Reader comments · UK: Anti-gay Christian B&B owner takes case to Court of Appeal · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK: Anti-gay Christian B&B owner takes case to Court of Appeal

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good luck with that dear.

    1. Susanne Wilkinson runs the The Swizz Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire

  2. I do hope she isn’t lying about allowing gay couples in CPs to stay at her B&B – that would be terribly un-Christian of her if it was untrue.

    1. But she didn’t say that James.

  3. I do hope it’s more of the money of C4M and its ilk down the drain.

  4. Kerry Hollowell 21 Jun 2013, 1:23pm

    same old dribble, her beliefs etc…….
    once a home become a B&B it is no longer just a home it is a business and businesses have to abide by the rules.
    Either do that or shut up shop

  5. I hope she is not attempting to elevate a personal belief (I think) above a protected intrinsic innate human characteristic when operating a business or providing goods or services. Her B&B is not a church or place of worship.
    Whether it is founded in or allied to a religious belief should be immaterial, it is still “I think…..”.
    You do not get a free pass in obeying the law because of YOUR interpretation of any belief, religiously based or otherwise.
    In that lies chaos and drives a coach and four horses through the law of the land.
    Not happening!

  6. Glutton for punishment, isn’t she?

    1. They simply cannot BELIEVE that if they follow those old parchments they can POSSIBLY be wrong!

  7. Aha, gods law again ! that will be the one that only exists in your imagination then. She’s certainly going the right way to loose her business.

  8. Bobbleobble 21 Jun 2013, 1:35pm

    One of the important things in this case not mentioned here is that she did turn away straight unmarried couples but only if they turned up in the morning. She didn’t turn them away if they arrived at the property in the evening like this gay couple did.

    Therefore she did treat gay people differently because she turned them away when she wouldn’t have done if they were straight and unmarried.

    1. metsän poika 21 Jun 2013, 2:00pm

      “She didn’t turn them away if they arrived at the property in the evening”

      Seems like she worships money more than her beliefs. Just another confused and contradictory christian.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 1:36pm

    Hers is a business licenced to serve the public. If she can’t comply with the law of the land then she should have her licence revoked, simple as that. How would she feel if a gay owned business refused to serve people they knew had these beliefs? her because of her beliefs?

  10. Paula Thomas 21 Jun 2013, 1:41pm

    Interesting reformulation of her position. In the unlikely event that she wins I would suggest that a couple in a CP try out her policy. Because lying in court is perjury, people go to gaol for it.

  11. That There Other David 21 Jun 2013, 1:42pm

    I’ve decided it’s against my religious views to pay any taxes or have any employer liability insurance for my business. I therefore demand exemptions to both of these laws because of my beliefs.

    What do you mean, my religious views don’t count? Well, I’ll have to shut my business down then, because simply complying with the law is totally beyond my limited mental faculties.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 4:56pm

      It’s also against my atheistic beliefs that my taxes should support the state cult of the land and pay the salaries of religious loons who sit in the Commons to traduce my right to marry as well as trashing the Marriage Bill with some disgustingly vile comments and mendacious allusions.

  12. Beelzeebub 21 Jun 2013, 1:43pm

    The Supreme Court has already ruled on this in the Bulls B&B case.

    “”Dismissing their appeal, Lady Justice Rafferty said a homosexual couple “cannot comply with the restriction because each party is of the same sex and therefore cannot marry”.

    She said: “The criterion at the heart of the restriction, that the couple should be married, is necessarily linked to the characteristic of an heterosexual orientation.””

    Given this, I wonder what will happen when we are legally allowed marriage then???

    1. They’ll probably still turn us away saying it isn’t a marriage in the eyes of their make believe sky pixie…..

    2. well technically you can discriminate on the basis of marital status since there isnt any protection for goods and services for this nor any court precidents however.. its assumed if this was ever tested in court and went eventually to the ECHR then it would be considered illegal based on EU law that we’ve more or less agreed to, currently the UK is 1 of the few western EU countries with no such provisions based on marital status but would still need to be tested in court possibly through existing UK human rights laws.

  13. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2013, 1:55pm

    Good luck with that… clearly money to burn in the fight to discriminate.

  14. Some people just don’t take a hint.

  15. So did she force guests to provide a marriage licence before allowing them access to a double room? I think not.

  16. Helge Vladimir Tiller 21 Jun 2013, 2:06pm

    Oh Susanne, don’t you cry for me. I’ve come from lovely Oslo with a FRIEND close to my knee !!

