Gay couple win historic case after being refused room at Christian guesthouse

January 18, 2011 | by | 72 Comments

A gay couple have won a landmark discrimination case against the Christian owners of a seaside guesthouse who banned them from sharing a double bed.

Gay couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy win historic case after being refused room at Christian guesthouse

Devout Peter and Hazelmary Bull refused to let civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy use a double room because it was against their ”Christian conscience”.

They operate a strict policy which only allows married heterosexual couples to share rooms at their B&B in Cornwall.

But the gay couple claimed the snub was a direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and took civil legal action.

And yesterday at Bristol County Court His Honour Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled that the Bulls had breached the Equality Act by committing a ”direct discrimination”.

He awarded Mr Hall, 46, and Mr Preddy, 38, £1,800 each in compensation for the hurt and embarassment they suffered.

However, he said both sides held ”perfectly honourable and respectable, albeit wholly contrary, views” and left the door open for the Christian couple to appeal.

Speaking outside court, Mr Hall and Mr Preddy said the ruling upholds the principle that a civil partnership has the same status in law as marriage between a man and a woman.

But the Bulls claimed the result was further evidence that Christianity is being ”marginalised” in modern Britain.

Gay couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy win historic case after being refused room at Christian guesthouse

In his written ruling, Judge Rutherford said: ”I am also acutely aware of the importance of this case to both sides and the deeply held views on both sides.

”Both can legitimately claim the right to have their private and family life respected.

”The claimants are a family in the eyes of the law just as much as are the married defendants.

”Both are entitled not to be discriminated against and the defendants have the right to manifest their religion or beliefs.

”It is clearly in my view the case that each side hold perfectly honourable and respectable, albeit wholly contrary, views.

”It seems to me that a correct analysis of the position of the defendants is that they discriminate on the basis of marital status.

”There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership. If that is right then upon what basis do the defendants draw a distinction if it is not on sexual orientation?

”I have reached to clear conclusion that on a proper analysis of the defendants’ position on the facts of this particular case the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow them to occupy the double room which they had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that this is direct discrimination.”

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy booked two nights in a double room for £92 at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance, on September 4 2008.

Mrs Bull, 66, took the telephone booking and assumed the couple to be heterosexual.

But when they arrived the next day and it became apparent they were gay, guesthouse manager Bernie Quinn said they could not have the double room because of the house rules.

During the two-day hearing at Bristol County Court on December 13 and 14, he speculated that the incident could have been a ”set up” – a claim dismissed by the claimants.

Mr Preddy and Mr Hall, who live together in Brislington, Bristol, told the guesthouse it was acting illegally before reporting the incident to police.

Gay couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy win historic case after being refused room at Christian guesthouse

Mr Bull, 70, and his wife, who have run the guesthouse since 1986, say they enforce the ban because of their strong belief in God and marriage.

The guesthouse owners claim the rules are in place to prevent unmarried sex in their establishment, regardless of sexual orientation, which Judge Rutherford accepted in his ruling.

But Catherine Casserley, a human rights lawyer for the claimants, told the earlier hearing: ”If you are an unmarried couple you could lie and get a double room, but this is not an option open to same sex couples.

”We say the claimants were treated differently to a married couple and the only difference between them was their sexual orientation.”

Mrs Bull attended yesterday’s hearing without husband Peter, who was in hospital waiting to undergo a triple heart bypass operation

In a strongly-worded statement outside court, she claimed the law was making some people more equal than others.

She said: ”We feel Christianity is being marginalised in Britain.

”We have felt it before with Christian adoption agencies. A lot has been said about the equality laws but it seems that some people are more equal than others.

”We are disappointed with the result. The judge acknowledged our double bedroom policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage and has given us the right of appeal.

”At Chymorvah we have been trying to live and work in accordance with our faith – but we have been fined £3,600 for it.

”Chymorvah Guesthouse is not just a lovely hotel – it’s our home. We don’t expect everyone to agree with our beliefs, but we want them to live in accordance with our values under our own roof.

”The decision affects our religious liberty.”

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy released a joint statement saying they were ”extremely pleased”
with the decision.

It said: ”When we booked this hotel it was not a set-up, we just wanted to do something that thousands of couples do every weekend – take a relaxing weekend break away.

