Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UK Supreme Court hears case of anti-gay Christian B&B owners

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. msbpodcast 9 Oct 2013, 11:11am

    Revenge is to shun them, warn everybody with placards and ads in the local paper that these people are fundamentalists with closed minds and closed hearts.

    The best revenge is to open up a LGBT lodge on an adjacent property and make it into a successful tourist destination.

    1. Revenge? Really?

      I think it’s justice and rights that should be served not pitch forks and fire brands.

    2. There business is already being shunned to the point where they are almost bankrupt and the business is up for sale.

  2. What a waste of time & money in a vain attempt to justify themselves. Five years!
    And don’t they look like such a happy pair.

  3. “Five Supreme Court justices are scheduled to hear legal argument over two days in London”

    In other words, the Supreme Court is going to do nothing for 2 days? Because all this couple have as a “legal” argument is “I don’t want to follow this law because my interpretation of my religion says I don’t have to”.

    That isn’t the strongest “legal” argument, is it. I guess these people haven’t been losing THAT much money if they can afford to waste it on lawyers and entirely pointless, groundless, and guaranteed-to-fail appeals.

    1. de Villiers 9 Oct 2013, 5:42pm

      I think that you are wrong. The most recent Court of Appeal decision said that the earlier decision in Preddy was wrong.

      I think that you have not really articulated the legal argument that the Court of Appeal wanted to allow and which it referred to the Supreme Court.

  4. The Bulls are not telling the truth that they turrn away unmarried heterosexual couples as there exists a statement by such a couple who each signed-in at Chymorvah under their own single names and they were never challenged as to whether or not they were married during their whole stay.
    It can be found on the NSS site.

    1. bobbleobble 9 Oct 2013, 11:28am

      Although their hypocrisy is evident, it doesn’t actually matter whether they turned away every straight unmarried couple or not. The policy that all couples must be married to share a bed impacts gay couples more than straight couples because currently no gay couple can get married anywhere in the United Kingdom. It’s discrimination whether they are consistent with straight guests or not.

      1. Yes, that was included as part of the ruling in one of the Bulls previous court cases I think.

  5. Christian hotel owners caught out being economical with the truth about who can sleep in their double beds

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/christian-hotel-owners-caught-ou.html

  6. Are some Christian politicians deliberately trying to mislead us – or are they just ignorant of the facts?
    UKIP MEP, Godfrey Bloom, wrote the following on the Public Service Europe website:
    “As a libertarian, I was deeply shocked to watch the sad story of the British bed and breakfast couple being prosecuted for refusing a homosexual couple hospitality in their own home. Not a hotel, big or small, but their own home….”

    “Not a hotel? This couple – Peter and Hazelmary Bull – have a home called Chymorvah Hotel but, according to Mr Godfrey, it is not a hotel? That is an outright lie, told, I suspect, to mislead those in Europe who do not know the details of this case. This is not a private home, it is a commercial operation and as such it falls under the laws governing discrimination.”

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/04/are-these-christian-politicians-deliberately-trying-to-mislead-us–or-are-they-just-ignorant-of-the-facts

  7. I noticed that although the establishment used to have prominent sign age across the front elevattion CHYMORVAH HOTEL this has more recently been changed to CHYMORVAH HOUSE, are they trying to trick us that this isn’t a hotel ?
    here is a link to a photo showing the Chymorvah Hotel sign as it was before the quick change.
    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/Chymorvah(8).jpg

    1. The previous image has now been removed
      Here is a better image and link
      http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01179/gay-hotel-682_1179354a.jpg

      1. I agree with you that this appears to be an attempt to bolster their argument but it’s irrelevant what they call it.
        They could call it the Living Room or Home Sweet Home if they wanted and this doesn’ change anything.

        If they are providing a service for a fee then it is a business which then has to comply with the law that prevents discrimination based on sexual identity.

  8. I noticed that although the establishment used to have prominent sign age across the front elevattion CHYMORVAH HOTEL this has more recently been changed to CHYMORVAH HOUSE, are they trying to trick us that this isn’t a hotel ?
    here is a link to a photo showing the Chymorvah Hotel sign as it was before the quick change.

    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/Chymorvah(8).jpg

    1. Please excuse double post.
      The previous image of the signage has now been removed
      Here is a better image and link
      http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01179/gay-hotel-682_1179354a.jpg

  9. DCBrighton 9 Oct 2013, 12:17pm

    The Supreme Court hearing is live right now:

    http://news.sky.com/info/supreme-court

    1. Thanks for posting this I’d have missed it otherwise.

      Really interesting and will watch tomorrow’s session.

    2. Thanks DC, I caught some of Wednesday afternoon’s session and hope to follow some this morning when the court reconvenes at 10.30

  10. Dave North 9 Oct 2013, 12:22pm

    From their own website:

    http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/rooms.html#12

    Scroll to the bottom.

    “All prices inclusive of VAT”

    If they are VAT registered then it is run as a Hotel, not a private house.

  11. What was “Chymorvah Hotel” which translated as”House by the Sea Hotel” has now been changed to “Chymorvah House” or “House by the Sea House” giving it a redundant extra “House”.
    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive”

  12. It seems to me that they could well be skirting a fine line here if they are claiming that they would do the same for any unmarried couple then they are clearly lying as there exist statements from straight unmarried couples, that counter this. That would be purgery, would be nice to see them charged with that!

    Changing the name of the place from hotel to house does not stop them having to obey the law of the land. If you offer a service it has to be offered to all without any discrimination.

  13. Am I the only one who is not at all surprised these people are making headlines again?
    Just a few weeks ago they sold their hotel because they could no longer pay the bills from their loss of custom. They sold it for a price of about £750,000. And as if by magic, within weeks another christian legal team knocked on their door and leaned on them to pursue their case yet again, for a fee of course.

    Some part of me feels sorry for them. They could have just settled for the initial fine of £3600, instead of being run through the martyr factory that is the legal counsel from the Christian Institute, having lawyers circle them like vultures circle the bodies of the dead.

    If anyone is making their life hard, it is fellow christians who are robbing them of all their wealth in a pathetic attempt to score some political points.

  14. Their barrister is the ghastly Brendan O’Neil, who produced the scaremongering opinion for the Coalition for Marriage during the same sex marriage bill debate in Westminster . I saw briefly the argument and he seems to be getting a hard time. But no chicken counting!

    1. de Villiers 9 Oct 2013, 5:45pm

      Do you mean Aidan O’Neill QC?

    2. Your getting mixed up with that pig at The Telegraph.

  15. LOL these people are so dumb and pathetic. Go ahead, stand before a court and try to reason that a roughly translated and loosely interpreted sentence from your 2000 year old propaganda manual which has been plagiarized from other myths and fairy tales means you should be exempt from equality law in business. Try to reason that freedom of religion is freedom to discriminate and let us know how that turns out.

  16. George Broadhead 9 Oct 2013, 4:26pm

    It is worth noting that this miserable Christian couples’ legal actions are being financed by the ultra homophobic Christian Institute.

    For another take on the story, see: http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/09/19/nightmare-cornwall-bb-run-by-a-joyless-pair-of-christian-fundies-is-forced-out-of-business/

  17. Do these two idiots ask to see marriage certificates from married couples,of course not,clearly a couple of liars

  18. These liars tell their story so often that they get to believe it themselves.

  19. Of course, if (when) their case is thrown out by the supreme court, they’ll be off to Europe. Each time they martyr themselves a little more for their “faith”. What an ugly, nasty, small minded faith it is.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all