Reader comments · UK: Anti-gay Christian B&B pair lose Supreme Court 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 pair lose Supreme Court appeal

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Excellent news….some common sense from the courts…I have no sympathy for this bigotted couple…they can believe what they like but when that belief hurts others or discriminates against others then thats when it becomes wrong…if you go into a business that relies on the money of the public then to have to accept everybodies money and not just a select few….wonder what they will do now?….fight this ruling yet again?….why isnt their precious God not helping them?…..because he doesnt exist

    1. Yes, I expect they’ll try to fight it further. The only remaining option is the European Court of Human Rights, which they can only do if they allege their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. Article 9.1 says “Everyone has the right to … manifest his religion or belief, in … practice and observance.” They’ll have to rely on that if they appeal to Europe. However Article 9.2 says “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society […] for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” That’s exactly what the UK government have done in the Equalities Act (though strictly speaking it’s not the Equalities Act that’s relevant here as that only came into effect two years after this incident). So I see no chance whatsoever that the European Court of Human Rights would rule in favour of the Bulls.

      1. Thanks Rich….no I cant see the ECHR ruling in their favour either….something similar was tried earlier this year by Christians and it failed….they are so arrogant in not admitting they are in the wrong and so blinded by indoctrination they cant see clearly

      2. I don’t think they’ll try. The ECHR is clear, and I doubt that they would even get a hearing of the case by any representative.
        The European law states that personal religious freedom is a Human right, but it cannot trump the equality rights of others, nor the reasonable laws of a democratic nation.

        So, the ECHR would simply look at UK discrimination laws (regarding businesses being obliged to provide service equally) and the fact that their rights to practice and observe their religious beliefs were not at all hindered, while the rights to basic respect and service were refused for the couple.

        If it does get a hearing, it’s an open and shut case and they will certainly lose that one too.

        Part of me hopes that they do try it, just because it will end their business and send an even bigger message to other religious crazies out there. It’ll be interesting to watch.

        1. Yes, BlokeToys, it would indeed be good to see them approach the ECHR and fail, simply for the message that that result ought to bang into the minds of similar religious cultists and other bigots and homophobes.

    2. de Villiers 27 Nov 2013, 6:36pm

      It is a good decision – but not as good as it could be. Look at the paragraph of the judgment of Lord Kerr – which does not agree with Lady Hale’s decision on direct discrimination. Without the provision to which he refers, the majority decision would have been that it was indirect discrimination and not direct discrimination — and note this provision does not have unlimited application:
      62. When one poses the question, what caused the unfavourable treatment of Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, against the backdrop that they are to be regarded as a married couple, the only answer is that they were discriminated against because they were homosexual. For that reason they were the victims of direct discrimination. Had it not been for regulation 3(4), the discrimination in this case would have been indirect. But for its impact on regulation 3(1) I would have agreed with Lord Neuberger and Lord Hughes that this was a case of indirect discrimination.

  2. That There Other David 27 Nov 2013, 11:04am

    The right decision again, yet from their statement about “their own roof” and “their home” they still don’t understand that the moment you start taking money for overnight guests it stops being your private space. If they don’t want gay people sharing beds in the same building they live in then they need to stop running it as a business and turn it back into a home.

    That’s the law folks. Deal with it. Now hopefully this nonsense will finally be put to rest.

    1. There will probably be a couple more as these types are slow learners.

  3. *…then you have to…*

  4. The Christian (Dominionist) Institute’s take on the Bull’s failed appeal is as entertainingly biased, distorted and removed from reality as we have come to expect from this extremist anti-gay organisation..

    1. A masterclass in cheap and emotive spin to make themselves out to be victims.

      This ruling is another slap in the face to Christians, and shows that the elite institutions are saturated with a liberal mindset which cares little about religious freedom.


      1. It’s nonsense. Lady Hale’s response is rational, reasoned and well thought out and the CI’s whining about PC gone mad and “not even the Supreme Court dare stand up to gay rights” is just childish tantruming. Lady Hale’s response is anything but fearful kowtowing – CI are throwing their toys out of their pram!

  5. “The Bulls told judges that they think any sex outside of marriage is “a sin” – but deny discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy.”

    has it never crossed their minds that some people might of just wanted a good night sleep rather than go to a B&B for sex.