”We checked that hotel would allow us to bring our dog, but it didn’t even cross our minds that in 2008 we would have to check whether we would be welcome ourselves.

”We’re really pleased that the judge has confirmed what we already know – that in these circumstances our civil partnership has the same status in law as marriage between a man and a woman, and that regardless of each person’s religious beliefs, no one is above the law.”

The case was brought against the guesthouse under the 2007 Equality Act Regulations – and the gay couple could have won up to £5,000 in damages.

The ruling will make any guesthouse owners who restrict double bed accommodation to married couples liable to legal action.

Gay couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy win historic case after being refused room at Christian guesthouse

Mr Preddy and Mr Hall’s legal fees are being paid for by the Government-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Group director John Wadham said: ”The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay.

”The law works both ways. Hotel owners would not be able to turn away people whose religious beliefs they disagreed with.

”When Mr and Mrs Bull chose to open their home as a hotel, their private home became a commercial enterprise.

”This decision means that community standards, not private ones, must be upheld.”

Mr and Mrs Bull’s legal defence was financed by The Christian Institute, a charity that protects the religious liberty of Christians.

Spokesman Mike Judge said: ”This ruling is further evidence that equality laws are being used as a sword rather than a shield.

”Christians are being sidelined. The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary.”

Mrs Bull said she will consult with her legal team before deciding whether to appeal.

Tags:

Category: News

Comments (72)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Puffdaddy says:

    What a bummer!

  2. Michael 22 says:

    I am in total agreement with Mr & Mrs Bull, it is their home even though it is a hotel and their beliefs should be taken into account, obvoiusly these people didn’t, and all they care about are themselves and there own beliefs.
    Mr & Mrs Bull deserved better. Please don’t let this stop you carrying on and if you decide to appeal I wish you luck, although that should not come into it.

  3. Rightondude says:

    At what point were the gay couple “turned away”? They were offered single rooms. I also see the human rights lawyer noted that the option to LIE was not available to the gay couple.

    So now the gay couple want us all to abide by the “law” – didn’t they used to protest against the law (when it was correct)? But now no one can “protest” aginst the new “law”, as of course, it is now in their favour and apparantly that would now be a “hate crime”.

    When evil men become law-makers, then you have false statements like, “There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership.” Only becasue evil men have made it so – ask God what is right in his eyes.

    • Daniel Brown says:

      what i would like to know is did this gay couple deliberately goto this guest hose knowingly they would be turned away and used this situation as propaganda for their cause? If the Guest house showed that they were Christians and do not approve of gay couples staying in their guest house, why didn’t the gay couple choose another place to stay in for the night? I did agree to the courts ruling but i dont agree to agent provocateurs, trouble makers making an issue out of nothing. Its a bit like TV if you dont like it you turn over dont you? Dont deliberately cause confrontation. I was once living in a house that had a Gay landlord and he disallowed me any women staying over using being a Catholic as a cover, i saw that it was his right, as it was his house but i sneaked in my women friends anyway, then i moved out.

      • jack says:

        So if the guest house owners disapproved of mixed race couples or May-September couples, would that still be OK to refuse them entry.

        Would it be Ok to refuse them entry if they were wearing clothes of mixed fibre??

        • Mojojones says:

          You’ve misunderstood what their ‘house rules’ were. It states married hetrosexual couples, which would inlcude mixed race. It was clearly stated on the hotel’s website that it was ‘hetrosexual couples’ only. Maybe they should be forced to state ‘All Perverts Welcome’ under the new draconian rules which people want enforced.

          • jack says:

            You have totally missed the point of discrimination, they were refused a room whereas a heterosexual couple would not have been – illegal.

            Perverts, oh my, it really hasn’t taken you long to descend into the gutter has it, sad!

          • Mojojones says:

            No, you’ve missed the point. Rooms were offered, singles rooms. They do it to hetro couple too, who they suspect are not married.

            Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. What is wrong is calling evil good.

