Reader comments · Gay couple ‘delighted’ UK Supreme Court rules against anti-gay Christian B&B owners · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay couple ‘delighted’ UK Supreme Court rules against anti-gay Christian B&B owners

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2013, 2:40pm

    Great statement from Lady Hale. Interestingly, she was one of the very early supporters of equal marriage when Blair was in No. 10.

  2. Great news! Those who are religious and believe in a ‘god’ (if one does actually exist?) should keep their beliefs to themselves and not seek to impose them on others who don’t share them. Religious belief should be a private matter. People who are anti-gay and anti-bisexual shouldn’t be allowed to cover their bigotry using religion. The mad homophobes and biphobes on Stormfront Britain are not happy bunnies today which is always good to see!

  3. Thank you, Martin and Steven, for pursuing this case in the face of doomed appeals from the defendants and melodramatic statements from fundamentalists.

    Today’s robust decision is a great boost to equality. It would not have been achieved without your determination to get justice.

    1. They didn’t pursue the case. They won and the Bulls had to compensate them. They appealed, twice. The original couple stopped actually pursuing the case yonks ago – the only legal action going on was the Bulls fighting the original ruling to this latest, inevitable loss.

  4. Good headline from Pink News, but now look at the way the BBC report the news – almost entirely from the point of view of the “Christian” Bulls.

    1. When I saw earlier reports they just interviewed the Bulls. No one with an opposing view was interviewed of course.

    2. Bobbleobble 27 Nov 2013, 3:30pm

      There’s a mistake in the first line of the article. The Bulls weren’t running a Christian guest house, it was just an ordinary one. They may have tried to impose their religious beliefs but this guest house wasn’t just for Christians.

      Also if you read the little piece at the side by the religious editor your blood will boil. Particularly the bit about how the courts no longer uphold morality! With idiots like him at the Beeb it’s no wonder they’re so homophobic.

      1. Bobbleobble 27 Nov 2013, 3:33pm

        They’ve changed it now but my point about Robert Piggott stands.

      2. casparthegood 27 Nov 2013, 3:46pm

        I read that before I came on here “Piggot the Bigot” strikes again. For an impartial news gatherer they really have some wonderfull ideas of said impartiality

    3. The BBC article is an appallingly biased piece of journalism – half is a simple report of the judgement and the other half comprises the Bull’s expressing their disappointment, and yet not one word from either the Hall-Preddys or any gay lobby group such as Stonewall. How can such an article be allowed to go out by our national broadcasting service – funded by us? Was it written by an office boy or maybe an aggrieved fundamentalist christian masquerading as a news reporter?

      1. I just read it and there is a quote from Stonewall at the bottom, maybe a late addition?

        I think it is perhaps fair enough of the BBC to focus the piece on the Bull’s reaction as it was them who brought this action, not the gay couple. Iam not sure if the gay couple was at court, so may well not have been available for interview like the Bull’s were?

        1. bobbleobble 27 Nov 2013, 8:27pm

          It was an editorial decision to make this a story about a loss for the Bulls rather than a victory for Preddy and Hall. Why did the BBC make that decision?

    4. The BBC is a joke and has been for about ten years now.
      They ignored the M15 protests in Madrid, millions on the streets. They ignored Occupy for more than two weeks, not a single mention of it. Yet they had live cameras rolling 24/7 for the protests in Egypt from day-one.

      Their lack of coverage of the GCHQ and NSA scandals is a blatant example of how the BBC has become a government propaganda mouthpiece.

      When the Dartmouth tunnel incident happened a few months ago thousands of people were on Twitter asking the BBC why they were not reporting on it.

      The case of the murder of agent Gareth Williams was another good example of shallow and biased reporting, ignoring the facts of the case and simply repeating that it was suicide despite all the evidence to say he was murdered.

      They consult the government on everything before running a story, and their views are certainly not impartial. You cannot trust the BBC to tell the truth.

      1. The BBC is so paranoid about not upsetting religion (as it’s part of the establishment) that its reporting of gay / religious issues is often totally biased against us. In it’s obsessive quest to save money, BBC News now seems to be run by a bunch of fourteen year-olds who have no clue about balance, fairness or life in general. This can only lead to increasingly poor journalism and big mistakes.

