islamic owned service, they would feel how it hurts and offends.

  3. Jaye Richards-Hill 14 Aug 2012, 9:49pm

    Interesting…I married my same-sex partner in Sourh Africa and we have a marriage certificate. I’m assuming the Bulls would give us a double room in their establishment?

    1. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 1:05am

      I doubt it ’cause their web site now says Family run – for Families….. altho on second thoughts that can also be disputed as the word family comes from the L. word famiia which means familiar with or members of a household. They do not need to be married to be considered family.

      1. So my son & his 2 mummies should be able to get a room then!

      2. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2012, 10:02am

        One can be married without children, or unmarried with children.

    2. Perhaps you should try Jaye?

    3. No, they stipulate HETEROSEXUAL married couples on their booking form.

      1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 3:46pm

        That is not true.
        They have always stated they accept gay people, but not in a double room as they are no married. This has always been the crux of the legal argument as to whether their demands were homophobic or merely following their faith.

        1. Have a look at their website in 2005 it said in a special note they will only give double rooms to “heterosexual married couples only”.

    4. 28 Sep 2012, 8:46am

      they should simply be required to give two rooms at the price of one room.

      Hopefully the walls are thin and the gay couple make lots of noise together.

      I’d be cheering them on.

      As Diederot said during the french revolution to break teh cabal of church and state……..
      mankind will be free when the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest.

      Long ago we ran out of kings. HE should have added not just kings but nasty christians.

  4. FFS when will the faith groups/church leaders learn that if you run a business, which if memory serves me right a B&B is, then you have to follow the current legal system.

    But you know what, let The Christian Institute pay the bill – the more money they waste on this the less they will have to spend on their hatred posters

    1. It’s all about manufactured controversy and publicity for the Christian Institute, it doesn’t matter if they win or lose the appeal. The manufactured martyr industry makes the CI appear to be taking some action, however dubious, and it brings in more donations for the C I from the gullible dupes who support it.
      The Christian Institute professes a belief in Biblical inerrancy (their interpretation of it anyway) they and many of the evangelical groups and individuals they are allied with are Christian Dominionists with a very extreme agenda for their specific form of Christianity ultimately to have dominion and control over government, law, religion, media, family, business, education, and arts and entertainment (see what they’ve achieved in Uganda).

      1. Funny that.

        If this was the US, the Christian Institute would meet all the criteria of being a hate group and rightly so.

        So much for loving christian values…..

        1. Time for a similar organisation to the SPLC in the UK?

          1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 1:26pm

            or maybe ask SPLC to include foreign subsidiaries of American hate groups, and those they donate to.

          2. I can feel an email to the SPLC coming on.

    2. I agree entiirely ! let them waste their funds on this unwinnable case and leave less (hopefully no) funds for further bigotry

  5. Jon Henderson 14 Aug 2012, 9:49pm

    “live and work according to their own values under their own roof”

    But there own roof involes other people so ya have to take into account the law of the land

    1. Sorry not a report ipad failure. Please pink news move the report button . I agree 100% with you

      1. Tim Chapman 15 Aug 2012, 9:08pm

        Yes, move the red button. On the iPad, red and green are just too close together, so I’ve stopped using them.

    2. They can be as bigoted as they like in their own home, but once they made it a place of business, it becomes subject to laws as a “public place”, e.g. health & safety, and the Equality Act 2010.

  6. Darren McCabe 14 Aug 2012, 9:51pm

    And again they should be told that the laws of the land for out weighs their religious beliefs.

    1. Fr. Mike Donaghy 15 Aug 2012, 3:00am

      I agree with you Darren and I’m a Catholic priest – but I’m an ‘Out and Proud’ Gay man too! I really don’t think that the ultra conservative biblical literalist views of some Christians should be inflicted upon everyone else. Let’s have a Secular State which can accommodate all the various religious views and none.

  7. Hopefully the courts are allowing them to appeal so that it can be shown by all levels that they acted illegally.

    1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 9:53am

      It could be to do with exhausting all domestic remedies before going to the European Court.

      1. Where the European Court will rule that religion does not act as a justification for disobedience of civil law.

  8. religous law and civil law MUST be kept as entirely separate entities . If they are not , we will end up with the equivalent of sharia law !
    They are entitled to their individual beliefs but they can NOT interfere with the law of the country .

    1. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 1:19am

      There is no such entity as Religious Law except Canon Law which applies to the clergy only. It is a construct of Rome and is binding on no civilian or civil authority anywhere in the world.. indeed canon law is currently in disgrace as it was that which was used as an excuse for not reporting paedophile clerics to civil authorities.
      BTW… don’t you really think that the UK ending up with the equivalent of sharia is a teensy weensy bit silly. Who in a atheist/agnostic country is going to allow that. we are, last time I looked, a democracy where even a sitting Prime Minister postpones his conversion until after he retires. It is just not cricket, old chap.

    2. Fr. Mike Donaghy 15 Aug 2012, 3:15am

      Religious law and civil law must always be kept separate… E.g: the R/C church does not have to marry divorced people but the civil register offices do. This way the churches/religions and state can co-exist together without conflict.

      Having said that; I personally believe divorced people should be allowed to remarry and I want Gay/Lesbian marriages to be allowed … but then I am a Gay man who would marry another Gay man in church (if allowed) if I were not in my job as a Catholic priest with a vow of celibacy.

      I also believe that women should be allowed to be ordained as priests.

      Love to you all…. Manic Super-modern Mike x

      1. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 2:37pm

        Because the State allows churches to carry out marriages doesn’t mean that that is a church Law. The state franchises marriage to the Church so long as it carries out the civil part which in RC marriages is usually carried out on the altar nowadays where previously every one skulked away to the Vestry to do the “deed” for the godless State. The state can remove that privilege at any time. That in essence is where church law stops for civilians. I however am in favour of withdrawing marriage privilege from the Churches and having the original form of civil marriage. If anyone wants to go have a fantasy/talking to imaginary goblins in the sky type church wedding afterwards fine.