          • jack says:

            look, they were not given the same service as a married couple, that is now not acceptable, get over it!

            calling a spade a spade, ok, you’re just a narrow minded bigot, maybe you’d like a sign in her window that says – ‘No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs, No Gayz’

          • Mojojones says:

            No, I won’t “get over it”. This argument is not about the ruling, we can all see who won. It is a complaint over the ruling. Do I not have the right to voice an opinion? Gay people complained against the law when it was not in their favour, now when it is in their favour, they want us all to be in obedience to it (which they never did, they were outraged, well, so are we!).

            Well I would complain about your sign, it spells ‘Gays’ with a ‘Z’, unacceptable! By the way, calling a ‘spade a spade’ is not a reference to black people, its true meaning is “To speak plainly – to describe something as it really is”, it’s your judgemental mind that’s eager to label people bigots.

          • jack says:

            I think you might have to get over it, it’s not going to change.

            i never equated a spade with black people, I was referring to you being bigoted about gays and the No blacks, no dogs reference is a pretty well known b&b sign

            I labelled you a bigot because you are bigoted about gay couples, that’s obvious from your reference to them being perverts

          • Mojojones says:

            How do you know it’s not going to change, it is open to appeal?

            There never was a sign saying no “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish, No Gays”, the signs you referred to in the past just mentioned “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish”. You added “Gays” to the sign yourself, thus bringing black, Irish and dogs into the discussion and labelling me a bigot suggestion I had narrow minded views on black people, hence why you quoted “Spade a spade”.

            I can call gay people perverts, because it is a pervertion of nature, it is unnatural.

          • jack says:

            be realistic, the winds of change they are a blowing!

            I know that – I added the gays bit, doh!

            I quoted a spade . . . back to you to refer to you being a bigot regarding non-heterosexuality. I never mentioned it referring to balck people, you seem a bit fixated

            No it is not, it appears throughout the animal kingdom, well documented.It’s only unnatural in your mind.

          • jack says:

            if we don’t stop this thread son we’re going to be down to 1 word a line lol

          • Mojojones says:

            I agree, I’ll watch the footie instead!

    • jack says:

      You have a very warped sense of what is evil if you think recognising the right of 2 people to be together is evil. But then that has always been the problem of religion -recognising what defines evil!

      • Cathy says:

        No, evil exists when man makes up his own laws. Believing man-on-man sex is ‘normal’ is warped.

        • jack says:

          oh dear, well i suppose warped is slightly better than perverted, actually no it isn’t, just as judgemental and very sad.

          Homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality – all normal and natural, all as beautiful and wonderful as each other – all prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, all created by your god???

  4. Mike says:

    So let me get this straight – discrimination is acceptable provided it’s motivated by belief in a deity?

    What a healthy basis for a society…

    • Rightondude says:

      No, not any diety just the one who created you and has the right to make the laws. If not, then why can’t everyone make their own laws? I’m sure paedophiles would like their own law just as much as yourself – who says they can’t – you? Then what a healthy basis for society that is!

      • jack says:

        But he didn’t create me, maybe it was one of the countless other ‘gods’ that man has invented since he could wonder. Hang on, no it wasn’t because none of them exist, sheesh!

        • Rightondude says:

          There’s only one God. But men like to invent many things, like their own gods, own laws. Some even believe nothing invented men…..Sheesh!

          • jack says:

            But which god, why is your one god any different to the many others, what makes him/her stand out, proof, there is none, the bible is not proof, miracles do not exist, that voice in your head is a sign you should seek medical help!

            Do you realise you are only one god further from being an atheist than me!

          • Rightondude says:

            …..as the many others are man-made gods. The Bible makes the claim that it is true? Prove it is wrong. Miracles do exist, not the false “miracle” of nothing turning into everything, but the miracle of God creating everything, just have a look, its all around you, that’s your proof.

            Doesn’t everyone have a voice in their head – or haven’t you got an iPod?

          • jack says:

            No different to your god, we’ve just gone in a circle, the bible is a collection of tales, myths and half truths. It is not up to me to prove it wrong – you prove to me that there is no miniature teapot orbiting the sun on the opposite side to earth.

            Nothing around me is proof of any god, let alone your god, can i assume your next argument will include irreducible complexity, please don’t, it will just get boring.

            This conversation is now pointless as you are just dragging up the same arguments as usually come up in these discussions.

          • Rightondude says:

            So your making the claim that the Bible is full of myths, tales and half-truths. Which are these exactly?