      2. Robert in S Kensington 27 Nov 2013, 9:38pm

        It also failed to give any fair or adequate coverage of the success of the marriage bill. Even Whitehall complained about that. Odder yet is that some right wingers maintain the BBC is too far left. If only. I think it’s about time that the country had a serious discussion as to why we have to pay licence fees to an organisation that does not demonstrate impartiality. There’s been hardly any balanced discussion or representation from our side in regard to equality and LGBT issues. The marriage debate was just one example.

    5. Typical homophobia from the BBC. Just like the SSM reporting – only focusing on the supposed ‘victims’ not the victory for the rights of gay people to live freely. C*nts

    6. .....Paddyswurds 27 Nov 2013, 11:32pm

      I, as a Gay man, thought the interview with the Bulls very even handed with the interviewer very much espousing the Gay position and pointing out the law is the law no matter what your personal religious delusion (my word). I can’t see how it could have been any fairer frankly. Hopefully this pair of deluded bigots have finally learned their lesson.

  5. Congratulations and well done, it’s so important to stand up to the “Christian” dominionist’s who would impose their own peculiar and disturbing interpretation of scripture upon us all if they ever got the chance.

    1. James Campbell 27 Nov 2013, 4:25pm

      I am a Christian and agree with everything you say. I am often disgusted with how so-called ‘christian fundamentalists’ interpret a rather poor translation of the original Hebrew texts. If one believes in God (or any god) then those who follow should reflect on the fact that we are all created equal in terms of rights as per. “Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity”

  6. I love it when common sense prevails.. it’s a pity it had to get to this point!!!!! Shame on the ‘christian’ hotel owners!

    1. de Villiers 27 Nov 2013, 6:52pm

      Yes, well. It is not common sense – the argument on direct discrimination was successful only because of a specific provision in the regulations. Without it, the argument on direct discrimination would have failed: paragraph 62:
      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.

  7. Tom Cotner 27 Nov 2013, 4:32pm

    I think it admirable that the UK court has ruled that all people are equal under the law.
    If only we could get something like that in this country, where corporations, claiming religious exemption, are attempting the same thing that the B&B owners did.
    I strongly suspect that we won’t be as fortunately ruled. Sad.

  8. If God keeps doing this I might have start considering believing in him!….One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the stupidity of these self-proclaimed ‘Christians’….hopefully the whole fiasco has cost them and their sponsors a fortune, especially galling for them as now thanks to their efforts the highest court in the land has made the law completely clear and unassailable….God moves in mysterious ways in deed:-)….

  9. This Supreme Court’s decision seems to be being censored by BBC Radio 4.

    20 minutes into the flagship PM programe at 5pm and it hasn’t been mentioned at all.

    However, there’s a blow-by-blow account of all the trivia about Nigella Lawson’s divorce.

    1. ChrisMorley 27 Nov 2013, 5:40pm

      We are interested in this, naturally, but it is hardly a big news item.
      The Bulls have lost at every court hearing, and the Supreme Court’s decision to reject their appeal was predictable.

      1. That is not supported by the BBC reports of other Supreme Court judgements, and these can now also be televised directly from inside the Court in real time.
        Not buying it. The BBC are biased and their attitudes in giving preferance and favour to “religion” are by now well documented.

  10. Now let that be the end of it….you silly pair….go and open a bed and breakfast in Heaven…

  11. They will be back in court soon, the christian martyr factory.. sorry.. the Christian Institute legal team hasn’t finished milking every last penny of the £750,000 the Bulls got after selling the B&B.

    1. ChrisMorley 27 Nov 2013, 5:46pm

      Their legal appeal was piad for by the Christian Institute. They haven’t sold their B&B yet.
      “Their legal appeal was paid for by The Christian Institute’s Legal Defence Fund.”

      1. Does anyone know where The Christian Institute gets its money? I bet they are funded mostly from abroad,

        1. They appear to be a UK front for the hugely wealthy US anti-gay hate group The Alliance Defense Fund.
          Certainly the Christian Institute , the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern all share close links with the ADF and are closely modelled on it, the ADF provides training for CLC lawyers.
          They all worki towards an extreme “Christian” dominionist agenda

  12. the trouble here is that we are forced to except gay men and women. why shouldn’t someone be able to turn them away, I think you are dirty and disgusting its not natural and its not right however you try and tell me it is ITS NOT. your not happy with your gay clubs and pubs and your civil partnerships now you have same sex marriage. I for one don’t want to see you kissing etc it makes my stomach churn.

