Guesthouse Couple Lose Supreme Court Battle.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514353/Christian-guesthouse-owners-lose-Supreme-Court-battle-ordered-pay-damages-turning-away-gay-couple.html

Just thought I would enter this on behalf of sp1814, because I think he may be a little shy considering that he has been criticising me for repeating the same stories even though mine were years apart.

[mikey4444]

K...drivel.

[FredPuli43]

Quite, I don't think that any of the homosexual judges , of both sexes, that I know and knew, would be going on a gay pride march. Zurich may be the same; or they don't have gay and lesbian judges; but somehow I doubt it. Switzerland is not a showy country.

[jomifl]

If you put yourself in the place of someone running a guest house then you can perhaps appreciate the concerns of the guest house proprietor allowing complete strangers into their home. When looking after a guest house for friends once I turned away a young heterosexual couple because I was worried about the other guests sleep and the subsequent state of the bedroom. There are always judgements to be made and nobody gets it right all the time.

[DTCwordfan]

However, Khandro, you can't refuse to sell one of your paintings, or whatever medium you practice in (didn't know that you were an artist), on an overtly homophobic stance - that would be illegal on grounds of race relations......

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - if you are going to accept paying guests, then you cannot treat your business premises as your 'home' in order to attempt to break the law.

Either it is a business, or it's not, you don't get to switch identities when your personal bigotry swings into play.

Ironically, as with any business, the owning couple were at liberty to turn away the gay couple without giving a reason - and that would have been a simpler, and less expensive option.

That, or simply say there has been a booking mix-up, and they are full.

But bcause this bigoted couple choose to exercise their occupation of the moral high ground, they fell foul of the law, and continued to do so to the point where they have lost their business.

I hope their 'morals' keep them warm.

[DTCwordfan]

This was the view of John Wadham, Group Director, Legal, at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, on Judge Rutherford's ruling in Bristol, one of the first such rulings under theEquality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007; he said:

“The right of an individual to practice 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 similarly 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.”

In summary, it means that people in civil partnerships will have greater protection from discrimination.

[mikey4444]

Jomifi...in the case that you have given it might have been OK to turn the heterosexual couple away, if you thought that they were too scruffy, drunk, or might disturb everybody else in the house. Not only OK but a sensible move by you. Being sensible has never been against the law. But the Bulls turned away their potential guests because they were homosexual. They might have been black, or indeed black and gay. That is why they they were prosecuted, because they broke the law.

Really not sure why we are all making such a song and dance about this.

[naomi24]

Any business has a right to refuse to serve a customer – but whether or not they break the law by doing so depends upon their reason for refusal – and the reason these owners gave was illegal. That’s the point. Had the gay couple arrived drunk and disorderly, for example, the owners would have been perfectly within their rights to refuse them a room.

Sorry, Jom … but it’s true. :o)

[mikey4444]

Thanks andy and dtc...some common sense at last !

[jim360]

Perhaps the B&B owners would have fainted if one of the men had turned up in a dress...

[jomifl]

I must try to be more vindictive and less laissez faire, it obviously meets with the approval of the jobsworths on this thread. :o) I think I'll start with all the people I know who work on the black (prison sentence). people who employ on the black (prison sentence), people talk on the phone whilst driving, fail to indicate whilst turning, fail to give way to traffic from the right. Now where did I put my radar speed gun...

[naomi24]

Jom, if that's ^^ to me, my 'Sorry Jom, but it's true' was in response to this.

//Now then Naomi, don't wander off topic, this is going very well as it is :o) //

[mikey4444]

Jomifi...with respect...drivel Nothing whatsoever to do with the issue in question.

[jackthehat]

I must confess to being bemused by the frequency of the word 'vindictive' in respect of Preddy/Hall.

They went to court because they believed that they had been discriminated against. The first court said they had........and so have all of the subsequent courts that Mr and Mrs Bull have dragged this matter before.

[jomifl]

Naomi, a bit of confusion there ....?

[naomi24]

Jom, Thought there might have been. That'll teach me not to mention sex and religion in the same breath. Smacked legs. :o)

[sp1814]

naomi24's post of 17:24 is quite correct.

The B&B owners could have taken one look at the couple and said, "I'm afraid there's been a mix up - we have no rooms at the moment", and there's nothing that Preddy and Hall could have done.

But you know what? They could have easily let a double room to the couple without compromising their Christian beliefs.

The Bible states that "no man should lie with another man etc"...well as long as the B&B owners didn't try to get a foursome going...then they're on safe grounds aren't they?

[DTCwordfan]

Next stop for the Bull (headed) the ECHR perhaps?

As an aside, have you seen the pic of Hazelmary Bull? - she doesn't come across as the most accommodating, friendly landlady that I have seen, though I am sure she is a delight

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Scandal-Christian-couple-forced-sell-Marazion-B-B/story-19812376-detail/story.html#axzz2lrfDIThj

[sp1814]

DTCrosswordfan

I was thinking that earlier, but I'm not sure whether they can escalate there.

There's the European Court of Justice, but as I understand it, that court only has the right to adjudicate on European law.

I'm wondering though - say if they did win the case in Europe, what exactly would they 'win'.

[jomifl]

I have been discriminated against in various ways, for being male for being English in Scotland, for being British in France, For being white in a Moroccan bar, for being single, for being married, for being scruffy , for being smart. Whatever we are will attract discrimination, it is a fact of life. The homosexual couple in this case were in my view being unecessarily vindictive. All they have achieved is to bring misery to a blikered old bigoted couple who did not choose to be bigoted but were made that way by their environment just as if they were an ethnic minority. Bigotry comes in many flavours and there is a lot of it being demonstrated on this thread. A bit of compassion and understanding wouldn't go amiss. Some of the self rightiousness diplayed here wouldn't be out of place in the Bible Belt