    1. Yes, it was always the Bull’s prurient assumption that this well established couple were going to have sex and not just wanting a comfy bed for the night, it’s absolutely none of their business whether their paying guests have sex or not.

      If I thought about Peter & Hazelmary Bull having sex it would certainly repulse me, I have no intention of thinking about it any further than that and I certainly wouldn’t try to prevent them from sleeping together or having sex, IMO they deserve each other.

  6. I hope this is a lesson to ALL would be religiously-inspired homophobes …. religion is not and must never be a licence to peddle hatred.

    1. Maybe we should emblazon this wise mantra on every label of every product the civilised world exports to Africa and nations of Islam.

    2. Carmen Rodriguez 27 Nov 2013, 3:29pm

      I’m sorry but you guys are the one spreading hatred just because the homosexual lifestyle is not accepted by christians.
      I am a christian, I DO NOT hate homosexuals nor am I afraid of them, as thruout my lifetime I have acquired many homosexuals friends. I respect them very much and they are nice people, however, I do have the right to disagree with that lifestyle. The bible condemns it, therefore, I do too. We should try to live our life the why Jehovah God wants us to. Just because the world and people around us changes doesn’t mean we too have to change with it or accept it. Did we forget the reason as to why God destroyed two cities, Sodom and Gomorra in biblical days, for the same reason.
      Therefore, it’s not hate, or atleast not from my part just respect for Gods word.

      1. Dear Carmen,
        You can disagree with whatever you like. But when you decide to run a business, such as a hotel, you must comply with law.
        What if the Bulls disagree with you being female or having a Hispanic name, and refuse their service to you? Would you like that? No, and thankfully the law protects you from such discrimination.

      2. 1) Sodom and Gomorrah were NOT destroyed because of homosexuality.
        2) There’s no such thing as “the homosexual lifestyle”. I probably spent my day doing much the same as you, Carmen – working, eating, drinking, cooking, shopping, etc.
        3) Unless the Bulls had a peephole in the bedroom door, how would they know if this couple were having sex or not? Do the Bulls open on the Sabbath – big Bible rule breach there! Do they accept remarried divorcees?

        They are entitled to their beliefs, but they’re not entitled to disobey the law of the land. If the law didn’t apply to ‘Christians’ they’d be stoning adulterers to death with no punishment whatsoever.

        1. Jesus said those two cities were destroyed due to a lack of hospitality and greed.

      3. Beelzeebub 28 Nov 2013, 9:51am

        For F sake.

        Why can’t you brain washed simpletons not just F off and leave the civilised world to get on with it.

        Sick to the teeth of the whole shower of you

      4. Dear Carmen. The ‘homosexual lifestyle’ as you put it is f**k all to do with you or anyone else. Who consenting adults choose to love is THEIR business. Sadly, brainwashed people such as yourself ‘believe’ it is a question of ‘My religious way or the highway’. These people take money for providing a ‘service’. They make their living my charging people for accommodation. If they choose to make their living that way, they cannot be allowed to discriminate – against ANYONE – otherwise we could ALL start to discriminate on whatever grounds takes our fancy. ‘I don’t like Hispanics – religious or otherwise’. ‘I don’t like heterosexual people – religious or otherwise – with bigoted attitudes’. You can believe what the f**k you like but you cannot be allowed to use your religion to support your own bigotry and I will fight and fight and fight to prevent someone who ‘believes’ in silly, childish sky fairies from discriminating against me in the provisions of goods and services. Get it ….?

  7. I’m relieved that the Supreme Court has upheld the ruling.I suppose the next step is the European court.

    1. Jane McQueen 27 Nov 2013, 11:34am

      I don’t think they are even that stupid, its a guaranteed loss for them in the ECtHR

  8. Absolutely the correct decision on this case.

    But something tells me this is not the last that we have heard from these two hateful people.

  9. “All we have ever tried to do is to force others to live according to our own values”

    1. Spot on :)

  10. YIPPEE!!!!!!!!!

  11. They should include in their prayers that phrase “Thy will, not my will be done”

  12. The most interesting part of the result is their statement that they are against any sex outside marriage… and then repeating the same old fundamentalist Christian nonsense about a marriage being between a man and a woman. So which is it?