            Well if you believe there is a miniature teapot orbiting the sun, then the burden of proof lies with you. You cannot make a reasonable argument for its existence as only humans create teapots, and no one who has been into space has claimed to have put it there. So you have no human witness account or any logical reason for it to be there, that’s why people don’t believe such nonsense (well you will do if you keep reading Dawkins).

            Now, like I said before, the Bible makes the claim to be true. God claims to have made the earth and everything in it. As I said before, just look around, everything looks designed, therefore, there MUST be a designer, that’s logical. You can recognise human design everywhere and you can recognise nature as designed, so who, what designed it?
            God or a “nothing” that contains something, energy (contradiction there!) which explodes (for some reason) into everything (for no purpose) and it all looks designed?

          • jack says:

            Well, all of it, i just said that, doh!

            The burden of proof is on me – exactly, as it is on you, and there is none for either assertion.

            No it does not look designed, name one aspect of nature that you say is designed, all those arguments have been refuted many times.

          • Rightondude says:

            I will give you an example of design below, even though you refuse to give any examples of myths and half-truths yourself.

            The world, and everything in it doesn’t look designed? Does a car look designed? A computer, iPod, all designed by humans, or is there another possibility? Aliens? Monkeys even? Maybe you think monkeys could design and build a car, because you’ve seen them swing on a tyre in the zoo! Give the monkeys a bit more time and you’ll expect to see an Aston Martin Vanquish no doubt! Human design is everywhere, the objects they create is evidence. Can you accept that? Of course you can….now when it comes to even more complex design (understand that, even more complicated than a computer chip) like animals, trees, insects, birds, and so on, then, let’s get this straight, no designer was involved, right? Wrong, when you see nature you see design. To see design is to see the creation of a designer.

            Here’s an example of design: an acorn. An acorn has complicated information to grow an oak tree, which, in turn, the tree produces more acorns. Designed? Blatantly obvious that it is, you are just in denial to say you can’t see any evidence, it like sitting in a boat out at sea and complaining you can’t see any water.

          • jack says:

            There’s just too many examples, not to mention contradictions and just plain nonsense. There’s enough sites out there that detail them, do some work, use google. I know you’re not used to thinking for yourself but give it a go.

            monkeys, cars – what are you babbling on about. Do you actually understand what evolution is??

            an acorn! an acorn! designed, oh my! i wouldn’t know where to start.

            I like to lie down in boats, all I can see then is lovely blue sky 🙂

          • Rightondude says:

            Your an expert at not answering the questions raised, I’ll defo vote for you as Prime Minister. I’m ‘babbling’ about created things, what for? You may ask, to prove there is a designer, which would mean a designer has the right to make the laws, which relates to this article, as God’s Laws are being replaced by man’s laws, evil men, making evil laws.

            I mentioned an acorn as a ‘simple’ example of complex design. It is “designed” to do what it does. Funny you should say “I wouldn’t know where to start” good point, how did the first acorn come about, with its complex instructions to grow a tree, where, how, did it acquire that information, when that information, at some point in time, wasn’t in existence?

            I see you clearly think for yourself, I didn’t realise it was you who invented the theory of evolution.

            So there’s that many contradictions, you can’t quote any, mainly because they have already been refuted countless times.

            Can’t see the wood for the trees eh!

          • jack says:

            How can it be evil to treat 2 people equally?

            To take you on in an evolution – creationism debate is more than this forum format can handle, plus a bit pointless, done it too many times.

            Oh come on, you can’t refute contradictions, the bible’s full of them, see above.

          • Rightondude says:

            I’ll squeeze in my last reply!

            It’s really a debate about who’s law you come under. If it’s the Biblical law, then it is clear on what is good and what is evil, unfortunately for you, gay is considered an evil act, and cannot form a marriage union. Clearly, you don’t want the Biblical law, that’s what you protest against, I understand that, but let people who do want it have their say.

            You still haven’t given any examples, just more elephant hurling. Maybe you don’t need to reply, as you may be expecting your previous replys to evolve into the examples I asked for. I’ll check back every 50 million years or so to see if there is any change!

          • Rightondude says:

            I doubt you could reply – you can’t see the Reply button now – LOL!