  9. They have every right to deny entry to their home to anyone they please, as do I. I ensure that’s easy by not opening it up to the general public as a place of business. Maybe they should do the same.

    1. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 10:00pm

      They won’t need to now that the christian institute is supporting them…. oh, wait a minute perhaps not, as they won’t see the CI for dust once they lose yet again.

  10. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 9:57pm

    How would this pair of idiots like it if a fireman refused to put out a fire in their house because they were bigoted christians and that was against his beliefs and ethics…same horse different rider. What a pair of utter losers this pair are by allowing themselves be so shamelessly used by the so called chrisiian Institute. It is obviously using these two very low intellect people as whipping boys in a fight they cannot win without a change to the Law.

    1. I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire let alone call them a fire engine or let them use my phone to do so.

      1. I understand your anger, and I share it.

        I would hope LGBT people’s humanity was above that of so-called Christians and would extend to calling 999 for people in immediate need of help.

      2. Bill (Scotland) 15 Aug 2012, 9:33am

        I deplore what these people are trying to achieve, but I would call the fire brigade – it would be 1wrong to descend to their level of moral vacuity.

      3. Point them in the direction of a phone box and ask them to call God, see if he can help.

  11. This is a good thing… when the supreme court makes a decision it is binding on every other court in the country. This will get rid of any ambiguity and hopefully leave us with a very certain legal situation.

    The Supreme Court (and
    House of Lords as was) has been pretty good on Human Rights in recent years and even without Lord Rodgers (of the Kylie comments in the Iranian case) we should be ok.

    1. There is no ambiguity its clear cut they are just in denial about it all.

      1. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 2:44pm

        This pair of bigots haven’t a notion whats going on. The whole thing is being run from Tupelo, Mississippi with only very rudimentary consultation with the Bulls.

  12. You can see where all this is going. They want to be able to discriminate against gay people even if the law is changed to allow gay people to marry.

    If they’re so upset about it why don’t they just put twin beds in all the rooms?

    1. I don’t think it is so much a case of putting twin beds in all rooms. These people are offering the service of a B&B and have clearly discriminated against a gay couple which goes against the law of the land.

      Common sense should dictate that if you are religious and you hold these beliefs then you should not be offering B&B services.

  13. I find it amusing that their only reference to the exclusion of non-married couples in a double room is only on the final page of the gushing prose of their website (I almost thought it was 50 shades of Barbara Cartland).

    but earlier in their site (on the menu page) they state “there are no petty restrictions; you can come and go as you like – Chymorvah is your home while you are with us and our aim is to make you holiday one to remember”

    1. From their web site:-
      “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).”
      So I presume that they also check that all married couples who stay there have not been divorced at some point in their lives.

      1. Only the bible says that marriage is between a man his wife and cocubines – so if i turn up with all them i am entitled to share a bed with all of them because that is the biblical definition of marriage.

      2. Given that a Civil Partnership apparently has the same legal status as a marriage in the UK… if they refuse a couple in a CP, they are then breaking another part of the Equality Act.

        1. or does it? The supreme court has never said if it does or not – When they proposed them they said they were not a marriage and merely a contract.

      3. Precisely Carol, and even before you go into the ‘exlusion of all others’ aspect, how exactly do they identify men and women booking double bed rooms together as married couples; ask them to fax a copy of the certificate over?

  14. Is their appeal based on the fact they don’t allow UNMARRIED couples to have a double room- or that they don’t allow SAME SEX couples to have a double room?

    1. well they say “Unmarried couples” but really they are not recognising a civil partnership as a marriage so I would say they don’t let gays have a double room is the basis of their appeal.

      1. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2012, 10:06am

        It would be interesting to see if the same-sex marriage bill goes through how this might alter the equation.

        They would probably still say “The government’s definition of marriage is not the same as the one in the Bible” or some such.

        1. Probably.

          They would be further undermining civil law and disobeying on the basis of theocratic indoctrination – which is not a justification or defence to break the law.

    2. both i would think

    3. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 1:10am

      Actually they didn’t let them have any room at all and the hotel witnesses were contradictory as to whether there were any other types of room available than the one prebooked.

      The overall impression is they just didn’t want gays in the hotel.

    4. They have let unmarried straight couples stay at their B&B, the NSS has a documented account of a couple who stayed at the Chymorvah signing-in under their separate names and they were not challenged in any way by the Bulls. This is plainly about overt anti-gay discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

    5. both, according to their booking conditions !

  15. only the Christian Institute is bleating that gays have civil partnership and thats the same thing andf has all the same rights bla bla bla and here they right now telling us that they actually don’t believe that at all. Check

    You can’t have it both ways we are either already equal and don’t need equal civil marriage or its not equal and we don’t have the same rights and therefore need the government to legislate them for us.

    and Check Mate. You lose game over.

    1. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2012, 10:07am

      I think you’ve got that in a nutshell.

  16. People are free to “live and work according to their own values under their own roof” as long as they comply with the law. The law about discrimination of goods and services is clear. You can’t have a sign up saying “No blacks. No Irish.” You can’t deny someone services based on their sexual orientation. They will take this to the highest UK court, lose and no doubt take it to the European Court – where they will lose again. These people are like their beliefs – fossils of a more ignorant time.

    1. don’t forget the ECJ (the only court with authority over the Supreme Court) will take years to get to the case and hear it and with any luck these two will be deceased by then.

  17. Lynda Yilmaz 14 Aug 2012, 10:28pm

    I really can’t understand why these two are running a Bed and Breakfast when they so clearly hung up on the sexual behaviour of their guests. They shouldn’t run a business which involves renting out beds if their preoccupation with what people do in them drives them insane. If someone went with their lesbian lover would they have to produce birth certificates to prove they were sisters? Do they actually ask for marriage certs to prove a ‘couple’ are married? If gay marriage becomes law, they will have to show themselves fully by saying, ‘no same sex couples!’ because they can’t use the excuse of unmarried people sharing the same bed. If they fail at the H of L, they could try going to the Court of Human Rights. Let’s see how they fare there! LOL

    1. court of human rights isn’t gay friendly at the moment, but the good news is that it has f all influence on the UK. They would have to take it to the ECJ to make it binding but I doubt they will want to hear this and even if they did it will take YEARS.

