Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Interview: Gay couple hope to find closure in 2013 following Christian anti-gay B&B case

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Oh give over already

  2. For heaven’s sake, point made, now let it go!

    1. ChrisBChikin 20 Dec 2012, 11:34am

      Did you read the article? The couple would be happy to let it go; it’s the B&B owners – convinced that their right to discriminate is being discriminate against – who keep appealing the decision to more senior courts.

      Potentially, they might have to keep battling this all the way to the Supreme Court because the alternative would be saying that bigots have the right to kick people out of their establishments based on sexuality, race or gender. Just because you’re bored of reading about it doesn’t mean this case has cease being important.

      1. Nobody said they had the right to kick them out, all they were told was that they wouldn’t be able to share a bed. That was exactly the same policy for unmarried heterosexual couples, and it was clearly stated on the website for everyone to see.

        This whole incident was a scam from start to finish. They deliberately picked on a Christian B&B and tried to force their lifestyle on them, while hopefully winning a bit of compo at the same time. A blatant case of militant homosexuals trying to bully an innocent Christian couple.

        After all, let’s not forget who were the homeowners and who were the guests here…..

  3. Yes , give it a rest and move on . I wouldn’t dream of staying in a christian Guest house anyway !

    1. ChrisBChikin 20 Dec 2012, 11:37am

      They can’t move on as long as the B&B owners keep appealing the decision. To give up now would be to say that shops, hotels and restaurantshave the right to discriminate based on who they serve. You might not want to stay in a B&B run by Christians, but you still have the right to, and that’s what these guys are trying to prove.

      1. ChrisBChikin 20 Dec 2012, 11:39am

        (Oops – that should have read “…restaurants have the right to discriminate based on the sexuality, race or gender of who they serve.”)

    2. Paul Essex/London 21 Dec 2012, 2:57am

      “I wouldn’t dream of staying in a christian Guest house anyway !”

      It wasn’t a christian Guest house, like almost all commercial accommodation it is merely run by christians.

      So when you book places to stay you ask them what their religious beliefs are do you? Because most proprietors don’t divulge that kind of information beforehand. And bigots don’t actually tell you that they won’t let you over the threshold if you x, y or z, until they actually realise that you are. And what if it’s only place to sleep that night? Your principles won’t prevent hyperthermia at this time of year.

      That’s why there are equality laws, to ensure that people don’t have to scurry around in the shadows avoiding the tiny narrow-minded worlds of some other people because they can’t hand reality.

      1. Paul Essex/London 21 Dec 2012, 3:00am

        *I don’t mean almost all commercial accommodation is run by christians, rather the religious beliefs of any proprietor do not automatically make their premises a religious establishment.

  4. These lads did something important. They recognised that equality is equality – it’s not something that should be negotiable.

    I know that the homophobes constantly use this case to bash gays who are ‘tying to destroy religion’, but that is a nonsense argument and deserves to be held up for ridicule.

    More power to both men.

    1. It is Susanne Wilkinson and her Christian backers that have mounted the appeal, they are trying to get legal privileges for anti-gay Christians to legally discriminate.
      Susanne Wilkinson and her backers will not accept that this sort of anti-gay discrimination is wrong and against the law with regards the provision of goods and services.
      I think they will almost certainly lose the appeal, really permission to appeal should not have been granted at all.

  5. Good for them, standing up to the Christian bullies.

    1. Were the Christians guests in the homosexual couple’s home, trying to force the Christian lifestyle on them, or was it the other way round?

      I think it’s quite clear who the real bullies were in this case.

      1. I think we know who the troll is here.

        Isn’t Caligula the Roman who married his horse or made it a senator or something equally weird and UNNATURAL?

        1. He nominated his horse for the Senate. Can’t say I blame him.

          1. I do. He was a nutcase. And so are you.

          2. Gary Farrimond 31 Dec 2012, 8:30pm

            Oh a member of UKIP then!

  6. have such respect for these guys and the way they have stood up for equality in a non-emotional way.

