Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UK: Christian B&B pair following ‘God’s word’ in discriminating against gay couple

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That There Other David 9 Oct 2013, 3:59pm

    “If the Bulls are required by law to provide double-bedded rooms in their hotel to persons who are not in a monogamous opposite sex marriage with one another, then, in order to remain faithful witnesses to their religious beliefs and true to their religiously informed conscience, they will need to cease operating their hotel and, indeed, to withdraw from providing overnight hospitality to any section of the public.”

    Yes, they do. And it looks like that’s happening, seeing as they appear to have lost all clientele their HOTEL (notice no mention of “private home”) had.

  2. Judging by that picture they appear to be wearing clothes of different materials. Hardly in keeping with God’s word is it?

    1. Beelzeebub 9 Oct 2013, 4:46pm

      I’m not sure which bible they are reading as I do not remember ever seeing one that states:

      Thou shalt not kill

      Thou shalt not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, “With the exception of crucifixes. Make billions of them”.

      Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, “except for hoteliers as you need to look after your guests”

      You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour., “except when claiming to only allow married couples in your hotel during legal cases”

      Thou shalt not commit adultery. “Well. In your case you don’t need to worry about that one”

      Thou shall not covet your neighbours male servant. “Get your own slaves.”

      Thou shalt discriminate against gay people.

      I think that about sums these “christains” up.

      Hypocrites.

  3. xtiansarehypocrites 9 Oct 2013, 4:12pm

    Do they provide rooms to straight couples who have remarried after being divorced? This is the first question the prosecution should have asked them:

    “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Matthew 5:31-32

    1. de Villiers 9 Oct 2013, 5:49pm

      There is no prosecution. This is not a criminal case.

      The most recent decision of the Court of Appeal said that this should not be considered direct discrimination as the hotel would refuse unmarried couples.

      That is one of the issues for the Supreme Court.

      1. Not so. The Court of Appeal unanimously accepted that there was direct discrimination.

        You may be thinking of the other case of Wilkinson.

  4. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Oct 2013, 4:13pm

    If they are VAT registered, then they are bound to comply with equality laws. I wonder if they’ve recently unregistered which could influence a positive outcome in their favour in spite of previous rulings against them while they are or were registered. Is it no coincidence that their QC was one of the most vocal lawyers against the equal marriage bill?

    1. Dave North 9 Oct 2013, 4:26pm

      Their website still states that “All prices are inclusive of VAT”

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Oct 2013, 4:44pm

        I just checked the booking page of their website wherein in states:

        “Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

        Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples. Thank you.”

        I would think that as a public accommodation service, it would be illegal to make such a claim would it not? Quite shocking actually.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Oct 2013, 4:53pm

        I just checked their website, Dave. I didn’t see “All prices are inclusive of VAT”. On which page did you see it? Perhaps I misssed it.

        1. Dave North 9 Oct 2013, 5:06pm

          http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/rooms.html

          Scroll right to the bottom.

          1. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Oct 2013, 2:09pm

            Thanks, Dave.

    2. de Villiers 9 Oct 2013, 5:50pm

      The issue of VAT is irrelevant. The issue is whether they are providing services to the public regardless of their VAT status.

      The most recent decision of the Court of Appeal said that the refusal of a room to a gay couple should not be considered direct discrimination if the hotel would refuse unmarried straight couples. That is one of the issues for the Supreme Court.

      1. It looks like the issue at hand id whether equality act disadvantages people with religious believes

      2. But how did they determine who was legitimately married; were couples aked to bring their marriage certificate with them when confirming booking? I wonder.

      3. Sorry but that is simply not right. There is an open issue about direct discrimination if the couple is not in a civil partnership. In this case the Court of Appeal is quite clear that it is.

  5. RoughRugger 9 Oct 2013, 4:32pm

    One wonders if they actually ASK every straight couple that stays in one room whether they’re married. If they do, I can ALMOST see where they would have a case, provided that they are equally nosy to both gay & straight couples.