  18. It’s very simple: they must and they will lose their appeal. If they win this, there would be nothing left to stop people from opening up restaurants with a “whites only” sign at the door, or pubs that don’t allow Welsh people, or fun parks that refuse entrance to Asian families… “because it’s against our religion”…

    1. errr no, it wouldnt. right to religion is a human right

      1. As is right to be free from religion, and to not be discriminated against on the grounds of another person’s religion. Which is why anti discrimination legislation exists. And why these B&B owners have already lost their case before the lower courts, as they will again before the Supreme Court.

      2. There may be some truth in this, in terms of the ECHR. Part of the issue being tested in the courts is – when two human rights are in conflict – which takes precedence? The one by choice (no one is BORN religious) or the innate and immutable.

        This particular argument also really doesn’t have legs, unless they intend to assert that anti-gay animus is a core aspect of christian belief. While it would amuse me greatly if they did, other christians would (I’m told) deeply protest this.

        1. i agree i just said that victory for them wont lead to scenario described by Wim2600

      3. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 2:53pm

        er, actually no it isn’t a right. It is Freedom of Thought that is the human right under which the evil that is religious practice is protected. It is not however a specific human right.

        1. There is a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

          1. Paddyswurds 17 Aug 2012, 4:25pm

            Again it is not a specific Human Right. It comes under the heading of Freedom of Thought. It is trying to get back to the 18th century by pretending it in itself is a human right.

    2. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 1:23pm

      I remember all the fuss years ago about someone who put up a “for sale” sign outside his house which said “to an English family only” . This was against the law, but many argued he had the right to do it. These days he would be unlikely to get any sympathy, because the vast majority see how offensive, xenophobic and racist that was. Hopefully that will also be true in due course, of business practises like those of this hotel.

      1. he didn’t need to do that though, you can reject an offer in a private sale and not give them your reason why. Some people are too stupid to know they don’t need to show their bigotry.

    3. This is where I’m a bit concerned. Pubs and bars already do this. Gentlemen’s clubs, women’s fitness clubs, etc. If we follow the same legal pattern against this couple then why not sue a gay bar for discrimination on the grounds of perceived sexuality?

      1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 3:48pm

        I totally agree. This is a double standard.
        It’s nice to see the hypocrites on here mark you down.
        What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      2. I’m not a lawyer, but I think the law makes a distinction between private clubs for which a membership is required (eg. Gentlemen’s clubs), and businesses that are open to the general public (eg. a gay bar). Whereas a private club can decide on who can or cannot join as a member, a ‘regular’ business cannot discriminate. And as far as I’m aware, gay bars do not put up a sign “no straight people allowed”, nor would they refuse to serve a drink to someone who’s straight.

        1. the official guidance of Equality Act talks about “clubs” and “associations” as two different concepts according to if there are rules to joining, if there is a membership procedure etc … Looks very complicated.

  19. They will lose again – but unfortunately they want to be seen as martyrs.

    They might achieve this amongst a very small obsessive and indoctrinated minority who seek theocratic “justice” and not equality, fairness or democracy.

    The vast majority of people will see this as bigotry and unfairness. Many Christians will stand against the inhumanity and hatred of the Bulls and the CI who manipulate them.

    The law will see their argument as being as weak as it is.

    1. I certainly hope so Stu!

  20. They are not good, decent people when they discriminate. A business is a business and has to follow laws and regulations, the fact that they live in the B&B is not an excuse. It is still a business.

  21. the bulls will ask high court to address the inbalance between human rights of christians and gays.

    1. Inbalance?

      1. I think it’s already “in balance” – anyone running a public business needs to do business with the public. Gays can’t exclude bigots and bigots can’t exclude gays.

        In private, they can say, do and think pretty much what they want, be it religious, sexual, political or intellectual. Where’s the imbalance?

        1. they or rather christian institute that is bankrolling this case argue that the law denies them their right to be ‘proper’ christians, where your beliefs are backed by your actions

          1. Thats a false and manipulative understanding of the law.

          2. It is against the law to fail to provide someone goods or services based on race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Their religious beliefs should not hinder their provision of services. It has in this case and they have been punished for doing so and quite rightly too!

            Can you imagine the outcry if I ran a B&B and turned people away for being RC, CofE, Muslim just because religion goes against my belief of being atheist?

          3. In other words, any action should be considered lawful if it may be considered to back your beliefs? Witch-burning? Human sacrifice?
            We are all so tired of this rubbish. It is all about believers in invisible spirits demanding dispensations from laws binding on all of us.

    2. In what way is a being able to opt out of the the “Goods and services” Act, a human right ?

      If Christians do not want to offer services to Gays, they have a choice not run a business.

      A need to discrimate against Gays is not a human right. You cannot ascribe prejudice as law in the 21st century

  22. As if Supreme Court judges get up in the morning to listen the Bulls.

    1. well the bulls hit the fan.

  23. David Wainwright 14 Aug 2012, 11:15pm

    They will not be happy until he dies fighting this and then become a martyr in the process. Of course it will be all our fault.

    1. Yes, remember he was taken in last time round and horrifically the Christian Institute are probably hoping for a well-timed relapse by Peter Bull all in the cause of gaining undeserved privilege for extremist Christians.

      1. Sorry that was supposed to read “taken ill” not “taken in”.

  24. “Extremist hate preachers”? That’s rich!

  25. Christopher 14 Aug 2012, 11:41pm

    What a lot of Bull!!

  26. torquayffun 15 Aug 2012, 12:47am

    One can’t alter and adjust the Law’s of this Land simply to fit in to the confines of one’s house, nor bigotry ridden mind!

