Reader comments · UK: Christian B&B owner ‘delighted’ with judge’s call for more religious freedom · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK: Christian B&B owner ‘delighted’ with judge’s call for more religious freedom

  • foul

    Don’t wan’t to see their disgusting ugly mugs again.

  • Robert W. Pierce

    Absolutely nobody, no business should be above the law. There are places for worship and beliefs, i.e. churches, synagogues, mosques and one’s home. End of.

    • Hogspace

      Rob I suggest all places of organised religion should be subject to the same rules of law as every company and public body. So gender and sexuality discrimination laws should apply and for the main offenders, Catholicism and Islam, quotas are in order. The end of segregation, female and LGBTQ preachers mandatory for them all and every one which wants to carry out marriage ceremonies must carry them out for us all. Or shut them down.
      The HRA1998 needs an urgent ammendment to remove all special provisions for religions.

      • Robert W. Pierce

        As far as I’m concerned, they have more than enough protections under the law and freedom to believe and practice what they want but when they’re in the public service delivering services, then absolutely NO exemptions otherwise go out of business. Baroness Hale doesn’t realise that it opens up a tin of worms for other minorities who aren’t even religious to discriminate as they see fit. The problem with the situation in the UK is the fact that we have state religion, a thorn in the flesh of progress and a Tory party that kow-tows to them more than the other two combined.

    • john

      If Mrs Bull is allowed to refuse a room to gay couples then what is stopping the Dorchester from doing the same. We’re not talking about vicars in religious orgs performing SSMs but just ordinary people, running ordinary businesses and having beliefs which having very little to do with the bible, after all turning people away from your business isn’ t exactly a Christian value.
      Baroness Hale might as well propose an amendment to nullify the equalities act with regard to gay people then. It’s stories like this which make me glad we don’t have a right wing Tory/UKIP govt.
      If the govt ever changes the law to do this then the European courts will just overturn it and that would be another excuse to leave the EU for them.

    • Benji

      The law as it stands is clear and fair. Although I may find the Bulls to be an unappealing couple I have no desire that they be treated unfairly as compared to everyone else. They have complete freedom & the protection of the law to believe & practice their religion in their home & in there personal life & in their church. However, when they enter into the commercial sphere they cannot discriminate against gay people.
      The legal issue here is very clear cut & it should never have reached the Supreme Court. Either the Bulls have to serve gay customers on an equal basis or they don’t. There is no scope for compromise between the alternatives.
      It is very unfortunate that the judge who tried their case has come out and said she thinks that by being gay we to some extent forfeit our right to equal treatment. I have wracked my brains but I can think of no way that the law could be changed to allow an opt out for people in business who hold sincere beliefs without resulting in harm to gay people.

      • Cal

        Hear hear.

  • Mike

    I wonder if she’ll contemplate giving BNP/UKIP members who run B&B’s leniency on which people they let rooms out to, based on the colour of their skin.
    Just as ridiculous really.

  • Mark Y

    Baroness Hale should be ashamed of herself for inspiring this kind of religious bigotry to feel it has some place in the modern world. Disgusting.

  • Fur Beasty

    Just shows the urgent need for secular government and society. Religion wants to protect the many special privilages and rights it already enjoys at the expense of others because it’s based on falsehoods, discrimination and inequality and can only end in conflict.

  • Neil Rhodes

    I could not disagree more with what this judge has said. Call me an anti-theist fundamentalist, but I firmly believe that religions deserve or warrant NO freedoms whatsoever.

    • CHBrighton

      it’s because of religions that we need the Equalities legislation in the first place. They’re the ones who have been teaching their followers and the rest of the population to look down on different groups of people.

    • anon

      Freedom of religion is not a valid freedom, because it can’t exist without infringing on a child’s freedom FROM religion. It is chain that must be broken.

    • Paul – Canada

      Amen to that

    • While I would never want to infringe upon someone’s right to follow any faith they wish, I will not be happy until religion is out of schools (other than in an all-encompassing subject), off the news (I don’t give a damn what some Catholic thinks about gay marriage, they are not gay, their opinion is meaningless), and entirely out of government.

      Religious groups deserve no more say as an entity in this country than a club for left handed people or shoe fetishists anonymous.

  • David Bishop

    There is no such thing as religious freedom. Religion is all about limiting freedom. Even the liberal types.