    It seems that they attempted to use that excuse to justify their position, but just couldn’t resist the urge to make that statement about gay marriage.

    I also find it interesting that they have this immediate assumption that sex would be had by unmarried couples in their property. They have no way of knowing whether a couple would. Based on this, they obviously think that anyone who has ever had sex outside of marriage cannot stay with them. So, do they conduct surveys of all the people who stay with them to know whether any of their guests have had sex outside of marriage before they were married?

    It’s a good result, and I’m glad they’ve finally lost. I hope this sends a message to all other religious fanatics in the UK.

    1. The reason for the confused, mixed-messages in their statements is that their belief is based on nonsense. You cannot rationalise the irrational. I cannot explain how Peter Pan flies or how Never Never Land exists …. but I BELIEVE it all. Therefore I am right and you are wrong for not agreeing with me. It’s all so silly and childish and the courts should have better things to do that deliberate on this stupid rubbish.

      1. PantoHorse 27 Nov 2013, 1:37pm

        Have you seen the interview on the bbc story? Disingenuous, lying f*ckers:

  13. Hopefully this pair will finally have run out of money to fund their wrong-headed litigation which was never going to get them anywhere. It’s nice to see pseudo-religious nastiness being defeated!

    1. I think you’ll find they are bank-rolled by one of the hundreds of christian so-called ‘charities’ which seem to exist for the sole purpose of persecuting gay people and to provide an income for their officers. It’s time the government looked VERY closely at these religious ‘charities’. They give not a penny to ‘charity’ (as most would interpret the word) but use the money they raise to pursue christian issues through the courts.

      1. I absolutely agree with you. This present situation with the Charities Commission and Law is scandalous. The Christian Fundamentalists have driven a coach and six horses through the laws to get exactly what the set out to achieve. The have pumped millions into politics and the wages of organisations they have set up. LGBT people’s lives have been blighted by the objectives and actions of these so called Charities, we are being used as the battering ram to further their objective which is the total obliteration of all secular based societies. There should be a Parliamentary inquiry into these abuses under Charities Law as a matter of urgency.

    2. They do not, have not and will not spend their own money on the court cases. The legal bills are paid for by registered charities in the UK that take full advantage of Charities Law to promote their political objectives using donations from other Christian fundamentalists. The Charities involved have annual incomes involving tens of millions of pounds each year. They can easily afford any amount of money for legal cases no matter how spurious they may be.

      1. Yes – and isn’t it a disgrace that these so-called ‘charities’ exist for this purpose? A look on the Charities Commission website reveals HUNDRED of religious charities which seem to exist PURELY to pay the salaries of their officers. They give nothing to ‘charity’. Indeed, most are expressly forbidden from doing so by their charters. But they are ALSO forbidden from becoming involved in ‘political’ issues. Clearly, the fight for equality in the provision of goods and services is a political matter. So how do these charities get away with it? I’m considering setting-up a charity to promote Peter Panism. We’re going to promote the existence of Never Never Land … and of course, the factual existence of our Lord, Peter. Anyone want to join? If the christians are acceptable for charitable status – why not us …?

        1. I could just see the Charity Commissioner’s faces when they read under the Charitable Objective, “The relief of suffering caused by prejudice against fairies and other magical beings the people who believe in them”. The promotion of the religious belief that Peter Pan is the Lord of Neverland as revealed in the sacred writing of J.M. Barrie who was chosen by the Lord Peter to show the ways of Neverland and the magical beings who inhabit it and to invite the believers to join them in the said promised Neverland. There should be another Charity for the promotion of the Jedi religion too I think. After all the Force is just another expression of the divine Lord Peter innit?

          1. Haha. We are obviously on a very similar wavelength. I once tried to establish which government body oversees The Charities Commission. I could not get a definitive answer. They appear to be a law unto themselves. I asked the Charities Commission how I could become a Charities Commissioner. I never received a reply. Perhaps a letter to your local MP would help. Sadly, mine is an anti-gay marriage Tory so I don’t think I’ll receive much assistance from him.

    3. ChrisMorley 27 Nov 2013, 5:53pm

      “Their legal appeal was paid for by The Christian Institute’s Legal Defence Fund.”