  27. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 12:51am

    I know, I know a bit off topic and not quite PC, but has anyone else wondered what she looked like when they married?

    1. She probably still looked like a bulldog chewing a wasp off a thistle!

    2. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2012, 10:08am

      Wait till she gets older and loses her looks.

  28. No blacks, no Irish, no dogs. Good, decent people.

    1. …and No Jews either, mind.

  29. Wow actually what they had written on their website back from 2005.

    “Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note, that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only – thank you.”

    I wonder how many people were turned away because of this but never reported it?

    1. Clearly they were advised to amend their website in the light of the Equalities Act 2010, as many businesses and local authorities had to do.
      That suggests that they accepted that their previous embargo was regarded, at least by their lawyer, as untenable and illegal.

  30. Wasn’t it legal in the 70’s for good honest Christian B&B owners to discriminate against black, the Irish, and a whole host of other people?

    We don’t do that now for bloody good reasons.

    1. Paddyswurds 17 Aug 2012, 4:30pm

      They had to remove it for the Irish, otherwise Britain would have no one to build it’s infrastructure…..

  31. Their business is already down by two thirds. Their petulant begging for the right to discriminate is harming them. Peter and Hazelmary should learn when to swallow their pride. Even if they win their case, in the longterm, they’re just harming themselves.

    They should just accept that their bigotry will not be supported and lie low until they can repair the damage their hatred has caused to their finances.

  32. I’m kinda late to the party so I’m not sure if anyone will see this. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong, but the UK Supreme Court doesn’t have judicial review powers. They just read the law as written. If it says that anti-gay discrimination is illegal, then it’s illegal. They don’t have any further power to strike down or uphold laws. So this may sound like a big deal that they are appealing to them, but really it’s just like any other court.

    1. yea thats correct they cannot strike down any laws, but like any other court they can offer their interpretation (its not always as directly written) and then this is binding on all courts in England and Wales unless Parliament thinks it is the wrong conclusion then they can legislate it to what they intended it to be (which can take upto 3 years)

    2. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 1:47pm

      I think they can strike down laws that do not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, or at least make them apply in a way that is consistent with those rights. One of the effects of the Human Rights Act was to get this job into the hands of British judges, who understand our system, rather than just European ones. And the European Convention was written mainly by British lawyers, or so I’ve read.

      1. nope they cannot strike them down they can only try and make it compatible (reinterpret the law) or make a statement that it is incompatible – therefore parliament has to rectify it but the fact it is incompatible will not affect the outcome of the proceedings because the law as it stands will be applied.

  33. GingerlyColors 15 Aug 2012, 7:03am

    Equality for all. NO BULL!

  34. How sad to be so full of hatred toward a group of people that they will go this far.

    What don’t they get about, you cannot provide a public service and discriminate against people. It’s so simple it’s laughable.

    The couple were infact in a civil partnership which gives the same legal rights as a married couple in this case. They said a married couple could stay together. It’s only because they consider themselves superior to us that they feel they have th right to do this. All the more reason for marriage equality, to stop this type of rubbish.

    Nasty bitter people who would still argue if god came down and told them they were wrong.

    Guarantee they will take it to European courts when they fail again here.

    Humanity will look back on these two people with disgust in the future.

  35. This case show why we still have homophobia – this case not never have been allowed to get to this court of this level.

    I hope this cost thousands and they have to sell everything to pay back for there ignorance.

    I hope people refuse to stay at the hotel.


    1. I disagree about it not getting to a court of this level.

      Whether we agree with their belief or their interpretation of their beliefs, or not (and I do not), they are entitled as much as we are to exercise their right to legal remedy. Of course, if they do so vexaciously or improperly then they should face a financial penalty in terms of costs etc. for this.

      The benefit to LGBT people of this going to the Supreme Court is that the highest court of the land will stand up and say that religious belief (whilst a right) does not trump the law of the land and discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation by a business is not acceptable in law, religious belief is not an excuse for disobedience of a law.

      Its great that they go to the highest court – so they look even more ridiculous with their charade.

      1. The court very generously waived court charges last time the Bulls appealed and lost, I don’t think the court should show such lenience this time round.

        1. No the court should levy costs when this application is unsuccessful (again!)

        2. Doesn’t mean that w, the public, paid for their costs?
          If the charges were waived? Someone had to pay for the court’s time??

          1. Or as taxpayers, we should demand that the person who “waived” the costs should repay them out of his / her own pocket! How dare they be so generous with OUR money?

  36. Christian B&B owners revealed their sadness when a judge ruled that the Chymorvah Hotel acted unlawfully when they refused a gay couple a double room in case their presence opened a gateway to hell that would unleash evil upon mankind.

    Owners of the hotel near Penzance, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, tried to defend their right only to allow only heterosexual intercourse to take place within their earshot.

    Christians everywhere have insisted that they are market leaders when it comes to ensuring that homophobic bigots can enjoy a holiday break without being disturbed by the deviant behaviour of moral-free godless sodomites.

    One leading Christian hotelier told us, “We are excellent hosts and we guarantee a relaxing weekend for anyone staying here, as long as you aren’t gay, Muslim, living in sin and are happy to spend your time with us worshipping an invisible sky fairy.”

    “If we were to allow homosexuals to stay at our B&B or hotel, then who’s to say that they wouldn’t attempt to

    1. leave their room and mingle with the normal guests?”

      “Even if they did stay in their room, we’d then be forced to spend every hour of the day wondering what they were getting up to, probably having to repeatedly put a glass against the wall to check nothing was going on.”

      Mr and Mrs Bull revealed that they have discussed an appeal against the decision with their lawyers and will keep repeating their views until a court believes them.

      “As committed Christians we should be able to run our business outside the constraints of the law,” They said in unison.

      “If God wanted us to have gays in our hotels he would said in the Bible that it’s OK to have gays in your hotel, but he didn’t, so it’s definitely wrong.”

      “Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere belief that God is a big intolerant ball of omnipotent hate gas, who floats around the clouds deciding people’s fate with a flashing remote control device.”