    • Steven Gregory

      Very true. Religion is about obedience and subservience. Anyone who claims differently doesn’t believe their religion.

  • Mark Y

    Here’s St Paul’s advice in 1 Timothy 2:12,: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent.”

    And this stupid Woman judge wants to give more freedom to the people who believe that? She’s a total imbecile. Sounds like that pendulum isn’t swinging in her brain.

    • Truth

      I think the media has deliberately misrepresented this judge to stir up a storm. I think what she REALLY said is that either, you have to offer EQUAL protection to ALL religions …. or no protection to ANY. She then said she thought that we, as a society, were not offering enough protection for the ‘sincerely held beliefs’ of people. But that is proactive and, considering she had already voted AGAINST the Bulls in a previous court case, perhaps she is seeking to stir-up debate to gauge public opinion prior to the introduction of legislation to remove ALL religious protection. That was my gut-feeling on reading the article …….

      • Mark Y

        But if that’s the case, why would she say that the pendulum had swung too far in one direction. And why would she be suggesting a ‘conscience clause’ for religious people?

        I don’t think she has been misrepresented, I think she has had a change of heart. But if she wants to pretend that she has been misrepresented and come back and say that, apologise, and state that she doesn’t think that religious folk should be given a clause of conscience, then that would be great.

  • RamraiderUK

    Is this the sort of ‘religious freedom’tehy’re talking about?

    Deuteronomy 22:20-22 ESV / 17 helpful votes

    But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

    • Truth

      Funny innit …. how incredibly selective the Christian Taliban is when quoting passages from that old novel? Seemingly, they pick and choose the ‘rules’ which suit their own particular bigotry. It’s all so childish. But then, I’ve always considered religious belief to be a mental illness. It is the epitome of self-delusion and therefore not a healthy state in which to exist.

  • Ivan

    Why is it so hard to understand that people have the right to believe whatever they want. However, when they run a public business, they can’t use their beliefs to discriminate.

    • Truth

      Ah – that’s because “There are none so blind as those who shall not see”. These people are simply homophobic bigots. If they were TRULY Christian, they would do as their religion’s founder commanded: LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. Instead, they use the bible incredibly selectively simply to support their own disgusting bigotry. They really are the absolute antithesis of everything Christianity is supposed to be about …….

  • CHBrighton

    What is it with these people and their eagerness to treat certain groups of people less favourably than others? Nobody at all is suggesting that this couple should not be free to practise their religion. But if they are offering a service to the general public, then they have to provide that service to all the public without prejudice. What they, and Baroness Hale, are asking for is to run a steamroller right through the Equality Act so that they might be free to act on their prejudices. What hateful people they – and their backers – are.

    • Steven Gregory

      A few religious people choose to uplift their beliefs through good works and charitable efforts. The vast majority of religious people have found a shortcut to self-elevation: stand on the necks of others.

    • It all comes down to weak people needing something to make them feel powerful, and power generally means subjugating others beneath your will.

      Religion is a power ponzi scheme, with just the right amount of arrogance dished out to the followers to give them the impression that they are somehow “better” than non-believers, that they have a right or a duty to attack those different to them. All organized religion is built on this, and this is why we will never see global peace until all of these cults and gangs are bred out of Humanity. Just look at the mess all over the world and you will see religious belief and what is basically nothing more than gang warfare at the heart of it.

      It all comes back to extremely weak people being unable to deal with life, so needing something to believe in other than themselves, and the opportunity to hold some imaginary power over others is like the bait and hook that draws these people in. Being part of a “gang” is something many weaker Humans are drawn to, because they don’t feel they can cope with reality on their own.

      It’s extreme self-righteousness, they genuinely believe they are better than other people, have the right to control and abuse other people, and that this makes them “special”. They’re not, of course, if anything they deserve pity for being so mentally weak and so significantly delusional. ;)

  • John-UK

    I heard Mrs Bull on the radio this morning. Seems she has changed her tune now- after originally saying that the only reason she turned gay couples and straight couples away from double rooms was that they weren’t married. NOW-she said she turns gay couples away solely because they are homosexuals. Whats changed? The LAW has Mrs Bull-and you can’t mask your homophobic bigotry any longer-so we can all see the REAL reason for your original rejection of gay couples.

    • Robert W. Pierce

      Well said, John. Totally agree.