          • jack says:

            aargh, beaten by the scrolling screen lol

  5. Andrew says:

    If you choose to turn your home into a hotel open to members of the public, then standards change. If you want to refuse people your belief system discriminates against, don’t turn your house into a hotel.

    Private enterprises cannot be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

    As for the notion that this is somehow an attack on Christianity – no. It is an affirmation that religion is a private affair that cannot be used as justification for discriminatory practices.

    • Mojojones says:

      It really appears that the gay blokes are too easily ‘offended’, they were offered single rooms. Accommodation was offered, so where is the discrimination? I can’t believe the gay blokes thought that being offered single rooms instead of a double was a matter for the police.

      There is a women only hotel in London – men are excluded. By what rules is it women only? A personal belief that men are sexual predators no doubt. Ok, that’s their own personal belief. Yet they wouldn’t get away with a women only hotel if it were based on a religious belief.

      I’d be interested to see what would happen if a hetrosexual man applied for a room, would he be discriminated against if he was refused entry? No! But, if a homosexual man applied the human rights court could apply discrimination on sexual orientation grounds.

      • jack says:

        did you not read the article, in law, as a couple in civil partnership they must be treated equally to any other couple joined in civil or marriage partnership, they were not.

        Would the owners have asked for marriage certificates of any heterosexual couple to prove they were married, it doesn’t say, but i doubt it, i don’t carry my marriage certificate when i book into a hotel/b&b

        • Mojojones says:

          Answer the question, how is it discrimination when ACCOMMODATION was offered?

          • jack says:

            because a heterosexual couple would not have been declined the double room. Simples!

          • Mojojones says:

            Clearly you have not kept up with the story. The hotel owner refused her own brother to share a double room because he wasn’t married to his girlfriend, plus many other hetro couples have been refused on the grounds of it not being a “man & woman in marriage” (as defined by their biblical beliefs – the “gay” marriage is null and void according to the law written in the Bible – er…you know Gods’ law!). Did her brother or any other hetro couple run to the police claiming discrimination? No, they just accepted single rooms (they should’ve put a claim in – it’s worth a few grand).

          • jack says:

            So, does she question all cpls who book a room, and refuse them a double unless they can provide a marriage certificate, I doubt it, and even if they do, what they did this time was contrary to current discrimination law – tough titty!

            er god’s law, doesn’t apply to me 🙂 – go on, say it does blah blah – no it doesn’t!! Do you not get it, I don’t believe in your god or any other, respect my beliefs and stop preaching 😐

            er law of the land, applies to all. A civil partenship (‘gay’ marriage to bigots) is equal in the law that applies here.

          • Mojojones says:

            Don’t we both have the right to our own views? If so, why do you wish to censor mine (stop preaching), when you don’t stop telling eveyone your views (which is not preaching atheism somehow). The whole point of the argument is that everyone wants their own rules and laws, so who decides whose right? The universe obeys its laws ‘cos there is a law-maker = God. If God made you and everything else should he be allowed to make the law? (Even hypothetically, as I know you don’t believe there is one).

            Man-made Laws change all the time, if it outlawed homosexuality again, would you complain? If so, can I complain about the state of the law now? ‘Cos the law is a right ass at the moment

          • jack says:

            i would defend to the hilt your right to have your views but telling me i should be under the law of some imaginary sky fairy is preaching, that’s different to you having the right to your view

            yes i would, and yes you can, but you can’t discriminate, that has just been settled in this case. Get used to it, it ain’t gonna change.

          • Mojojones says:

            It may change, as they have the right to appeal.

            You don’t respect my views, as part of them views is a commandment to spread them same views to the rest of the world. So if you did respect them views you wouldn’t keep complaining about preaching, as preaching is a central part of it.

            So really, you don’t have a problem with me believing want I want, but you do have a problem when I express them beliefs (ie censorship). Voltaire would be disappointed with you.

          • jack says:

            I have a problem when you try and foist those beliefs on me.

            I have a problem with you saying that your god’s laws apply to me, they don’t.

            I don’t have a problem with you expressing your beliefs just don’t tell me I should have them.

            You’re right, I don’t respect your views and beliefs as I think they are, well tbh a bit silly. Doesn’t mean i don’t respect your right to have them.

