Reader comments · UK Supreme Court set to rule in the case of anti-gay Christian B&B pair · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK Supreme Court set to rule in the case of anti-gay Christian B&B pair

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. If they are not successful this time perhaps they will have the good grace to retire from the fray.

    1. As dedicated Xians they should, indeed, display some good grace, “turn the other cheek”, but they won’t, I suspect. Instead, if they do not achieve a bigoted outcome, then for the rest of their lives they’ll make themselves out to be martyrs to the Xian cause. They will be taken up by loony Xian groups as martyr-celebrities. They’ll be invited to lead an Xian fightback, a righteous crusade for the legal restoration of Xian delusions in public life.

      Xians, and other cultists, have got it rigged so they win either way.

      1. Ryan Donoghue 26 Nov 2013, 4:28pm

        Frankly, so long as it’s their own money going down the pan, or that of the church feeding into them, they can go sprawling all around the world spouting their delusions for all I care.

    2. Christopher Coleman 26 Nov 2013, 4:53pm

      No. If they lose, they should try the US Supreme Court, which has begun to make some rather questionable judgments of late. They might get a sympathetic hearing — depending on which side of the bed the judges got out of and the relative humidity in Timbuctoo.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Nov 2013, 2:21pm

    Let’s hope the court rules against them. Christian Concern will go on a tirade if that were to happen.

  3. Techiechick 26 Nov 2013, 2:24pm

    “sex outside of marriage is a sin” Don’t christians believe any sex act that does not involve a penis and a vagina not real sex anyway?

    1. Kayleigh Swift 26 Nov 2013, 2:47pm

      No, they just cherry pick what they believe (and when) to suit their own opinions.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Nov 2013, 4:10pm

      I don’t think they’re aware of the various ways in which sexual satisfaction can be achieved other than the ‘breeder’ technique but one thing they all have in common is a fixation on anal sex when it comes to denying gay people equal access to marriage as well as public accommodation, something they seem to obsess about in the extreme to the exclusion of everything else.

    3. Fanatical penile-vagina’mites who promote the penile-vaginal sex lifestyle to children hate those they misleadingly label sodomites.

      I have nothing against penile-vaginal sex it just doesn’t interest me, but those whon want to force everyone to get involved in the exclusive penikle -vaginal sex lifestyle are usually extremist religious lunatics

      One look at the faces of penile-vagina’mites Peter & Hazelmary Bull tells you all you need to know about the resulting horrors of the fanatical penile-vaginal sex lifestyle.

  4. The reason this is discrimination is simple. Same sex couples could not be “married” at the time.

  5. There’s simply no way that the Supreme Court could rule in their favour.

    If it were to do so, it would be open season for every bigot in the land to discriminate against any minority that they didn’t like.

  6. Interesting to see that this miserable couple are now openly discriminating against gays and divorced people.

    IIRC they said previously that double bedded accommodation was only available to married couples, i.e. in theory they’d also be asking straight couples whether they were married.

    Now they are much more specific. Their website says “…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.”

    After tomorrow’s verdict has gone against them, it’ll be interesting to see whether they will continue to flout the law so brazenly ! If so, they should be prosecuted again and receive a much heavier penalty this time.

    1. Surely they ARE discriminating against heterosexual people too. Where does it say in British law that two consenting adults must be ‘married’ to share a bed? These people charge money to provide a ‘service’. As such, they may not discriminate on the grounds of a ‘belief’. Otherwise, any old bigot could discriminate against anyone they so desired. Religious belief must NEVER be allowed to be a licence to peddle hatred.

      1. The Equality Act also implies you cannot discriminate based on marriage status, wouldn’t this mean that they cannot legally refuse service to unmarried couples, regardless of whether the couple is a different or same sex couple?

  7. listen these folk will just go to the next court in the EU I hope they do and carry on spending tons of money which will be a complete waste -staving kids and people in real need out there and they spend on legal cost – disgrace – Christains -if this is the way they act thank the lord I doth believe

  8. Which part of the previous umpteen rulings did they not get?
    The bit about equality laws governing provision of goods and services?
    The bit about not being able to discriminate/ screen on the basis of your customers breaking some random commandment?
    The bit where the UK isn’t a theocracy?

    They’ve already been called out on their double standards when unmarried couples were able to book double rooms, and yet they still labour under the delusion they’re the victims here.

    If they feel the urge to interfere in the private lives of their customers on the basis of deeply held beliefs, maybe they should move to somewhere like Uganda or Iran where that type of theocratic BS flies.

  9. It’s unbelievable that this case is still going on. They are now at the highest court of appeal so hopefully the judgement upholds the previous two decisions, that this ‘christian’ couple acted unlawfully. The legal costs must be huge – who’s paying? I just hope this judge isn’t a fundamentalist ‘christian’ as I think this decision is final and can’t be appealed.

    1. … unless it can be appealed at the ECHR?

      1. Highly unlikely.

        Lillian Ladele tried going to the ECHR and lost spectacularly.

        The Bulls would just be wasting their time and the money of any fools unwise enough to fund them.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Nov 2013, 4:13pm

      I believe Christian Concern is footing the costs, Andrea Minichiello Williams’ hate group, the ones who want theocracy, i.e. religion injected in every part of British society and government.

      1. Yes, although Christian Concern is not open about it’s funding though it’s highly likely they receive financial assistance from the hugely wealthy US Alliance Defense Fund which I believe Christian Concern is a front for here in UK.
        It needs to be said that Christian Concern together with it’s other half the Christian Legal Centre has been much less successful with the litigation it has attempted in the UK than the Alliance Defense Fund have been in US.

  10. If their photo is an example of how happy Xianity makes you, thank god (pun intended) I’m an agnostic. Oh – those faces! Says it all, really ……

    1. Was trying to figure out where I’ve seen faces and customer service like that before…

  11. Christopher Coleman 26 Nov 2013, 4:49pm

    Even if you leave discrimination aside, this is a very complex case. First, a private business has a right to its own house rules (e.g. no pets); if it refuses service too often, it will eventually lose customers. That’s bad business. Secondly, if only married heterosexual couples can have sex in their B&B, they ought to be requiring a marriage certificate. Thirdly, their stance also suggests that they do not permit same gender friends to share a room, just in case they have sex. This means they would be unable to accommodate in any combination two heterosexual males and females travelling together as friends, unless they take four rooms. What about a Christian couple with two teenage sons. Three rooms? There’s profit in moral prejudice. These people might be Capitalists rather than Christians. I hope the Court will explore every relevant issue.

  12. Five years this has been going on…what a waste of money….that’s alot egg and bacon….

  13. Looking forward to seeing if the Supreme Court are homophobic.

  14. What seems especially absurd in this case is the unchallenged assumption that any two people sharing a bed are somehow bound to have sex with each other, and that not sharing a bed, e.g. having twin beds in the same room, would somehow prevent that…I’ve yet to see even the most deranged interpreters of the Bible find passages claiming that God forbids two people of the same gender from sharing a bed, and insists that only people who are married can share a bed….There’s absolutely no Christian dogma this pair can be fall back to justify their claim that their prohibition is Bible-based without proving that sleeping together in a bed is equivalent to having sex, and I’d love to see them squirm trying to do that in court…..

  15. Pleased to read elsewhere that their appeal failed and the 5 judges ruled they were guilty of discrimination, 3 of the 5 judges ruled the Bulls were guilty of direct discrimination and the other 2 judges ruled that they were guilty of indirect discrimination.

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.