  • David H

    Of course, Baroness Hale’s opinion is entirely irrelevent, given that no woman should hold a position of such authority (the Bible’s position – not mine). I’m also rather dubious of Mrs Bull’s claim to Christianity. As a married women she is entirely the possession of her husband and certainly cannot own a B&B or anything else (again, the Bible’s view – not mine).

    I have always strongly defended people’s right to practice any religion they choose; but it can never be allowed to take precedence over legitimate human rights. There have been too many stories of children and people with mental health issues and/or those who are LGBT or who simply disagree with the religious practices of their parents being beaten, tortured and even killed to try and “exorcise” the devil or other mythical evil spirits. This is the 21st century, there is no place in a healthy society for such backward superstition.

  • Sparkyu1

    Baroness Hale has given a huge PR boost to the homophobes in this country – we’re going to be hearing the fall out of her fool bigotry for some time

  • Jones

    Religion and freedom are incompatible.

  • ian123

    Will it be ok to “kill the unbeliever” then, if you are seriously religious?

  • ian123

    If religious teaching had continued to carry the day as in the past it’s very unlikely that Baroness Hale would be occupying the post she currently occupies.

    • REALrenovato

      Most certainly, I was just reading as to how women could not get a degree in law or medicine at university not too long ago – within living memory (just).
      If barroness Hale has been misunderstood perhaps she needs to clarify her remarks. It has been suggested elsewhere on this site that Judge Hale was suggesting that religions and belief should have less protection from being allowed to discriminate in the public sphere, however this does not accord with her citing of the case of the Bulls. Although she decided against the Bulls in the case, perhaps she has not put enough thought into the implications of her subsequent remarks, and has caused confusion between manifestion of belief or religion i.e. actions against others which are prejudicial and /or harmful and the private practice of religion ( which even there is not free from the law, you cannot beat your wife just coz it says you can in your holy book), she has ignored the most basic human rights precept, religion and tradition are subject to human rights, (maybe even, especially religion and tradition should be viewed with added sceptacism when they come into conflict with basic human rights as experience teaches us that all manner of vile behaviour is attempted to be excused in their name).

      • kane

        despite of having personal view that the law should be modified, as in current form is unfair to one side, she has delivered impartial verdict based on the law, so i dont think her integrity is on the line.

  • Steven Gregory

    Behold the beauty in their lives as told by their faces.
    Their features reflect the peace and love they’ve found through religion.
    Their expressions convey to guests the hospitality and affection awaiting them.
    They look like they know the taste of cooked human flesh.

    • David H

      I was trying to be well behaved and avoid making personal comments; but I have to admit that the first thought I had was “I wonder how many extra camels her father had to throw in to seal that bargain” (it being a traditional marriage and all).

      • Joeoz

        I’d imagine… it would have been, many many camels…!
        I do hope that she wore a veil on her wedding day… a very heavy veil…!
        Yes, their faces do show the true love and compassion of christ!
        I just love that term,”christian”… it covers a multitude of sins… or another way, one size fits all! Call yourself a christian and you can hate anything or anyone and have a clear conscience.

    • sde20

      To stay there would be as welcoming as swimming into the jaws of a shark!

  • James Orpin

    “I think there’s been an ignorance out there as to what true Christianity adheres to”
    Really please do enlighten us on True Cristianity (TM) which of the thousands of sects is the true one. It wouldn’t by any chance just happen to be your type of Christianity that is True would it?

    • Of course it is, just like the notion of “traditional marriage”, these people ignore that the “tradition” they are emulating is just one variation of thousands, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. Once again these people love to cherry pick the things that they imagine gives them some kind of superiority.

  • ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    She calls for more religious bigotry.

  • lee

    how can baroness look at future cases when she as put her cards on the table and as sided with those like these two who are homophobes. If you offer a service its open to all, period

    • Truth

      Good point. That is why judges are not supposed to make public statements in this way. Maybe she is soon to retire …..

  • Jordy

    Poor abused Christians, soon they will accuse us of wanting to throw them to the lions again!

  • █ █ █ €ώąɲ█ █ █

    Its not religious freedom, its the freedom to want to force your own bigoted so called “morality” onto another person.

    Freedom of religion – Yes. Freedom to Discriminate using religion as an excuse – No

    I know why don’t I open a hotel that denies Christians accommodation next door and see how they like it

    • Katie

      Absolutely. It’s total hypocrisy on their part. I’m not a religious person, but even I, with my limited knowledge of the Bible, know that Jesus had much to say about hypocrites (especially religious hypocrites). Do people like this just skip the parts that don’t suit them?