    1. What, no banjo Helge?

      1. Helge Vladimir Tiller 21 Jun 2013, 3:13pm

        No, dear Pavlos ! No banjo. Just my FRIEND and another friend, the dream of my heart. By the way; HE has a FRIEND too—

        Love to you, Pavlos !

  17. Further to clarify – she cannot use her religious belief to discriminate against another protected characteristic – race or ethnicity or any manifestation of that such as skin eye hair colour etc. sex, sexual orientation, marriage – including CP (it says in the act that CP shall be treated in the same manner as marriage) and religion.
    Just as a black person of Nigerian decent cannot use his race to discriminate against a white slav from Hungary, neither can a christian use their religion to discriminate against a Taoist or a muslim and that also applies even if they do not know that person is or is not a toist or a muslim only that they percieve them to be!!
    You cannot use your religion to discriminate but it does protect YOU from discrimination – a humanist gay owner of a B&B cannot use their sexuality or sex or their humanist belief to discriminate against an evangelical christian or couple.
    If she were to suceed it would also remove protections for people of other belief.

  18. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 2:09pm

    What is also interesting is that the so called ‘christian’ B&B owners never advertise who they will and will not accept to accommodate because they know it’s illegal. They can’t possibly imagine that they can skirt the law using religious beliefs to give them exemption, surely? Loons!

  19. If a B&B owner asked me if I was married I’d be like: “none of your goddamn business”!

  20. These B&B owners should read their bible:
    Luke 17:34
    Jesus said: “I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.”

  21. In April 2010 I wrote in a reasonable manner to the Wilkinsons about their behaviour and received the response:

    “We draw a line at homosexuals’ respective activities in our family home.* Is that so outrageous?* God bless you. Mike & Susanne.”

    I replied to say that they gave the impression that homosexual invade their home to engage in homosexual “activities”, whereas the truth is that the Wilkinsons actually invite the public to occupy their home for fees, as a business, and so therefore have no right to discriminate between their customers.

    In case anybody wishes to reason with these people their email address is:

    1. That There Other David 21 Jun 2013, 3:00pm

      You can tell them over and over again about the difference between a private home and a business, but they’ll just ignore you and go back to saying what they said before. In their heads they are righteous and no amount of reason nor logic will convince them otherwise.

      1. Susanne Wilkinson is a Christian activist, she’s trying to get the law changed so others like her can similarly discriminate against gays and lesbians legally.

    2. We swoon with vicarious erotic joy at the thought of married heterosexuals activities in our B&B business but we draw a line at homosexuals’ respective activities in our B&B business.* aren’t we outrageously weird and nosey proprietors?* Gawd bless you. Micky & Sue.”

  22. The sewer rat has escaped again!

  23. with two openly gay judges in the Court of Appeal, perhaps they may get a balanced hearing (ah, ok, just tongue in cheek, the CA would be balanced anyway)

  24. Beelzeebub 21 Jun 2013, 3:04pm

    Go f\/ck yourself creep.

  25. I believe bigotry is against god’s law – particularly against Jesus’ law “Do unto others …” and “Turn the other cheek” … etc. Why are these people so selective in their use of the bible to justify their bigotry? A ‘belief’ must NEVER become a licence to discriminate. If it does, I want the right to discriminate against christians as my belief (Peter Panism) says ‘thou shalt not suffer a bigot – especially one who claims to be a loving christian’.

  26. Unlike you, Keith lovey? Since you admire the “forward-thinking” governments of Uganda and Russia so much, why don’t you move to one or the other? You’ll find their respect for your interpretation of the bible will be expressed in way you may well enjoy.

    1. Have you really got a girlfriend ? or is that just wishfull thinking

    2. What has that to do with you (or, indeed, anything), pet? Quite apart from the fact you’ve given it away that you’re in the US? (Of course, you might be having a little identity crisis, that would be perfectly comprehensible in the circumstances.)

    3. You sound allot like the former mega church pastor out of Georgia named Eddie Long. People like you are a pence a dozen.

      “A 2007 article in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s magazine called him “one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement.”

  27. @Scott Roberts: these guys refused a gay couple a shared room because of their religious beliefs – but that does not make them anti gay.

    1. Beelzeebub 21 Jun 2013, 3:51pm


      Yes it does.

    2. And Apartheid-era Afrikaners (who also relied on their “religious beliefs”) weren’t racist.

    3. “@Scott Roberts: these guys refused a gay couple a shared room because of their religious beliefs – but that does not make them anti gay.”

      Stupid and ridiculous statement. That’s all there is to say about that.