      “Sometimes you can see the flashing. Non-believers call it lightning.”

  37. Sister Mary Clarence 15 Aug 2012, 8:27am

    Seriously these two are like the gift that keeps in giving.

    Another opportunity to rinse a few tens of thousands more in court costs out of the coffers of religious bigots.

    Let them have another pop at it . I hope they have spend a small fortune on a good legal team.

    They’ll lose and hopefully the judge will have the good sense to award costs against them this time as well.

    1. We can certainly live in hope on that one!

  38. Enter the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion, near Penzance, and in the bedrooms you will find open Bibles and Christian leaflets. The reception area features a mosaic that reads:

    Jesus Christ is Lord.

    On its website, the deranged hotel owners – Peter and Hazelmary Bull – declare:

    Here at Chymorvah you will be met by a friendly welcome. Besides excellent food in plenty and comfortable beds, you will find a warm hospitality and much happiness, mingled with good service.

    But only if you are heterosexual and married.

    And this, according to that bastion of paranoia, the Christian Legal Centre, landed them in trouble, for they are now faced a discrimination claim brought by a gay couple who were refused a double bed. They now intend to appeal to the highest court in the land, no less.

    Martyn Hall and his civil partner, Steven Preddy, from Bristol, lodged a claim for damages, alleging sexual orientation discrimination.

    The couple claimed that the refusal to allow

    1. them to share a bed was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation – and the courts agreed with their claim. The appeal court upheld the lower courts decision.

      Mr Bull, 71, and his 67-year-old wife say that the policy, which has been in operation since they bought the B&B in 1986, is based on their beliefs about marriage and not hostility to sexual orientation. The terms of the policy are well advertised on the internet and on all booking forms, and are applied consistently to unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

      In August 2008 a letter was sent to the B&B by Stonewall, a homosexual lobby group, claiming that its double bed policy was illegal.

      On September 19 2008, the Bulls received correspondence from Devon and Cornwall Police stating that an allegation had been made that the B&B policy was homophobic and went against current civil legislation. The police stated that the matter had been recorded as a “non crime homophobic incident”.

      The law

      1. only they were in a civil partnership which according to the bulls is “not marriage” and they could never be married under the law at the time. Indirect Discrimination is still discrimination.

    2. should be enforced, to everybody, equally. But the presentation of this case as being about one minority’s rights clashing with another is misleading, and helps neither side of the argument. The real issue is the provision of services, and rights of the consumer. And legally, if you’ve been mistreated as a consumer because you’re gay, that reason should legally be of no more relevance than if you’re breaking the law because you’re religious.

  39. Is it really legal to bar unmarried adult couples (gay or straight) from hotels these days in UK? Do any of you legal experts out there know?
    If so it’s outrageous that in the 21st Century unmarried adult couples gay or straight can be discriminated against so overtly, it’s not the 1960’s.

    1. Marrital status per se is not a protected status under equality laws.

      However, if you could prove that such a distinction was either intended and/or resulted in a discrimination on a particular ground which is protected then there might be a case of unlawful discrimination e.g. it might be possible to argue that such discrimination was unfair on grounds of freedom of (or from) religion or that it was discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation. Although, these cases tend to require additional information and evidence as a simple ban on unmarried couples sharing a bed does not always achieve a prima facie case.

      1. The Equality Act 2010 protects not only LBGT citizens, but also one’s right to hold OR NOT TO HOLD religious beliefs. If your lack of belief leads you to reject formal marriage, could one launch a counter suit, on grounds of discrimination against atheists? Cue Richard Dawkins……

        1. Also marital status does, I believe, have “protected status” under this Act. I am open to correction on this.

          1. Im pretty sure it is only relevant in some areas of law and not others – its shocking with the discrimination schools are allowed to get away with when picking students to enrol.

  40. Katie Kool-eyes 15 Aug 2012, 8:52am

    I think once marraige laws have passed in the uk, every couple who marrys on this site should march to that B&B with their cirtificates in hand and demand the closest room to theirs.


  41. Good.

    They will lose their case and the christians will have wasted even more money on their neo-fascist campaign.

  42. You can see in their faces how the word of Christ has lit up their lives.

    1. Well if you put your faith in a fictional character then bitterness and disappointment are inevitable.

    2. They really are a prize pair of sour suck-faced bigots though aren’t they, you get exactly what you see pictured on the tin with this couple.

      1. I suppose the one benefit of them winning this case, is that we would not be allowed to stay with lemon sucking vinegary dried up old bigots like them.

        Perish the very thought.

        Curiously enough, they are claiming that it is not the sexual orientation of the individuals, but the sexual activity they object to.

        As stated in the Independent:

        “They denied either direct or indirect discrimination and argued that their policy of restricting double beds to married couples, in accordance with their religious beliefs, was not directed to sexual orientation, but sexual practice. ”

        Just how do they police this.

        Cameras in every room.

        A questionnaire asking you if you will be sh@gging on the premises.

        They really do have a very unhealthy interest in others sexual activities.

        If anything they should be arrested for voyeurism.

        1. They havent won anything.

          They have been given right tot ake the case to the Supreme Court – who will find they have no argument in law.

          1. I should have said. IF. They win this case.

  43. Dave North 15 Aug 2012, 9:39am

    Have these idiots forgotten about a previous incidence of an unmarried pregnant mother being turned away from the Inn.

    Mary was married at an appropriate age for her time…which would have been around 12 years old as the life expectancy wasn’t what it is today, by which time Joseph was 90 years old
    according to their “good” book.

    I wonder if this “christian” couple would sanction an unmarried 90 year old and a 12 year old as is the case with Mary and Joseph?

    1. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2012, 10:12am

      I think you have a point there, but I don’t think Joseph was 90, life expectancy being what it was, as you say.

      1. Mary was onto a great scam wasn’t she – get up the duff and then pretend she was a virgin with a bun in the oven – which she explained away by pretending she was up the duff with the messiah.