          • Mojojones says:

            Yet you tried to quote Voltaire, who said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Understand that, he believes I have the right to SAY it. To SPEAK it.

            You want the right to express your views, no matter how silly they are, but you want to censor views which you don’t agree with.

            You wouldn’t be on this forum if you didn’t want to express YOUR OWN VIEWS, how can you justify that? How is that different to “preaching”. You are preaching that the Biblical laws don’t apply to you.

            You do like going around in circles, but you keep saying you respect my rights to have my views, yet you don’t like them views expressed, which, as I have pointed out, is contrary to the Voltaire you tried to quote from.

          • jack says:

            this is going around in circles, you can express your views, I object to you saying I have to live by them, I don’t

          • Mojojones says:

            Then don’t quote Voltaire

          • jack says:

            i just said you can say ot, just don’t try and make me live by them, voltairs is aboit expressing opinion, that’s fine, prodelytising isn’t

            who can’t seethe button now lol!!

          • jack says:

            if we don’t stop this thread son we’re going to be down to 1 word a line lol

          • M B. Keeney says:

            AbsoluteTruth
            to Jack
            Jack here is your issue.

            I ask you to affirm on this forum before us all now, whether your have or do now accept as absolute Truth that Jesus is who He claims to be, ie: that He is the Son of God, God in the flesh. That you have/are committing/trusting yourself in this present age and the ages to come, to this absolute Truth. That you believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is “Lord” & so have confessed with your mouth “Jesus Christ as Lord”, affecting your salvation.
            ( Romans 10:9) For with the heart one believes & with ones mouth makes that confession resulting in salvation.

            What confession? THAT JESUS IS GOD IN THE FLESH.

            To deny this as absolute Truth is to reject the Father. Jesus said ” if you do not have me” you do not have the Father & I and the Father are one . No one comes to the Father except through me! He also said I am The way, the Truth & the Life, no one comes to the Father but through me. For the Father was pleased that in Jesus, all of the Fathers invisible attributes were manifest.

            These are but a few of the Fathers, Jesus’ & the Holy Spirits words.

            If you do not believe this nor have made this confession Jack, I ask you to give careful consideration. Look in the bible & ask Jesus to reveal Himself to you. Do this with all you heart & He promises to make Himself known to you.

            Homosexuality is not the issue. Absolute Truth is!

            What say you Jack.

          • jack says:

            OMG, titter!

          • AbsoluteTruth says:

            AbsoluteTruth
            Jack
            Titter away. Thats your decision. I haven’t thin skin. Your rejection is yours. Also intellectually dishonest in an avoidance of any discussion. I have long known that people have abandoned willingness to agree to disagree, even passionately. I recognized long ago if/where there has been condemnation of that lifestyle from the body that is “Christs” that that condemnation is sin. If that has been done to you, I ask for “us” your forgiveness. Titter you way along in this present age, and you find yourself outside of His presence now & the age to come. That void in your being that you attempt to fill with sex will leave you as unsatisfied as all other paths that avoid dealing with Jesus. It matters not whether it is sex, alchohol, drugs or whatever.
            You & I know the offer was extended non the less through the previous email.

            Should you care to ask beyond the “titter”, I will seek to answer as honestly as possible.

            Sincerely,

            MKeeney

          • jack says:

            i don’t need to ask beyond the titter, I’m not ignorant of religion and what it offers. As a child I attended methodist chape in S Wales before my parents ‘converted’ me to CofE where I was confirmed but I saw no truths or logic in religon and grew up basically, left god behind with santa clause and the tooth fairy.

            I recognise that religion gives somepeople a purpose , a clarity in their lives, an inner peace and I have no problem with that. I do object to proselytising and telling me I am wrong for my choice or forcing others to live by their rules, that is wrong.

            I find my inner peace and contentment through other means, I am happy with that.

          • Snoot says:

            Absolute Truth
            Jack
            Sorry, C of E ?. I don’t know what that is. Clue me in please. I too am familiar with religion, which I am quite convinced is putrid in Gods eyes, It is mans attempt to reach Him when He he has already done in Jesus. Oh, and a poor effort at a put down with the tooth fairy/santa slight. So where do you find your enlightenment & “inner peace” per chance? Of course you object to “proselytizing”, accept of course except when it’s in your favor as to pushing your lifestyle on society. Then it’s acceptable. The animal kingdom corollary is a worn out lie. They also don’t have free will.
            If you are willing, tell us a little about your relationship with your father. How was that in your young life into adulthood? I’m always inyerested in that aspect. Was he there & if so what kind of relationship did you have with him. How about other men in your life growing up?