      • This is their MO. They only seem to read the bits that allow them to feel superior to others and give them the “right” to attack other people, everything else is far too inconvenient for them.

  • Aron Sasportas

    Even after the ruling against them, the Bulls are still saying on the website of their hotel that “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” (21 June 2014, quoted here verbatim ac literatim).

    Why has no same-gender lawfully married couple tried to book a double-bedded accommodation and filed a lawsuit after being refused?

    In the United States, any of a plethora of organizations (see “List of LGBT rights organizations in the United States” in Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia) would have taken appropriate action.

    • Truth

      One can only hope that the negative publicity of the case has resulted in solely other members of the Christian Taliban visiting their establishment and that, as they are a dying breed, this will result in imminent bankruptcy for the Bulls. God (should she / he exist) does indeed work in mysterious ways ….

    • kane

      well, they can legally refuse double bedded accommodation to unmarried couple, however they could be in trouble if refusal of double bedded accommodation was based on their definition of marriage

  • JohnE

    I’m not a Christian or any other kind of believer but I fully support them.

    They didn’t discriminate against anybody. They welcomed everybody in their hotel without exception, but because of their personal beliefs they imposed certain restrictions on BEHAVIOUR, in this case to do with non-marital sex that the Bible defines as sin. It’s no different from saying you don’t allow people to drink alcohol, watch pornography or swear in your hotel. These are all restrictions on behaviour that apply to everybody and have nothing to do with discrimination.

    • StevieK

      I see… and how exactly do you define ‘homosexual behaviour’??? Having sex in reception? Don’t talk stupid man. The couple were refused a double bed because of what the Bulls THOUGHT they would be doing in bed… (something that religious freaks seem to spend a lot of time thinking about!) It is NOT up to a hotelier to define what ANYONE, (gay or straight) does in bed.. nor is it within their right to deny a service to anyone based on sexuality. If you don’t like it Bulls …. then make your home a private residence and not a business… simple!

    • doug

      Its just your dirty mind working overtime.

    • Truth

      If there is a possibility that someone ‘un-married’ may have sex in your hotel and your religious beliefs are against that … BUT the law of the land says you may not discriminate on these grounds …. then you cannot run a hotel without falling foul of the law, as the bigoted Bulls have discovered. Hold whatever silly, childish ‘beliefs’ you want. But you cannot use them as a licence to defy the law of the land in the provision of goods and services. If you don’t want your religious ‘beliefs’ to be compromised, find a job where they won’t be. But do not expect exemptions so you can discriminate as and when you see fit.

      • Psychologist

        Absolutely ! The SAME laws would also protect Christians from discrimination too – they can NOT have it both ways, by choosing NOT to abide by those laws, to allow THEM to discriminate against gay people ! Such hypocrisy !

    • Bobbleobble

      Of course they discriminated, even they recognise that. The issue is whether or not the discrimination is justifiable and in this instance it wasn’t. The Bible does not overrule the laws of the land. Imposing a restriction on behaviour which unfairly targets one group in society is discrimination. Gay people could never meet the requirement to be married and therefore were treated less favourably than straight people. It’s not difficult.

      Oh and if you genuinely believe that they check all their heterosexual guests are married or that they will accept gay couples who are now legally married then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    • People do not get a say in other people’s sex lives, or any other aspect of their relationship with their partner. You cannot dictate intimacy to other people. That is even less reasonable than just plain “I hate you because you’re queer and my god’s an ass”.

    • lord thorpe

      I agree. Most establishments these days are non smoking, so smokers don’t smoke in the venue, but it is a type of discrimination. However I think if they took a booking without explaining their (bigoted) conditions they should honour the booking. If however people turn up to check in and they say sorry double rooms are for married couples only I think they should have the right to say that. And of course don’t forget that this is not a hotel it is a B&B and these peoples home as well.
      I would like to think that I would have the right to tell these disgusting pieces of faeces to bugger off if they turned up at my B&B (if I had one0.

      • bobbleobble

        They may live there but the bits they rent out are not considered to be their home. Certainly in the parts that they retain for private use they have total control over but in the parts they rent out they must ensure that they comply with all of the laws of the land.