        Joseph was a complete fool for buying that lie.

        1. To be fair he tried to get out of it but was visited by ‘angels’ who made him change his mind. The ‘angels’ were probably Mary’s kin, with bats.

      2. Biblical texts point at Joseph being 90 when he married 12 yr old Mary.

        I know its a load of b0llocks, but if they are going to bash us with their biblical interpretations they should at least read the bl@@dy thing and get it right.

  44. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 10:28am

    I suspect that under the definition of the sins of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49, they have gravely sinned by not affording hospitality to strangers.

    1. Yes, it is the Bulls who are the Sodomites and who have committed the true sin of Sodom as you say.

    2. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 11:22am

      And as they are unrepentant, they will burn in Hell for eternity. Apparently.

    3. So, when will God demolish their house?

      1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 12:57pm

        First he needs to find a righteous person living in it.

      2. Next Tuesday.

  45. This is very important, we need to revolt if it goes against us.

  46. When I saw the photograph of this couple, I thought of so many of the couples who live around my partner and I: white old-fashioned British church-goers.

    These people hide their detestation of us all well below the surface. Only incidents like this B&B affair bring their utter hatred of homosexuals to the surface. Otherwise you would seldom know it existed. They’ll smile at you, ask how you are, sell you something, take your money, even accept your help . . . but all the time they’re sneering at “the filthy dirty queers”.

    On any everyday basis you can never win with these bigots. They’ve got us down as homosexual scum and that’s that. They know the law has changed and they resent it. Few of them have the guts to air their homophobia in public. This couple near Penzance have allowed themselves to become embroiled in a controversy and it is EXTREMELY important that they do not win their case in the Supreme Court.

    We all need to watch this case very very closely.

    1. Try not to become paranoid and distrusting of everyone just because of extremists like the Bulls and the Christian Institute. I think it’s best to give people the benefit of the doubt unless things are proven otherwise, there is much more altruism and goodness in people than not, so try to put your trust in that, suspicion breeds more suspicion and unease.

      That said, when I’m out walking somewhere like a beach with my partner incognito (strictly not holding hands), with the beach and strand crowded with happy families I sometimes feel that any minute everyone could suddenly turn on us, that scene in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” comes to mind where everyone else in town has been replaced by the alien imposters and the few remaining humans are trying to walk through the streets unnoticed, suddenly the crowd start to point and pursue them making that weird ululating cry… yes that’s paranoia, but just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.

      1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 1:03pm

        That’s not paranoia, that’s small town America.

        1. What gay men and lesbians living in Britain’s cities have absolutely NO IDEA about is that your “small town America” and all of its narrow-minded attitudes are alive and kicking in the British countryside. I know. I live in the British countryside and I don’t need condescending Pavlovian remarks advising me not to be “paranoid”.

  47. Sorry to be horrible but they honestly look like Edward and Tubbs…

    1. “This is a STRAIGHT B&B for STRAIGHT people!”

      1. rick george 15 Aug 2012, 8:10pm

        LMAO!. “We’ll have no faggots here”

    2. Nah, it’s Peter and Hazelmary but they almost fooled me too, I heard they place sausage-tongs on the top of the toilet cisterns in the en-suites (for the more fastidious guests)

  48. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 11:50am

    “God Hates Figs”

    – Mark 11: “In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

    See, it’s all a spelling mistake :)

    1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 12:19pm

      Someone else noticed this : good article @

  49. Undoubtedly when the Supreme Court considers this case they will find that a homosexual couple cannot comply with the restrictions that the Bulls wish to ensure are in place in their public business because each party is of the same sex and therefore cannot marry. The restriction is thus absolute in relation to homosexual couples. So, at the heart of the restriction that the couple should be married is necessarily linked to heterosexual orientation.

    Undoubtedly the Supreme Court will find that the Equality Regulations reflect a clear decision that those who offer services, especially hoteliers, may not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

    I am convinced the court will find that the argument that a finding of discrimination would breach Mr and Mrs Bull’s Article 8 right to respect for their private and family life is unfounded. The Court is likely to say that, on the contrary, to uphold the prohibition against homosexual couples sharing double-bedded accommodation would be

    1. to breach that couple’s Article 8 rights.

      Undoubtedly the Supreme Court will consider that Mr and Mrs Bull hold a belief that qualified for protection under Article 9 and that their running of the hotel along Christian principles was a manifestation of their religion (and belief). However, it is likely to view previous judgements in connection to similar matters as relevant e.g. that Article 9 “primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds and does not always guarantee the right to behave in the public sphere in a way which is dictated by such a belief”: C v United Kingdom App 10358/83.

      The Court is likely to find that the limitations which the Regulations placed on the Bulls’ manifestation of their religious beliefs are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others: the Regulations aim to ensure in a commercial context equality for all regardless of sexual orientation and that civil partnerships are treated as

      1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 2:14pm

        Many would disagree with what the hoteliers’ idea of running a hotel on “Christian principles” was. There is no objective hook to hang that hat on. Some of the judges pointed out the entire subjectivity of the whole exercise, which would render all laws meaningless if there was such a get out clause.

        I say turning out a couple that have travelled to the hotel having prebooked, humiliating them in front of other guests, possibly misleading them about the availability of other rooms ( the hotel witnesses are vague on this point), making assumptions about what this middle aged couple would get upto in the privacy of their room, all of this is hardly Christian in my personal view. Certainly not living up to the standards of hospitality that are clearly demanded in the Bible.

    2. marriage for the purposes of the provision of goods and services. In this regard, the Court is likely to find that Mr and Mrs Bull are able to manifest their beliefs in many ways outside the commercial sphere.

      When discriminatory actions are allowed to be carried out in the public sphere then it is society’s loss. Discrimination is harmful, and it is harmful to live in a society where discrimination is allowed in the public sphere. Whilst the Bulls would suffer economic loss from their restrictions, if the law were to condone or permit them – the damage to society by discrimination would be far worse.