    4. I don’t believe in hetero-sex before marriage, people who neglect the poor or those who lie, cheat etc. and while I am anti what they do or rather don’t do, I am not anti them. I have no more problem dealing with gay people (some of which are my friends) as I do any other type of person!

      1. bobbleobble 23 Jun 2013, 2:04pm

        Hate the sin not the sinner is a load of sanctimonious nonsense designed to make Christians feel better for breaking their own rules of not judging others. If you can pretend it’s the sin you’re discriminating against then it gives you free reign to do what you like without the guilt.

        In any event her actions show that she is anti gay because she turned the gay couple away when by her own admission she wouldn’t have done the same to an unmarried heterosexual couple who turned up at that time of day.

  28. No matter what way you paint it, it is till the same final picture. She uses religion to hide her homophobia and I hope that her appeal is thrown out.

    Seeing as similar cases were all thrown out, then this one should too.

  29. Another example of homemade scones, tea and bigotry.

  30. So if the gay couple were married, she would be ok with that? as it may be a reality for her soon.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 4:53pm

      No, she wouldn’t. We’re hearing the same crap in the Lords, those who only believe in matrimony for opposite sex couples and same-sex marriage as a separate entity and not construed to be the same. She wouldn’t even recognise a gay couple married in a Unitarian Church, Society of Friends meeting house (Quakers) or in a Liberal Judaism synagogue. Everything to them must be biblical.

  31. wow, there is so much wrong with their statements, its amazing. They really think they can win this one. I would like to see them prove that they have verified that every straight couple who has stayed there in a double bed is married.

    I almost wish it was allowed for them to get away with this but they have to advertise the fact up front, they would look so unfriendly that it would be interesting to see how long they would last before shutting down anyway.

    1. bobbleobble 21 Jun 2013, 4:50pm

      She actually admitted during the first hearing of this case that she allowed unmarried straight people to share a double room if they turned up in the evening. The only straight unmarried couples she turned away were those who showed up first thing in the morning. It seems that because she turned away SOME straight unmarried couples she therefore felt she had the right to turn away ALL gay couples. But it doesn’t work like that.

  32. Do they have peepholes in all the walls to make sure nobody’s committing the sin of Onan a.k.a. having a w@nk? It’s only logical.

  33. They must have so much money too waste…they would be better giving it the appeal for Syria children….

  34. So – does she ask heterosexual couples for proof of marriage ? I know for a fact that that Cornwall couple didn’t when an unmarried heterosexual couple I know stayed there once!!

  35. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2013, 5:00pm

    Can we also get this sorted from the start with those in the bigoted brigade that this action isn’t a result of what they think, there opinions but because of their actions.

    They can think what they like but if they open such a business that is all they can be. To act on them requires the law to be enforced.

  36. It would be very interesting to know who is funding the Wilkinson’s legal fees?

    1. (Susanne Wilkinson)

      “Her case, which is supported by The Christian Institute, will be heard at the Court of Appeal between April and July next year.”

      (From the Christian Institute website)

      1. The report was from 2012 of course, so it’s referring to the current appeal.

  37. they will not win so i hope theres lot to pay in legal fees – why judgement has to rake so long is crazy this case is really straight forward -you have service you must provide to all in the community no those you wish to pick and choose for whatever reason

  38. Frankly the Christian Institutes lawyers are just using them for money at this point. They know they wont win just as much as we do. I welcome cases like this, it hurts them a lot more than it hurts us.

    1. having looked at CI accounts, taking on cases as these are lost leaders and making money doesn’t come into it.

      1. “Lost leaders”? Heh. Freudian Slip.

  39. She’s a loser in life just like you Keith, its no surprise you back up your own kind.

    But I find your failures amusing, none the less.

  40. She’s already lost. The ECHR has already rules that religion has no right to discriminate over the civil liberties of others.

    She’s a loser but just can’t see it.

  41. They don’t care if they win or not, losing is useful to the scaremongering persecuted Christians narrative the CI and the CLC are trying to embed in people’s minds and this in turn brings them more donations, it’s all very cynically thought through on their part

  42. barriejohn 24 Jun 2013, 3:17pm

    This ludicrous claim SO puts me in mind of an episode of “Till Death Us Do Part” where Alf Garnett was holding forth about his lack of prejudice against “foreigners” (with whom he’d worked, fought, etc, of course). Dandy Nicholls then pipes up in her inimitable way: “Course there’s nothing wrong with foreigners… long as there’s foreign countries for them to live in”!

    1. barriejohn 24 Jun 2013, 3:23pm

      Sorry – that comment appeared on the wrong thread for some inexplicable reason!

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.