    Too, what the hell is so wrong with an unmarried, platonic couple (of whatever gender combination) sharing a bed? I frequently travel with friends & teammates to whom I am not married and with whom I share beds for convenience & cost reasons. Who I sleep with, as well as the reason I sleep with them, is no one’s business but mine & that person’s.

  6. GulliverUK 9 Oct 2013, 4:47pm

    13.8 billions years and this universe is the best this omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being could manage? On Boxing day 2004 did he intervene to murder 280,000 people, men, women, children, including Christians, … or did he, purposefully, not intervene to prevent the deaths of 280,000 human beings .. which was it? Does God cause suffering in the world as part of his (her or it) ‘divine’ plan, or does he now work part-time on Earth and thus only intervenes Mon-Wed – ofcourse Sunday (or Saturday) is his day off – unfortunately that’s when he’s constantly interrupted with believers harassing him (her or it) for this and that. In other words, the Bull’s are .. full of it.

    tbh thought this had been settled, but if they want to make fools of themselves … I’m in favor of that.

    1. No, but they probably believe it began only 6,000 years ago.

  7. There goes another of my comments shredded in the ether.

    I really can’t be bothered re-typing it all again, this time.###

    Is anyone else having comments – just disappear – this has happened to me 3 times now.

    1. PantoHorse 9 Oct 2013, 6:24pm

      I keep being required to verify my comments by email, like a first time commenter, and they only appear after I’ve done that. They go to a secondary address I don’t check all that often, but since this has been happening if my comments vanish I go there first. Might be that?

  8. What a load of Bull bigotry.

    As B&B owners do they serve ‘prawn’ cocktails?- shellfish banned in ye olde testament; Does his wife follow several steps behind him? Where’s his beard that he’s not allowed to trim? (says those also). Does he approve of ‘stoning’ his wife or children who disobey? ;says so in the ‘bad’ book.

    As philosopher Bertrand Russell put it; Bible just the writings of ignorant Braonze Age men..
    The ‘Bull cult’ also comes from the mid-east largely- via Ancient Minoans and Greeks- remnant is Spanish bullfighting (yuk); and the ‘bull markets’ in economics (equally yuk)

  9. I hope sense will prevail and they will again have the ruling found against them. Doubtless if that happens they will take it to Europe. All the time they are playing the role of martyrs who are simply being true to deeply held beliefs. I can’t see how they can be successful. If they had equally deeply held belief that black people are sub human and therefore they won’t allow them in their hotel, no court would entertain their defence. This is no different. Their belief, no matter how genuinely held, should provide them with exemption from the law.

  10. They think they have a right to discriminate against someone because of their personal belief system. I would not turn them away from my hotel just because of my personal belief system. I would not turn them aways just because they are bigots. For example if I believed in euthanasia (which I don’t) I would keep that view to myself while they stay at my hotel. If these people chose to turn their home into a business, they can’t expect to hide behind the bible, in order to discriminate – that’s what the KKK did with black people!

  11. When are idiots like these going to understand: have whatever childish ‘beliefs’ you want. But if you seek to make money by providing a ‘service’ to the public, you may not discriminate. Simples. Religious belief must NEVER be allowed to be a license to peddle hatred. Now go make a living in some other way.

  12. Actually checked the menu of the Chymorvah Hotel and they do serve pork. This goes against biblical law. According to Leviticus 11:32–35 since pork is prepared in their kitchen all other food that they serve is also “unclean.” People who profess to follow the bible should actually read the bible

    1. Try Acts 10 and 11.

  13. Godric Godricson 9 Oct 2013, 5:38pm

    I thought this case was all over and I can’t believe the Christian high command would fund another episode in the wearisome drama. How many naked, hungry and blind lepers could the couple have supported in line with Gospel teaching rather than returning to court?

    1. de Villiers 9 Oct 2013, 5:52pm

      It is not all over. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal said its earlier decision that there was direct discrimination was incorrect and that there was actually no direct discrimination.

  14. Ok so I will start a new religion, which teaches something like all women are not entitled hold money. All women who come to my business will be turned away in line with my “religious beliefs”….