  50. I am a Jedi, and the law is descriminating against my right to summarily execute any and all Sith I come across in my day to day activities.
    The “law” calls it murder and would have me imprisoned if I ever did such a thing. But I contest this, it is my religious duty as a Jedi Knight to safeguard the galaxy.

  51. in reality, when the owner decides to open there buisness to the genral public then they are subject to the same laws as everyone else, perhaps “Top Man” should start to ban females from entering the store……

  52. If I don’t believe in hygiene, I am free to live in dirty in my own home. However, if I run my home as a B&B, it is reasonable to expect that I meet minimal hygiene standards, despite of my personal beliefs.

    In other words, everybody is free to discriminate against whoever they want in their own home, however when they convert their home to a business that makes money, they should abide by the law and treat everybody equally. It is not that difficult to understand.

    1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 4:26pm

      just wondering if they close the hotel on the sabbath, so they don’t encourage the staff to sin by working on that day. I suspect not.

  53. Lets suppose that these BB owners, instead of turning away this couple because they were gay, turned me away because I’m Deaf.

    Would there then still be any indignant talk about penalising people for their beliefs? Is it OK to say that in a genuinely free society, it’s OK to discriminate against Deaf people? What’s the difference?

    1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 1:13pm

      Or if they turned away a heterosexual married couple because they were mixed race, which many Chistians did used to have a religious objection to. Some probably still do.

      The reasonableness of/right to practice discrimination in providing a public service, in the mind of an observer depends on how much the observer respects the group being discriminated against. So someone agreeing with the hotel’s stance is likely to be homophobic themselves.

  54. Because Pink News is essentially a copy-and-paste operation and not based on journalism in the conventional and accepted meaning of the word, it is alas the case that there is no research done as to quite what might be the grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court other than that the Court of Appeal simply misread the law. But I would be interested to read a comment from a lawyer competent in the field of law as to whether the appeal has any realistic prospect of success. The Supreme Court must wish to review the application of law in this case to have granted the appeal, and I suspect it may hang on how much of a home or a business is a B and B.

    1. See my posts above.

      I hope my qualification as a barrister and lecturer at a decent law school is sufficient to give weight (in your eyes) to my views.

      Its difficult to judge how successful a case will be in the Supreme Court until we know exactly what the Bulls/Christian institute intend arguing. However, from everything I have read about in this case, or can consider might be the argument they would profer to the court – I can not conceive that the Supreme Court would rule in their favour. There may be an avenue that I have not considered and that has not been considered by most people in the Human Rights legal arena – but I think that is pretty unlikely.

      1. Dan Filson 15 Aug 2012, 8:21pm

        Thanks, it may be the orbiter dicta the Supremes make in rejecting the appeal, when made, that are important when – and if – they clarify any conflicts between freedom to exercise religion and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (which the ban on unmarried couples is essentially about, albeit in disguise). But the Christian Institute may simply be pursuing a losing case – very expensively – to make a point politically. Surely their solicitors will have advised the hopelessness of their cause, if indeed it is hopeless, as otherwise they would be negligent.

        1. It certainly could be a defining point in law if the Supreme Court chooses to make it so – dependant on the legal argument that is brought to them.

          It seems to be a pursuit of a losing case (possibly deliberately) with political reasoning rather than legal reasoning. If so, failure to advise the solicitors client of the merits and demerits of the case would arguably lead them to being seen as negligent in their duty of care to their client. However, if the lawyers are in-house advocates for the Christian Institute – is their first duty perceived as that to the Bulls (who the case concerns) or their employers? I would not wish to malign the good name of another lawyer but I have my own concerns about the propriety of some of the solicitors and barristers connected to CI and Christian Concern.

  55. Why do they want to be other peoples conscience?

    1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 12:40pm

      Do distract themselves from their own sins of course. It’s the whole basis of the religious right’s obsession with gays in the USA.

    2. because chrisitans believe it is their right to force their twisted morality on others.

  56. In the Appeal Court ruling earlier this year, Lady Justice Rafferty said,
    “As I have made plain, I do not consider that the appellants face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs, they are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen.”

    1. In plain English: you can be a bigot, or run a B & B, but you cannot bring your bigotry to work.
      Or, you’ve chosen the wrong business. Go start a car washing franchise.

  57. This is not how the hotel business works. You cannot pick and choose who stays in your establishment. If you open a hotel to the general public, you cannot turn away people because they offend your religious beliefs or because you don’t like them.

    If you’re that fussed about it, open a goddamn Christian hotel and go about your own business.

    You cannot discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. You cannot.

  58. They will lose.

  59. Hopefully, she might do something with her rats tails before appearing before learned judges.

  60. If for nothing else, this case has to fail. If not we could well get into the territory, as in the good old USofA, where a racist can object to a black person packing his groceries ‘because it’s against his creed’

    1. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 4:15pm

      Wow, amazing story. It sounds like the sort of outrageous theoretical scenario you can get in questions in law exams, but in America it happens for real.

  61. Strong belief is irrational and you can’t argue or debate with those so inflicted.
    No amount of judgements will make them remove their blinkers

  62. I find all discrimination morally wrong but what concerns me is the fear of hypocrisy where we have gay bars, gay hotels and other establishments where admission is decided by sexual orientation. Where do we draw the line in law?

    1. Do any of these establishments prohibit straight people from staying or do they specifically target the LGBT population? Do they place restrictions on how heterosexual customers would be treated – e.g. do they refuse to allow a straight couple a double bed in a gay hotel?

      Most gay hotels I have stayed in or bars I have been to will not restrict access on the basis of orientation – many welcome straight customers – provided they behave appropriately and are respectful of other customers. Marketing as gay/straight friendly is not a problem.

      The Bulls could legitimately have marketed their establishment as “Born Again” friendly – and this may have detered some customers who might have anticipated the welcome might not be as warm as one would seek if the customer is gay. They could not either state they do not accept gay customers or place restrictions on gay customers that are based on orientation.