  7. This issue was always one of those where the spurious ‘slipper-slope’ argument was valid. If we allowed business owners to deny equal service to people depending on their sexuality then legally where would be the argument for a landlord to say ‘You can’t buy that because you’re black’ or other such similar situations. I do fear however that the legal judgements aside the practical realities of the aftermath will be that bigoted ‘Christian’ B&B owners (and others besides) will now just become more cute in their prejudice. Rather than ‘Sorry you’re two people of the same sex – we can’t’ – it’ll be ‘Sorry, we, um….accidentally double booked- there’s no room”

    1. ‘Sorry, we, um….accidentally double booked- there’s no room”

      They will have to think up a better one than that. The slightest investigation would reveal this to be true or false

  8. Look- we’ve got to get equal treatment to everyone else. Full stop. THAT’S where it ‘Ends” Nathan D and Samuel B and Paul S!!

  9. Incidentally- How long will it take for the Daily Mail to take up this PinkNews story and “spin-it” to their homophobic audience? ASnd- how long will it take Nick Griffin and the BNP to take this story and start blaming these guys again for “persecuting innocent and harmless christians” and publish the guys address?

  10. Of course, the B&B owners are just being used by the Christian Institute to keep the matter in the public eye.

    Wilkinson should just pay the compensation and be done with it.

  11. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Dec 2012, 2:15pm

    Did this couple know ahead of time that the B&B had certain religious policies prior to making a reservation?

    Since it is not a place of worship, I would have thought that his was a straight-forward case of discrimination under the equalities act in the delivery of goods and services. It shouldn’t be allowed to go to the Court of Appeal. The owners were clearly in breach of the law operating as a public accommodation business. The Court of Appeal should decline the case. it’s frivolous at best. The owners broke the law, end of.

    1. They knew perfectly well that unmarried couples weren’t allowed to share a a room, it was stated clearly on the website. For some reason though, this couple thought it didn’t apply to them.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 2:27pm

        Surely though, since the Wilkinson’s B&B is a public business for public accommodation, advertising against unmarried couples, gay or straight sharing a room would clearly violate the equalities law would it not? The fact of the matter is, they are running a business for profit and subject to taxation. If they owned a restaurant, they would not be allowed to advertise that they would only serve christian married couples. The court should throw their case out. It doesn’t warrant an appeal.

        1. “Unmarried couples” aren’t one of the minority communities with Protected Status, so I wouldn’t have thought so.

      2. What gives them the right to refuse double beds to unmarried couples of any combination? Christians don’t have the right to impose their interests on others.

        1. It’s their property. If the Christian couple were guests at the homosexual couple’s house, you might have a point, but it’s quite clear who’s trying to impose their interests on who here.

          1. Not at all the gay couple in question had to face a long drive all the way home late at night after going to the theatre because of Ms Wilkinson’s homophobic discrimination.

          2. Yes, the christian couple are imposing themselves on the gay couple, who weren’t doing anything to THEM. They just wanted a bed and breakfast that they were paying for. Religious pamphlets, lectures, etc. aren’t part of the package.

            What do you suppose would happen to a Christian couple in a gay home? Do you think they’d be exposed to porn or something? You have a funny idea about the daily life of gay couples.

  12. We do not seek to reduce the ability or want for someone to practice their religion. Its when that practice of belief is used to bash us that we stand up to discrimination.

    Have you not heard about Rosa Parks? She stood up against discrimination and now that sort of discrimination is illegal. You are only bashing gays because we’re seen as a meek target. Well, no longer.

    If this Christian couple weren’t so bloody concerned, Mr Morgan and Mr Black could let go. The fundamental point at least, for gays, if they did chose to let it pass, where would the discrimination stop?

    The Christian couple should just bloody cease their appeal and let it go, but oh no, they say religion is being marginalised. If they would consider all the money thats being wasted on this… money that could be used to help fund a church roof or feed 300,000 starving people…. instead, they are spending it pursuing something that is unwinnable.

  13. Wim Lammers 23 Dec 2012, 12:09am

    Last year a dutch gay couple wanted their home renovated. One of them contacted a building-contractor. Of course: all the renovation proposals at the house were realiseable. After a numbre of conversations the one who all the time has spoken to the building-contractor proposed to bring his partner next time to for sure agree with the plans and make a contract. Next day the couple recieved a very politely written letter: He apologised. He could not be of any use to them, because of his religious stand on homosexuality. OF COURSE HE WAS CONDEMNED BY THE JUDGE.

  14. Wim Lammers 23 Dec 2012, 4:05am

    CONVICTED is more correct than condemned.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all