    Doesnt quite stand up does it? But it’s exactly what this couple are saying to the court. Religious beliefs are not the law of the land, im amazed they can even appeal this high on such an obvious, black and white issue of what is the law and what is not.

    1. I’m starting The Peter Panians. We’ll believe in a ‘Never Never Land’. If you believe in fairies, you get to go – and you’ll never grow old. But beware – there’s a nasty, evil villan out to destroy all that’s good in the world. Oh. Hang on a minute. Hasn’t someone already come up with this concept of ‘heaven’ and a ‘devil’?

  15. Bless, expressing your devotion to God through pedantry is one way to do it I suppose. Another case of Religious Münchausen Syndrome, I hope their peers are suitably impressed.

  16. Joseph and Mary – an UNMARRIED couple stayed in the stable of an inn and were not turned away.
    The Bible does not teach rejection but love and acceptance. Jesus was criticised for being “with tax-collectors and sinners” by the people of his time.

    I really don’t get how Christian’s come to these conclusions.

    1. They come to these conclusions because they use the bible to reinforce their own bigotry. If you’re a self-hater (because you have ‘gay tendencies’) you will use whatever means possible to assist you in off-loading that inner-hatred onto those who represent that which they despise most in themself. So, a firmly-entrenched closet case will appear to hate gay people. But, if you know the signs, homophobes are really hating THEMSELVES for having the feelings which disgust them. Why are they disgusted? Because the bible says they (and all other gay people) are an abomination. Oh yes. Religion certainly has a LOT for which to answer.

  17. If they were following the absolutism of the Bible, they would both be wearing sackcloth, they wouldn’t use banks, they would both have long hair, they would agree that slavery is sanctioned, they would believe that the selling of young women is acceptable, they would support the stoning of others…

    But, just like a lot of other rabid, bile-spewing “Christians”, their bigotry is the only thing they seem to actually want to follow to the letter. I am so fed up with these selective Christians. Every case should be thrown out of court when this hypocrisy is exposed.

    If Christians cite instructions in the Bible for their homophobia, while not adhering to every other instruction in the Bible absolutely, their case should be ignored as selective defense.

    These people should have to either prove that they follow other ridiculous requirements in the Bible just as vehemently, or their case should be thrown out.

  18. Kind of puts paid to the argument from people like Alan ‘Gay Marriage, No Thanks’ Craig that a Civil Partnership already grants the same rights as heterosexual married couples.

  19. They are both wearing mixed fabrics…

    Following his true word? Yeah, right.

  20. CH Brighton 10 Oct 2013, 5:17pm

    If they were to get their way, they’d drive a coach and horses through the entire canon of equalities legislation. It’s not going to happen. You can’t offer a service to all the public and then pick and choose who you like and who you don’t. And it works the other way – do they make sure that any State resources they use haven’t been funded by gay or unmarried couples? No, I didn’t think so.

  21. It should also be illegal to discriminate against single people and unmarried couples, I see no reason why this should be the case and it would close off the loophole these two keep trying to exploit. If they actually did discriminate purely on marital status, it’s implied that would be perfectly legal. Of course things will be more clear cut when equal marriage comes in but then only for married same-sex couples.

  22. soapbubblequeen 12 Oct 2013, 8:27pm

    For “God’s” sake, are these two ugly old cabbages never going to give it up?!! They have lost their case twice. It never fails to amuse me how homophobic people who run hotels and b&bs say online that they would turn away a gay person or couple. You can bet their sorry arses they won’t now because they’ll be sued. And quite rightly!

  23. While I wish these two vile bigots would just disappear up their own rhetoric, I do feel the need to point out that there are a great many open-minded Christians out there and we shouldn’t tar them with the same brush. I am an atheist, but count many religious people amongst my friends. Not one of these believe every word of the bible but treat it as a guide for the way they live their lives. They are all kind and welcoming people who accept me and ‘im indoors for who we are. I just felt the need to redress the balance slightly here and point out that not everyone is as vile as these two. The Bull’s deserve to lose every court case that they and their bigoted friends pay for on this issue.

  24. Maybe they just did not want faeces on the bedsheets………

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