            Sincerely
            Snoot

    • Ian says:

      well said. These people are hiding behind their so called religion and think it then OK to behave like nasty bigots. I actually suspect that Mr Ball is a closet case and cannot cope. Why else is he married to what is surely the ugliest woman in the UK…hell, make that the friggen world!

      • Charlie George says:

        Of course you don’t like women – you’re a faggot. I think she’s quite fit, and so would you if you only went out and bought some De-Gay spray. Actually, I’ll buy it for you for Christmas – and instead of pulling crackers, you can pull a cracker like Mrs Bull!

  6. Wingywingywingy says:

    The law is far more important than religion. We all *have* to abide by the law, we don’t all have to abide by deranged religious beliefs. What people are suggesting on here is that Christians should be able to pick and choose the laws that suit them.
    Do you not think that certain religious groups have gotten into enough trouble through deciding what laws suit them?
    In simple terms – The B&B owners started it. If they can’t handle being persecuted they shouldn’t have discriminated against other innocent human beings.
    It’s not you having it up the arse, so perhaps you should maybe try not to focus on what two consenting do and don’t do to each other. It turns my stomach that your husband probably smashes into your dying eggs once a week, but I’ll still let you have a room…..

    • Michael 22 says:

      It seems to me that any other religion can do as they wish just by shouting discrimination in this country, but when it comes to Christianity it is treated differently, I myself, am not at all religious but I beleive it’s about time the religious beliefs and customs of this country should be upheld, not side stepped by people when it does not suit their purpose. These laws that try to make out homosexuality is normal are wrong, People are what they are, but don’t try to tell others it’s normal.

    • Ian says:

      I love this reply, so funny. ew…..I have a picture of those dying eggs, especially when you take another look at Mrs Bull’s face. She has a face like a cat’s arse, only not as pretty. LMFARO.

    • Gok says:

      And people wonder why we call you perverts!

  7. Ian says:

    If they don’t want gay people to have the same rights and services as heterosexuals, they should not be in business. I cannot believe this argument rumbles. It is nearly 50 years since Stonewall and this sort of bigotry just proves that the fight must go on to secure equality for ALL. Reminds me of the time that Mary Whitehouse took gay news to court for balsphemy and her membership was just 5,000 strong! It is ILLEGAL in thios country to deny services to gay people and quite right too. Christians have marginalised themselves by behaving in such a ridiculous manner. I hope that the hotel owners have to apy all the compensation and court costs. As a tax payer (and gay and therefore not receiving any handouts for kids like tax credits or child benefit) it better not be coming out of my purse.

    • Gok says:

      So how come the Guyz Hotel in Blackpool, which has been running for 24 years, is allowed to state, and I quote “That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people”. Is that not discrimination? If not, why?

  8. Ian says:

    if Mr Ball isn’t a closet case holding his hands like that AND wearing that canary yellow jumper, I’ll eat the used condom I put in the cornflakes when I stayed at this hotel. Dale Winton looks like a rugby player in comparison. I bet Mr Ball minces down that church aisle every Sunday in that!

  9. Anonymous says:

    This is hilarious. Btw Mojojones, you do know that “mojo” means African voodoo or witchcraft?

    p.s., in case you’re interested, I have a fabulous relationship with my lovely dad, who taught me to consider others and think about the implications of my actions, to question the world around me and to develop my own moral principles without needing to believe in some misogynistic tall tale of an all-powerful dude, his made-without-sex son and his son’s boy band.

  10. Dreamweaver824 says:

    Well I think it is just bad business for them. I mean gay money is good money. There is not anything in the bible that states ” thou shalt not rent a room to gays”
    If they want to avoid this situation upon booking they should make clear this is a heterosexual married couple only B&B. If you are gay just don’t book a room wIth them,.

Add your comment

Libellous and abusive comments are not allowed. Please read our House Rules

For information about privacy and cookies please read our Privacy Policy