  14. I would say. Any sex inside that marriage is a pity. But that is just me being rude and stupid.

  15. Derek Williams 27 Nov 2013, 12:22pm

    Does “No room at the Inn” ring a bell?

    1. But were Mary and Joseph married at the time? (lol)
      I think scripture is sort of unclear about that and about everything else for that matter.

      1. I do remember reading that Mary was betrothed to Joseph (i.e. engaged). So, no they weren’t married when they were turned away from the Inn. That said, let’s not forget that Mary’s status of being with child was entirely due to her heavenly father impregnating her. Buying xmas cards for that dysfunctional family would be very difficult.

    2. soapbubblequeen 1 Dec 2013, 2:31pm

      Was it the Holiday Inn? There’s never any room there, and the rooms are always like stables anyway!

  16. My religion says gluttony is a sin. Therefore, I will not let Hazelmary eat at my restaurant. If the above happened to Hazelmary, I’ll bet she’d be right back in court shouting anti-christian discrimination.

  17. Jock S. Trap 27 Nov 2013, 12:47pm

    It’s a shame all they can think about is sex.

    With that attitude and mentality it’s no wonder they are losers.

    Advice:- stop thinking about sex. You’ll find you brain frees up on more important things like your own lives!

    1. Those who are homophobic and biphobic normally always seek to ‘justify’ their opinions by having fevered imaginations about what gays or bisexuals may do in the privacy of their bedrooms. It is though they can’t imagine that gays or bisexuals do anything in their lives apart from sex. If they thought about gays/bisexuals as just individuals then perhaps they would be less prejudiced. It’s time these people recognise that just like straight people gays and bisexuals are not at it 24/7!

      1. In all fairness, it’s a little difficult for us to promote this notion while so many are also gyrating in skin tight underwear on parade floats all over the world once a year, or being caught in a park in the middle of the night with a strange man attached to their appendage.

        Sometimes I wonder how much of this we bring on ourselves with some of the most common behavior.

        It might not be much different to what straight people get up to every Friday or Saturday night, but we get far more crap for it in the media. It’s not fair, but then we don’t really do ourselves many favors when trying to argue that it’s not all about sex when we often make it about this in the public eye.

        1. BlokeToys, did you read yesterday’s report about the trial of a young British heterosexual pop singer involved in sex with a baby?

          There are far more reports of repulsive heterosexual sexual activities out there than there are reports of similar activities perpetrated by homosexual people.

          So it’s a matter of homophobes choosing to focus on what they view as the negative aspects of homosexuality rather than viewing all things fairly and in perspective.

        2. Cant help thinking this is all about them thinking we have more fun than they do, and they are too old to enjoy it, even if they did.
          Deliberately harming and denigrating other people for who they are, because of a delusional personal belief system is a form of Psychosis.
          Lets not forget, their chosen belief system first tries to deny us the right to marry then they persecutes us because we are not.
          We must never forget their form of religious myopia is a choice and they choose to behave in this discriminatory manner.
          Frankly, seeing how many “straight” people behave, in the town centre on a weekend, I think we have a way to go to come even close to ….open, blatant, in your face, sexuality and sexual expression!

    2. Homophobes and biphobes have very fevered imaginations and usually try to ‘justify’ their intolerance on how they think gay and bisexual men and women have sexual intercourse. Their homophobia and biphobia revolves around the ‘urgh’ and ‘icky’ factor. They never think of gays and bisexuals as individuals who have other things going on in their lives and think gays and bisexuals are at ‘it’ 24/7!

  18. Who advised them to appeal? More money than sense.

    1. Christian groups backed with American evangelical cash seeking to generate publicity for their anti-gay cause.

      The Bulls’ appeal was never about trying to win their case, which was always hopeless. It was about trying to generate sympathetic Daily Mail coverage – an exercise in which the Bulls’ backers have been less successful than they may have hoped.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2013, 1:43pm

      Andrea Minichiello Williams’ hate group, Christian Concern.

    3. ChrisMorley 27 Nov 2013, 5:57pm

      The Christian Institute backed them and paid for the case:
      “Their legal appeal was paid for by The Christian Institute’s Legal Defence Fund.”

    4. de Villiers 27 Nov 2013, 6:38pm

      The judge in the Court of Appeal advised them to appeal – saying that he wanted to find that there was no direct discrimination but that he was forced to follow a previous case with which he disagreed.

