"Gay Snub" B&B Owners Lose Case

[Leonardo]

The owners of a Christian guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight.

Hazelmary and Peter Bull refused to let civil partners Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall stay in a double room at Chymorvah House in Marazion in Cornwall in 2008.

The couple, who had already lost cases at Bristol County Court and the Court of Appeal, said they were "saddened".

Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin".

source

I'm glad our Supreme Court upheld the complaint by the couple denied their stay. It cements even further the notion that a person's religious belief dictates only how they behave - not how they should expect others to behave.

[Keel M.]

Unfortunately here in the US, the ruling would be reversed. I totally agree with your opinion though.

[+and-then]

This is not so clear cut to me. On the one hand they are running a business to the public and as such must accept ALL the public I imagine. On the other, if their faith says it is wrong to condone or even help perpetuate behavior considered to be sin then why does their choice have to be their faith or their living? I don't see it as a hate issue. But then I don't pretend to know all the circumstances either.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

so in the UK you don't have the "Management has the right to refuse service"

Although I don't agree with the owners at all, I still feel they should have the right to serve or not serve whomever they please for whatever reason(s) they deem fit.

[TSS]

This is not so clear cut to me. On the one hand they are running a business to the public and as such must accept ALL the public I imagine. On the other, if their faith says it is wrong to condone or even help perpetuate behavior considered to be sin then why does their choice have to be their faith or their living? I don't see it as a hate issue. But then I don't pretend to know all the circumstances either.

They played it wrong i'm afraid, and made their beliefs part of the issue. On paper if you are a service provider then you can't discriminate, however (I run a small transport company) and I certainly don't provide a service to just anyone, i'm simply 'over booked and no vehicles available' if I don't trust the enquiry.

If they felt that strongly about it they shouldn't have made it an issue regarding belief, and simply said they were over booked (clerical error) and provided a number for a nearby establishment that could help them, or found them alternative accommodation if required.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Sky Scanner

[Leonardo]

This is not so clear cut to me. On the one hand they are running a business to the public and as such must accept ALL the public I imagine. On the other, if their faith says it is wrong to condone or even help perpetuate behavior considered to be sin then why does their choice have to be their faith or their living? I don't see it as a hate issue. But then I don't pretend to know all the circumstances either.

And it's their faith - not the faith of their guests. The behaviour their faith should modify is their own - not that of those who do not necessarily share their beliefs. They have no right to impose their beliefs on others.

so in the UK you don't have the "Management has the right to refuse service"

Although I don't agree with the owners at all, I still feel they should have the right to serve or not serve whomever they please for whatever reason(s) they deem fit.

Management certainly does have the right to refuse service in the UK. They simply do not have the right to discriminate unlawfully - as was the case with these B&B owners.

[SilentHunter]

This is not so clear cut to me. On the one hand they are running a business to the public and as such must accept ALL the public I imagine. On the other, if their faith says it is wrong to condone or even help perpetuate behavior considered to be sin then why does their choice have to be their faith or their living? I don't see it as a hate issue. But then I don't pretend to know all the circumstances either.

I think they should advertise it as a Christain values hotel. Problem solved.

[Kaa-Tzik]

I think they should advertise it as a Christain values hotel. Problem solved.

That is the logical solution of course. But, the situation in UK, and many other countries, is anything but logical. If they attempted this solution I suspect they would be stamped on very hard and allusions made to the past and "No coloreds" signs.

[CatFromHell]

Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin"

Do they ask all their guests show them their wedding certificate, as proof of marriage then?

Edited November 27, 2013 by SheWomanCatTypeThing

[Cassea]

I agree that they should have handled it better. I suppose they have no option but to turn them down if they can't condone extra marital sex. Unfortunately for the gay community they are much easier to determine than a straight couple that comes in. Poor guys, poor hotel. What a mess.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin"

Do they ask all their guests show them their wedding certificate, as proof of marriage then?

Highly unlikely because they are probably hypocrits anyway. The solution would be if they, or anybody, could clearly state that their establishment was for this or that group of people, but the law will say this is discrimination and hammer them. This situation seems to be the fault of the law, not of either party in this case.

[Leonardo]

Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin"

Do they ask all their guests show them their wedding certificate, as proof of marriage then?

I agree that they should have handled it better. I suppose they have no option but to turn them down if they can't condone extra marital sex.

The gay couple only asked for a room with a double bed. They didn't ask for a room to have sex in. I would suggest the couple who own the B&B probably sleep together, but do not always have sex when doing so.

While it would be natural to assume a gay couple do have sex, - and this couple might have had they been given the room - the fact is they asked for a double bed to sleep in. It is the owners who assume all people staying the night have sex.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Leonardo

[Keel M.]

While I am gay, I have traveled with friends who aren't, yet are of my own sex. If it were to happen that we were forced to share a bed for - whatever reason - I'm sure people like these B&B owners would make all kinds of assumptions.

[Michelle]

Three of my girlfriends and I vacation together sometimes and always get one room with two double beds to cut costs. Who cares what anybody thinks?