    1. de Villiers 27 Nov 2013, 6:26pm

      > I for one don’t want to see you kissing etc it makes my stomach churn.

      I would say close your eyes but it would appear that they are already closed.

    2. Angel Dust 27 Nov 2013, 6:45pm

      Your language alone tells me you’re not well educated, so you’re excused fir the drivel you wrote.

      1. sorry but I am well educated, I am just saying what many people think.. and was it true the gay couple targeted that particular hotel because they knew of the owners feelings on gays ??

        1. bobbleobble 27 Nov 2013, 7:38pm

          You’re being too obvious, the secret to good trolling is to at least have a veneer of credibility but no one can be as ignorant a you are.

        2. @ vincent

          Your Bash Street education was obviously wasted on you ! (Actually, that’s a bit unfair – I’m sure Danny, Smiffy, Plug et al would be able to compose something far better…)

          Try learning about starting sentences with capital letters. Learn to distinguish between ‘except’ and ‘accept’, similarly with ‘your’ / ‘you’re’ and ‘its’ / ‘it’s’.

          Obviously you wouldn’t recognise a semi-colon or possessive plural if you fell over one, but the odd bit of punctuation here and there would help; try starting with a few commas, apostrophes and full stops.

          1. didn’t know it was a spelling test you bunch of old queens.

        3. Yes. So well-educated that you’re unaware of the distinction between accept and except, and are unaware of the function of the possessive apostrophe.

          I for one am not keen on obvious fools expressing their fatuous and ill-considered opinions, yet here you are, Vincent. Time to bugger off, perhaps?

        4. .....Paddyswurds 27 Nov 2013, 11:48pm

          Anyone who writes “except” when it should be “accept” is NOT well educated no matter how deluded they are. Your drivel is akin to something a seven year old would write, It is without grammar, spelling or punctuation….You are an intellectually bereft, ill educated ignoramus and a homophobic bigot. History and your family will judge you harshly…… Crawl back under whatever pile of dog shyte you crawled out of and do the entire sane world a favour.

        5. Beelzeebub 28 Nov 2013, 9:46am

          ” I am just saying what many people think..”

          Many people thought that the Jews should have been eradicated.

          Herd mentality doesn’t make it right though does it.

    3. What do you mean by its not ‘natural’? I accept the fact it IS UNCOMMON but your assertion that being homosexual or bisexual is ‘unnatural’ is NOT supported by scientific evidence. The fact is a certain small proportion of the human population is either homosexual or bisexual with everyone else (apart from the tiny 0.5% who are asexual/have no sexuality) straight. It is the way the world has always been whether laws have been introduced to repress it or not.

      I calculate the percentages as 93.5% exclusively straight, 6% gay or bisexual (exclusive gays comprise about 1-1.5%) and 0.5% asexual.

      The ONLY time I have ever seen gay men kiss is when I accidently walked down Old Compton Street in Soho one day when I was up in London shopping. It is very easy to get lost in Soho.

      Why shouldn’t gays have the right to get civil marriages? It doesn’t effect anyone else. Are straights going to stop getting married all of a sudden? No, they aren’t.

  13. Terrible decision.

    The Courts need to stop confusing the person with the BEHAVIOUR.

    The two men were not discriminated against because they are homosexuals. They were simply told that there is something they cannot DO in the hotel, namely engage in certain sexual practices. The rules were the same for everyone and there was no discrimination.

    People have a right to set certain standards of BEHAVIOUR in their establishment. Don’t like them? Take your custom elsewhere.

    1. Bobbleobble 27 Nov 2013, 7:36pm

      They were turned away because they were two men in a relationship, behaviour had nothing to do with it. But even if it did, banning same sex sexual relations but not heterosexual ones is discriminatory on the grounds of sexuality.

      Oh and when you run a business you have to follow the law of the land. Don’t like it,close up and do something else.