  19. The bullies lost!

  20. Last night, I visited the the homeless man who ‘sleeps’ in our cold, windy seafront shelter. If the Bulls want to get an idea of Jesus Christ’s teachings, they should spend a half an hour in the company of this gentleman and learn the true values of humility, kindness and warmth.

    If a fraction of what the Bulls and their supporters was spent on helping those less fortunate than themselves, and not on pursuing blatant bigotry and self-martydom, this world would be such a better place.

  21. PantoHorse 27 Nov 2013, 1:40pm

    “Homosexuality never entered our heads”

    What disingenuous twaddle. Why then are the CI bleating about ‘political correctness gone mad’ and the Supreme Court being afraid to ‘say anything against gay rights’?

    I hope your God does judge you and finds you lacking.

    1. Jock S. Trap 27 Nov 2013, 3:29pm


      I do find the term “Political Correctness” tends to come from people stuck in the 1950’s. A time we all hear that people respected one another. Well it might have been fine in the 1950’s but how about the UK population of the 21st Century.

      Things have changed, people are excepted for who they are and I find it hypocritical that those old minds carry on about a lack of respect in one hand and then using the term “Political Correctness” to deny any respect in 2013. And all because they don’t actually what to respect people.

      Blinkered people with no hope, use religion to smear and spite society to scream what they want and who they hate.

      It’s lazy, hypocritical and self-destructive.

  22. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2013, 1:45pm

    Wait for the god-botherers to play the abuse of religious freedom card! I can just hear the bile coming from Andrea Minichiello Wiliams and Sharon James, bloody loons.

  23. Is there a written opinion in this case? If so, where can one find it?

    1. The full text of the judgement will be available to download tomorrow:

  24. Excellent news! Whilst they are perfectly entitled to believe in a ‘God’ (if one exists?) they are not free to discriminate against people as a result of that belief. Religious belief should be an entirely private matter for individuals and not something individuals should seek to impose on others.

    People who are intolerant of gays and bisexuals should not be allowed to cover their prejudice using the cover of religion. The moronic anti-gay and anti-bisexual bigots on Stormfront Britain are not happy bunnies today!

    1. Carmen Rodriguez 27 Nov 2013, 3:47pm

      Funny, we are told not to impose religion on people, which I do not, but we are being forced to accept a lifestyle that we do not accept.

      1. Carmen, I’m sorry but you do not understand. You are NOT forced to accept anything. You are simply not allowed to refuse a service (based on certain criteria, e.g. sexual orientation) that you would be offering to other people as part of your business.
        You’re welcome to continue to disagree privately with anything you like – homosexuals, other races, males, females, thin people, fat people, Jews, Muslims, ginger folks… it’s up to you. But keep it out of public life, are consequently keep it out of your business.

      2. marshlander 27 Nov 2013, 11:53pm

        Carmen, no one is forcing you to accept any kind of “lifestyle”. You live your life as you see fit. If you do not wish to have a relationship with someone of the same sex, no one is forcing you. Why is that so difficult to understand?

        Were I, in my professional life, to refuse you goods services purely on the grounds that you subscribe to particular beliefs, I believe I could be challenged for it. This is not a case of the law conspiring to turn me into a believer, it is more a case of being fair.

      3. Beelzeebub 28 Nov 2013, 9:53am

        “we are told not to impose religion on people”

        Yes you are.

        All that “spreading the good news” bullcr@p and evangelising your turgid belief system on to everyone. Your naivety has no ends does it.

  25. This just illustrates that religion is all about pompous busybodies telling other people how to live their lives. Christianity has nothing to do with Christ. Over and over again He condemned this type of behaviour: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone; Judge not, lest ye be judged…

    1. Paul, if we must quote persons of virtue, please, let’s not quote that ridiculously over-rated simpleton, Jesus Christ, but go back far earlier to the many whole books of REALLY wise and intelligent advice given by others, such as Aristotle.

  26. Bear in mind these homophobes have been fighting this conviction for discrimination for 5 years already!!!

    1. ChrisMorley 27 Nov 2013, 6:07pm

      Sexulaity discrimination is NOT a (criminal) “conviction” in the UK. Instead it is a civil (not criminal) case that began in the County Court and the Bulls were found liable to pay compensation to the couple for the hurt their discrimination caused.