        Again I don’t think smoking is a good analogy. Cigarette smoke can do damage to property and the health of others and so banning it from their premises is a justifiable form of discrimination but you have the option to go outside to smoke. Banning gay people isn’t comparable.

        In any event, we’re not just talking about any gay couple here. Hall and Preddy were in a civil partnerships which, back then, was the best a gay couple could do. Either discrimination in the commercial field on the grounds of sexuality is wrong or it isn’t. It cannot be wrong unless it’s carried out by religious people with strongly held views.

        • lord thorpe

          Sorry I was not using smoking as an analogy I was just saying that we chose not to stay in their field because of it, we didn’t feel discriminated against. I have thought about it a bit more and you are right if they were able to stand on their “religious rights” it would pave the way for others to do the same. I am sure there was more to this case than was in the article. Perhaps they are in the wrong business.
          I would still want to tell them to piss off if they came to my business.

      • It’s not a type of discrimination. I can go outside and smoke, and smoking has a direct impact on others in that room or building.

        Being gay, being black, being disabled or being a woman has absolutely no bearing on anyone else, at all. Being Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan… none of this has any bearing on the lives of others either, unless you are directly attempting to attack others or limit and restrict their freedoms.

        When you open your home as a business you are still required to operate that business in accordance with the laws of this country. Therefore, it makes no difference whether they live in that building, it’s being run as a business.

        You wouldn’t have the right to turn them away for being Christian. That is discrimination and it’s no better than what these people have done to others.

        It comes down to this – if you run a business you have to follow the laws of this country and not discriminate. If you want to see laws brought in to allow discrimination, you can be refused service by anyone based on their own opinions and beliefs, and so can anyone else. This would not be limited to services, but employment too. This would immediately undo decades of work for equality laws. You could be evicted for being gay, fired for being Jewish, refused a drink in a pub because you’re Asian… the list is endless.

        And the idea that we should do all of this damage to society just to make an old bigoted Christian couple happy is insane.

    • kane

      ‘…It’s no different from saying you don’t allow people to drink alcohol, watch pornography or swear in your hotel…’

      but according to bulls’ logic, people who meet certain criteria can drink alcohol, watch pornography or swear in hotel.

    • Psychologist

      So you “fully support” discrimination, hiding behind a mask of religious belief – expressed as bigotry, do you ? You should be ashamed of yourself then !
      The SAME laws which protect religious believers, are the same laws which protect gay people from being discriminated against, BY THEM !
      Christians can NOT have it both ways …. !

  • Peter

    There is nothing Christian about hatred and bigotry.

  • Glasgow1975

    ‘people of all faiths’ – love to see them honour the group booking for some Mormon Polygamists . . .

  • vee

    Religion and religious institutions have way too much power and influence in virtually every nation, except for China, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea. They collect donations, are tax exempt and try to push their social & political agenda on their governments. No, religious institutions and religious individuals do not need more protections.

  • Jock S.Trap

    A chosen religious lifestyle requires not above the law content.

    Follow the law, stop wanting to be ‘special’ cases. There not end of.

    I say again a chosen religious lifestyle cannot dictate over how others are born! End of!

  • lord thorpe

    I do have some sympathy for them. I think that they should have the right not to take business from anyone they don’t want to. But they need to explain the terms and conditions from the start, if they had taken a booking without explaining their conditions I think they should have to honor that booking.
    A few years ago my partner and I were in the U.K. traveling around in a camper van and bowled up at a camp site and the woman told us that it was a non smoking camp site and asked us if we would leave the sight by the main gate and smoke on the other side of the road, we chose not to stay there.
    I live in a very small town and there are people in this town who I would not serve if they came into my business (if I had one) and I think I should have that right!

    • Bobbleobble

      Asking you not to smoke is not a good analogy for being turned away because of your sexuality. I cannot for example nip over the road to be gay over there and you were not told that as smokers you must leave and not return.

      They are running a commercial business and as such are subject to the laws of the land which include non-discrimination on grounds of sexuality. Their bible does not and cannot overrule the laws of the land.

      You have the right not to serve an individual for a specific reason, that in and of itself is not unjustifiable discrimination. However if you single out a group for a shared characteristic which is protected then you are breaking the law.

    • So you would be happy to hear of a business turning away women, black people, disabled people, Jews, Christians, ginger people, all because of their “beliefs”?

      This is not an acceptable way forward.