    2. Well done you got some thing right – this case was about behaviour, of the Bulls!
      You are entitled to believe what you like but when that belief is translated into discriminatory and harmful behaviour against a natural minority, then your religious practice has translated into discrimination against someone of divergent beliefs. (Unless they are so self oppressed, they have fallen for the nonsense)
      That, added to applying that discrimination in a business offering service to the public against a natural human minority (one protected because of past persecution) amounts to illegal discrimination.
      Religious practices have never been, in recent times, exempt from legal sanction if they HARM others or discriminate to cause less favourable treatment on grounds of natural normal human characteristics (percieved or real) or because of percieved religious differences. Religious discrimination in the provision of goods and services is also sanctioned.

    3. “engage in certain sexual practices” ?

      I’ve never been asked *that* on a hotel check-in form. Who knows what the couple in question were planning to do in the room – and whose business is it anyway, apart from theirs, unless they disturb other guests?

      If you’re referring to anal sex, I suspect quite a few of the straight guests may have engaged in that from time to time.

      1. .....Paddyswurds 28 Nov 2013, 12:06am

        Why are the religiously deluded so utterly obsessed with sex and particularly Gay sex?. It seems to fill their every waking moment…..

        1. I believe some of these religious fanatics obsess over their own fantasies about gay sex 24-7, some of them have taken great pains to make a career out of obsessing over their fantasies about gay sex. It so obviously arouses them

    4. The two men were not discriminated against because they are homosexuals.

      You evidently know nothing of the case in question. It might be an idea to read up about it before you demonstrate your ignorance.

    5. .....Paddyswurds 27 Nov 2013, 11:59pm

      I you don’t like what two people do in the privacy of a room they have paid for, then it is time you shut up shop and took up some other profession. Feeding baby penguins to killer whales might suit!!

    6. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Nov 2013, 1:51pm

      You’re totally ignorant of the equalities law. Their’s was a public service, providing accommodation and subject to the law in the delivery of goods and services as evidenced by their website, the public making a reservation and paying for a room. If it weren’t advertised as a business then they would be entirely within their right to refuse entry to whomever they entertain in their ‘home’ as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. Religion is a private matter and as such is confined to places of worship and one’s home. Too difficult for you to differentiate perhaps? Not even churches bar gay people from entering their ‘public’ buildings. Who are you to say the court made a terrible decision? What is your knowledge of jurisprudence?. You clearly don’t understand the machinations of the law. If you don’t like it, you can leave too. Go live in Iran..

  14. So here’s the solution: Christians and other people with class, morals and principles should tell gay couples who want to stay at their domiciles, get “wedding” pictures, or buy “wedding” cakes, that their are no vacancies, they are booked up or they are swamped with orders and oh, dear, can’t POSSIBLY fulfill the gay couple’s requests. That’s the way to avoid supporting perversion and not compromise cherished beliefs. Because it’s no good telling such people the truth; such people have no interest in anybody’s rights but their own. They’ll bully you, turn you out of your house or business, and starve your children, and all the while pule and whine about how put-upon and bullied they are.

    So lie to them. Such fascist hypocrites deserve nothing less.

  15. Margaret Hoffman 28 Nov 2013, 8:46am

    Alice said I am inspired that a student able to earn 5238 bucks in one month on the internet. have a peek at this web-site>>> F­B­3­­9.C­O­M

  16. I really hope these queers have/get aids,the lord shall judge these bent bastards.

  17. why do you think you “gay” people are welcome, your not, religious people don’t want you in fact no one wants you except yourselves, your not happy having your gay pubs and clubs or even gay hotels you want to force your views onto us,because we get it continually you think its ok and normal but your not, what you do is disgusting and yes that couple should be allowed to turn you away because they don’t want gay men or women. ln some countries you could be executed for being gay, so you see not everyone wants to tolerate you and your kind….

    1. Thanks so much for taking the trouble to come onto a gay news website to air your carefully-considered views. You will be happy to hear that no-one reading your post can be in any doubt as to the balance of your mind (not to mention the quality of the education you profess to have received).

  18. As a bicurious man who supports gay rights (and I’m not a Christian), I am shocked by the Supreme Court ruling, which was contradictory. The recorder made it clear (look at what she actually said) that the owners of the guest house prevented ANY unmarried couples, including straight ones, from sharing a room. So how the heck were they discriminating? It’s this kind of thing that gives fuel to the crowds who claim that gay people don’t want EQUALITY but want special rights instead. And the comments below don’t help, and neither does Stonewall’s response.

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.