      1. Certainly most “gay” establishments do welcome everyone so long as they are respectful, and that is quite right. Some however certainly do discriminate and refuse entry to straight people. I’ve seen it with my own eyes many times.

        I know I’m playing devils advocate here, hence I presume the vast number of thumbs down to what I’d actually consider a perfectly reasonable train of thought. I’m not trying to defend this B&B couple, just provoke a bit of thought about discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

        I agree it’s probably down to marketing. If this couple marketed their B&B as a “Christian guest house” then the chances are they won’t attract people who they don’t want without explicitly discriminating.

        1. Hmm… I doubt they would welcome a Christian gay couple, though…

  63. if they think of the B&B as their own home and dont charge for people to stay there then they can dictate as to who sleeps where but as an ex hotel owner I can tell them that as they charge for part of their property (which is not classes as their home but a business) then they have to abide by the laws and their religion has no meaninghere when it comes to renting out rooms for a B&B, It’s time they understood that their home is the private quarters not the rest of the business.

  64. Dave North 15 Aug 2012, 2:49pm

    Actually, I wish the media would stop describing these two as “Christian B&B owners.”

    By their actions they are NOT acting Christian.

    They are nothing more than a couple of sexually repressed bigoted prudes, hiding behind religion.

    1. Repressed and obsessed. Why can they not welcome guests without pondering over what they may or may not do in bed?

    2. Cardinal Capone 15 Aug 2012, 4:20pm

      At least they should put it in quotes, like when some people refer to “gay “marriage”.”

    3. Prunes more like going by their dried up wizened old faces.

  65. taking bigotry to new heights – let’s hope they lose and it costs a fortune in legal fees…

  66. Next

    1. The European Court, presumably.

  67. who is paying for all this…..? our gay taxes…bet they don’t mind then…..

    1. I imagine the funds needed will originate from nutters in America.

    2. Who funds the Christian Institute? The ‘believers’???

  68. soapbubblequeen 15 Aug 2012, 6:56pm

    We can say for certain that there is nothing ‘good’ or ‘decent’ about this self-righteous pair of depressed ugly old cabbages. I hope they lose and the “Christian” Institute goes bankrupt.

  69. Nelly MANchester 15 Aug 2012, 6:57pm

    “good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary” ha ha ha really ?

  70. OMG! Who does that woman’s hair? A sociopath? Honestly, I’d be afraid to stay the night in a hotel run by anyone who looks like that pair. I’d suspect the bed canopy would screw down to suffocate me when asleep.

  71. Peter and Hazelmary Bull claimed they have a long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples — both heterosexual and gay — from sharing a bed at the Chymorvah Hotel .
    But the National Secular Society can confirm that this policy was not applied to one of its own Council members. Dr Ray Newton stayed at the hotel in a double room with his female partner in 2006. They were not trying to pass themselves off as a married couple. Dr Newton said they were never asked whether they were married – and it never occurred to him that it would be an issue.
    Dr Newton said: “We made no bones about our not being married and nobody asked any questions either before we arrived, while we were there or after we left. It never occurred to us that this might be a problem in a hotel in Britain in the 21st century.
    “I have stayed in hotels with my partner all around the world, from the USA to China and this has never been an issue for us,” said Dr Newton

  72. What confuses me, and concerns me greatly, is- on what grounds has the appeal been allowed to be heard? does the law think there may be just to allow bigotted discrimination in certain circumstances?sincerely hope not. so why?

  73. Oh for facks sake! Put a sock in it!!! You two, Mr & Mrs Bull are supposed to be good, dutiful Christians… so why now do the good thing and stop wasting money that could be used to fund other things that are closer to your own Christian belief? If you want to help people, help yourselves first and just retire and disappear quietly. Stop wasting the courts time, the judges can then deal with cases that have merit. You might feel you are being persecuted for your beliefs…

    Whats the problem? I thought this God of yours loved everyone….

  74. f,a,eces on the penis causes HPV and HIV,..., 21 Aug 2012, 9:45am

    ” The law about discrimination of goods and services is clear. You can’t have a sign up saying “No blacks. No Irish.” You can’t deny someone services based on their sexual orientation.”

    But you can deny service to persons on the grounds “anticipated behaviour”
    The Bulls did not deny service on the grounds of their sexual orientation but on the grounds that they wanted a double which raised a possibiity of unchristian imoral behaviour under a Christin roof.
    The couple would not have been turned away if they sought single rooms therefore no service was denied on the grounds of orientation.

    1. Alright then, we’ll ban you from speaking or writing because we anticipate you to become abusive. Simples.

  75. burningworm 21 Aug 2012, 3:08pm

    God Bless Em.

    It will be interesting what the ‘highest’ court in the UK decides.

    Their business is dead and they might as well try their luck. Maybe a Christian judge can bring his child in and have them explain a similar story that convinced the usA’s president to remember what decency looks like in public.

    I think we can all agree it wasn’t the right thing to do and that it broke the law. Let us not degrade each other. They are as much us as we are them.

  76. Wayne David 21 Aug 2012, 4:23pm

    Why would anyone want to stop at their B&B anyway? They look like they smell of chip fat and they would probably accidentally drool in your breakfast as well as flicking fag ash in your cup of tea. I’d rather sleep on the street than set foot in their vile establishment. And you would think that God could have helped them choose better glasses.

  77. Jesse Cruickshank 21 Aug 2012, 8:17pm

    “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.”

    (look back at the article if you want the quote in context)

    The irony is so rediculous I’d almost laugh if it weren’t so absurdly ignorant.

    “extremist hate preachers”? Look in the mirror for goodness sake.

  78. Whether it’s their home or not, they’ve opened it up as business, and have to accept that they have to run it as one.

  79. postopgirl 22 Oct 2012, 8:15pm

    They have just featured in Channel 4’s 4 Thought, arguing that the fact they have registered their business as a LTD company allows them to only allow clientele whose lives conform to what the bible teaches, I am not a legal eagle, but I fail to see how being a LTD company allows you to bypass equality law.

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.