      Millions of people have beliefs and feelings about others, it’s acting on those beliefs and feelings to discriminate against others that is the problem. Why on Earth does this couple believe that they have a right to dictate to others how they live their lives, or who is “deserving” of their business? It makes no sense and it is not an acceptable way to operate in any business. How come so many others can manage to live their own lives to their own beliefs without any problems at all, but this couple can’t seem to manage it?

      If you want to provide a service to the public, you cannot pick and choose from that public. You do not have that right.

      Their religious freedoms have not been affected AT ALL by the lives of others, yet they use this as some fantastical excuse for bigotry. They are nasty people, hateful and dictatorial. They can believe whatever they want to believe, but the laws of this country and much of Europe have rightly made clear that their religious freedom has not been damaged in the slightest, while their actions and bigotries have directly harmed the rights and freedoms of others.

      Case closed, they need to STFU and get on with their lives.

    • Psychologist

      No …. I do NOT agree with you. Religious people can believe whatever they want .. no one (or law) is trying to stop them from holding those beliefs.
      However, the moment they begin to USE those beliefs as some sort of LEGITIMISER for discrimination against others, then that is both morally and legally wrong ! If someone tried to discriminate them (for being Christians) then the SAME discrimination laws would also be there to PROTECT THEM ! They can NOT have it BOTH ways ! If they want laws to protect CHRISTAINS from discrimination.. they must OBEY the same laws which also protect others. It is hypocritical to even suggest otherwise !
      Religious freedom to believe – ok …. but religious freedom to DISCRIMINATE against others …. NEVER !

  • We all know that if they had their wish and businesses started refusing them for being Christian it would suddenly be back in court and they would be screaming about discrimination.

    They cannot have it both ways. If they want to create such laws they would have to be subject to the effects of those laws too, and they would be the first ones screaming about the injustice.

    These are just ignorant people who don’t seem to be able to grasp that they are just as open to discrimination as the rest of us. The fact is, they want the right to be bigots toward other people, but the second they experience that themselves they would be back in court seeking damages.

    These people are hypocrites, much like the radical Tea Party Christians in the US who demand the right to attack others then b*tch about it when they come under criticism, calling it a “gay mafia” or “liberal conspiracy”.

    All of these people have screws loose.

  • Falconlights

    The judge and twits like the B and B owners need to give it a rest. Christians are not being persecuted. If they cannot follow non-discrimination law, then they ought not to be in business. Yes, it is that simple,

  • MarkN

    Unless these people are running a brothel, it seems highly presumptuous of them to assume that anyone asking to share a room – or a bed, for that matter – is intending to have sex. And I defy anyone to find passages in the bible prohibiting people of the same gender sleeping in the same bed….

  • Robbo

    Can I just point out that this article doesn’t say in it that at any point the Owners stated that it was because they were gay that they were refused custom. They don’t let ANY couples gay or straight share a room before wedlock. Therefore why should it make a difference that the couple in questioned happened to be gay. This is not an anti gay incident, it’s an anti sex before marriage incident. So why on earth people are focusing on the gay aspect I have no idea.

    • bobbleobble

      The point is that gay couples couldn’t then get married so therefore would NEVER be allowed to share a room. That’s discrimination.

      The couple were also in a civil partnership which at the time was the closest thing to marriage that gay couples could get. The law says that those in civil partnerships are to be treated as if they are married and yet the B&B owners didn’t do that.

      Also, if you believe that the Bulls checked the marital status of their customers then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. In fact I’m pretty sure they said in court that they never questioned whether a heterosexual couple was married, even if they had different surnames.

      Hall and Preddy were treated less favourably than a heterosexual couple in the same situation. That’s discrimination.

  • Steve Hammett

    The trend in some US states is to allow ideological discrimination by Christians against not LGBTI but also refuse to provide goods & services to other groups they may disapprove of. This is a return to Jim Crow laws by the back door. In some states a business can refuse to serve people from the Hispanic & non-White communities because of some choice passages from Leviticus.

  • Alexander Kelso Shiels

    Why has the Attorney General not repremanded this judge? Her comments are out of line and she should be sacked!

  • Rob

    If you choose to open your home to strangers and effectively run it as a business then i’m afraid you have no choice but to adhere to the law and not discriminate based on your own personal views. What next refusing to allow people with blue eyes from staying at their residence?

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.