      US law on sexuality discrimination makes discrimination (in States where this is illegal) a criminal offence.

      1. What does conviction mean in law? … In its most extensive sense this word signifies the giving judgment against a defendant, whether criminal or civil.

        I posted thisreply to yout comment in the wroing place previously.

  27. The converse of this is a B&B Hotel that refused married couples rooms at their establishment, because marriage was against their strongly held views!!!
    Equally unacceptable.

    1. What does conviction mean in law? … In its most extensive sense this word signifies the giving judgment against a defendant, whether criminal or civil.

  28. Mark in Halifax 27 Nov 2013, 6:15pm

    What excellent news. The sad truth is that we’re likely to hear more from this homophobic couple and their band of tambourine-banging bigots, as their court cases are being funded by religious zealots. I find it incredibly sad though that while they seem to have infinite funds to pour into a lost cause, this money could have actually gone towards helping people who truly need some form of Christian charity. Their obsession with people’s sex lives and their desire to stop them tiddling around with one another’s bits whilst paying to stay under their roof is ridiculous in the extreme. Now, put us out of our misery and bugger off. I’m sick of looking at their fugly mugs!!

  29. You have to hope that this has cost them a truly enormous amount of cash in lawyers fees…

  30. de Villiers 27 Nov 2013, 6:43pm

    I think people here have not understood what this case was about. The Court of Appeal decided that there was indirect discrimination (which was capable of justification but was not in this case) and that there was no direct discrimination (which is not ever capable of justification) – but that they had to follow another case and find direct discrimination. The judge, Lord Dyson, invited the B&B to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

    There was never really any doubt that there would be indirect discrimination. The important point was if there was direct discrimination. This is because direct discrimination cannot be justified whereas indirect discrimination can be justified and balanced against the right to religion.

    This decision of the Supreme Court is less good than it looks. That is because two judges said direct discrimination and two judges said indirect discrimination. The balancing judge was Lord Kerr. He said that there was direct discrimination but only because of

    1. de Villiers 27 Nov 2013, 6:48pm

      a specific provision in the regulations. In the absence of that, he rejected Lady Hale’s decision and the argument on direct discrimination:

      62. When one poses the question, what caused the unfavourable treatment of Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, against the backdrop that they are to be regarded as a married couple, the only answer is that they were discriminated against because they were homosexual. For that reason they were the victims of direct discrimination. Had it not been for regulation 3(4), the discrimination in this case would have been indirect. But for its impact on regulation 3(1) I would have agreed with Lord Neuberger and Lord Hughes that this was a case of indirect discrimination.

      So it would seem that the majority decision does not agree with Lady Hale on the direct discrimination reasoning that she decided. One needs to read this decision carefully.

      1. I think we have to thank the Parliamentry drafters and the Ministers in the Labour Government, and those who voted for it, who passed the 2007 anti-discrimination laws and the same with the Equalities Act of 2010; for the skill with which they construced the interlocking principles and kept exemptions to a minimum.

        It is not perfect but better than many of us hoped for.
        That, allied to the Human Rights Act and the bravery and foresight of some European HR Court judges has resulted in todays decision. We should also be thankful that our highest Court is not corrupted by religious fanaticism, we must ensure that these things are not rolled back to less equitable times.
        There are moves by some to alter the Equalities Act and to remove the duty on public authorities to ensure Equalty in their dealings and acts. there have also been moves to get rid of our membership of the EHCR and to scrap the Human rights Act.
        Be aware!

  31. soapbubblequeen 30 Nov 2013, 3:43pm

    GOOD!! And now I don’t want to hear another word out of these pathetic depressed old cabbages!

  32. And despite the assertions of three judicial authorities, the couple still thinks that they are right! This is a prime example of the blindness of those corrupted by religious indoctrination.

  33. As a christian I wonder how could this pair can call themselves christian, as the bible says love they neighbor as thyself. These fundamentalists give us a bad name.
    What does it matter if a person is gay or straight?
    If my son came home and told me he was gay, i would say: “Well are you happy?”

  34. No one has any obligation to provide services to anyone. This is a fascist decision.

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.