[Four Winds]

I'm not gay but believe gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. However, I firmly believe that the owners of an establishment have the right to decide who they want to serve. I don't believe it is the role of government to force private business owners to serve people they don't want to have in their establishment. The positive flip side for society is owners will show their true colors and we can boycott them out of existence. I would actually prefer to know what sort of person I'm giving my money to. That way I can vote with my money. If they want to discriminate, fine with me and good to know that up front, so they won't be getting any of my dollars.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Razer

[zebra99]

I would like to have seen the courts decision if the hotel owners had been Muslim.I'll bet ya life it would have been different.

[Professor Buzzkill]

They played it wrong i'm afraid, and made their beliefs part of the issue. On paper if you are a service provider then you can't discriminate, however (I run a small transport company) and I certainly don't provide a service to just anyone, i'm simply 'over booked and no vehicles available' if I don't trust the enquiry.

If they felt that strongly about it they shouldn't have made it an issue regarding belief, and simply said they were over booked (clerical error) and provided a number for a nearby establishment that could help them, or found them alternative accommodation if required.

In other words, lie so you don't get prosecuted. Why do we have to lie instead of standing up for what you believe in? It may be wrong (IMO of this case), but the consequences should come from the public (in the form of outcry and boycott) and not the state.

[+and-then]

And it's their faith - not the faith of their guests. The behaviour their faith should modify is their own - not that of those who do not necessarily share their beliefs. They have no right to impose their beliefs on others.

Management certainly does have the right to refuse service in the UK. They simply do not have the right to discriminate unlawfully - as was the case with these B&B owners.

But Leo they were not trying to impose anything on this couple. They simply didn't want to be part of what they considered sin. Any way you cut it you are saying the person of faith MUST conform to the wishes of another - yet you do not expect the same of the couple. SS has the best solution. It seems these people wanted to make their faith the point. They should have known better in 2013...

Unfortunately a time is coming soon when people will be so against the faith of Christians that they will abuse them for it. This kind of silliness is just a foretaste. Scream tolerance while being intolerant in the extreme.

[Leonardo]

But Leo they were not trying to impose anything on this couple. They simply didn't want to be part of what they considered sin.

They wouldn't of had they granted the couple their choice of a double room.

Unless the owners make their guests register their marriage before letting them rooms, they have no way of knowing any couple is "engaging in extra-marital sex". And you can bet your house they [the owners] have let double rooms to hetero-, but non-married, couples - no questions asked. So, what "sin" were they trying to "not be a part of"?

Therefore, their pathetic excuse of "not wanting to encourage extra-marital sex" is simply a cover for their homophobia.

And if they want to be part of a society where only their 'rules' apply, they would be better off leaving Britain for some country where the bible is the font of Law. So long as they are resident in this country, "sin" is what the law of the land declares it to be - not the bible.

[+and-then]

They wouldn't of had they granted the couple their choice of a double room.

Unless the owners make their guests register their marriage before letting them rooms, they have no way of knowing any couple is "engaging in extra-marital sex". And you can bet your house they [the owners] have let double rooms to hetero-, but non-married, couples - no questions asked. So, what "sin" were they trying to "not be a part of"?

Therefore, their pathetic excuse of "not wanting to encourage extra-marital sex" is simply a cover for their homophobia.

And if they want to be part of a society where only their 'rules' apply, they would be better off leaving Britain for some country where the bible is the font of Law. So long as they are resident in this country, "sin" is what the law of the land declares it to be - not the bible.

If you live in western civilization Judeo Christian ethos IS the font of law. But I take your meaning. I do not extol the virtue of a theocracy. The sin is homosexuality. God calls it an abomination. He doesn't tell other humans to judge anyone for anything but he does tell us not to be part of it. All these innkeepers are guilty of is a personal discernment that homosexuality is wrong and that they either will enable it in their business or need to find a new business or no business at all. It doesn't change God's law and the opinion of the British government doesn't either.

[J_Anne]

Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin"

Do they ask all their guests show them their wedding certificate, as proof of marriage then?

Totally something that Basil Fawlty would do, aha.

[Likely Guy]

While I am gay, I have traveled with friends who aren't, yet are of my own sex. If it were to happen that we were forced to share a bed for - whatever reason - I'm sure people like these B&B owners would make all kinds of assumptions.

I travelled in the UK with my Mom and my neice. It took them awhile to gather, that yes, we could sleep in the same room. Me in one bed, Grandma and Jody in the other. What a concept!

They couldn't figure a three generational trip and that we wanted to stay together.

And yes, Child of Bast, they assumed... everything under the Sun.

[Likely Guy]

If you are an uninviting B&B you should have an 'X' (sorry cross) next to your name in the directory. Problem solved.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Likely Guy

[TSS]

In other words, lie so you don't get prosecuted. Why do we have to lie instead of standing up for what you believe in? It may be wrong (IMO of this case), but the consequences should come from the public (in the form of outcry and boycott) and not the state.

I see your point, and I don't agree with what they did, because I don't share their beliefs - but my point was along the lines that they chose to make this about their beliefs, no one else did. I'm sure people make decisions based on what they believe all the time, but you modify your response to something because you don't need to offend people simply because you can.

I discriminate in my line of business, I always have done, and it's always against the same type of people - idiots. No one would know how I judge that, or why I judge it that way....but if I don't like the tone the enquiry has, no deal.

They didn't have to deal with it this way.

[itsnotoutthere]

I would like to have seen the courts decision if the hotel owners had been Muslim.I'll bet ya life it would have been different.

Ain't that the truth.