Gay Couple Win B&B Discrimination Case

A gay couple won their case today after the judge ruled in their favour.

The Christian owners of a seaside guesthouse acted unlawfully by refusing to let a gay couple share a double bed, a judge has ruled in a landmark case.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull did not allow civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy to use a double room in their Cornwall B&B because it would be "an affront to their faith".

However, a judge at Bristol County Court said the couple were breaking the law by denying the men a room.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were each awarded £1,800 in damages.

The couple said they were extremely happy with the outcome of the case.

"When we booked this hotel we just wanted to do something that thousands of
other couples do every weekend - take a relaxing weekend break away.

"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 a marriage between a man and a woman, and that, regardless of each person's religious beliefs, no-one is above the law."

news.sky.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...

edit on 18/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

I think this is the right verdict in this case.
I'm glad that this couple's "Religious beliefs" didn't win out over the law and common sense and decency.
They discriminated against this couple pure and simple and have now had to deal with the consequences.

This is being hotly debated by the media and I'm keen to learn what fellow ATS members think.

Yep, 100% agree with the judgement. Once you turn your house into a commerical enterprise, you must abide by the laws of the country that regulate all businesses. I read that article on the Guardian website earlier, and as it pointed out, had the gay couple of lost their case, it would have set a very dangerous precedent- what next, gays not allowed on buses, in bars, etc? Common sense prevails!

Originally posted by blupblup
I think this is the right verdict in this case.
I'm glad that this couple's "Religious beliefs" didn't win out over the law and common sense and decency.
They discriminated against this couple pure and simple and have now had to deal with the consequences.

This is being hotly debated by the media and I'm keen to learn what fellow ATS members think.

While the B&B owners may not like it...times have changed and that conduct is no longer acceptable practice. If they don't like it, they should seek a different line of work. They may want to advertise as a Christian B&B...but they can't go turning people away like that anymore. Kind of ironic...no room at the inn.

And as one who years ago was repeatedly refused service in rural Maine for the crime of being a long-hair...to those B&B folks? Tough luck!

Oh, and star and flag to the OP. Let the flames begin!

reply to post by ScepticalBeliever




Their argument was lame too... they said that they also would have refused any couple who wasn't married, however this couple were in a civil partnership which is the gay equivalent of marriage.... or as good as they're allowed anyway.... :shk:

So yeah.... would have been dangerous and probably illegal to have ruled any other way.

I mean seriously... this couple are claiming all religious persecution, while persecuting others?

Hypocrisy much?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck




Exactly... do something else and if you want to run a B&B... then don't Discriminate... simple.

Let anyone stay there.... what next?

I don't want blacks staying in my B&B... I don't want Muslims....

This was a good and right decision.

I absolutely agree with the verdict too.

As a business owner I am not allowed to have a biased opinion about who I supply products or services to.

If this was a black couple, or a Jewish couple, the outrage would be clear. But because it's a gay couple it's somehow less offensive? That's BS.

We have equality laws in this country, and if a religious couple cannot meet the requirements of those laws they should not be in business.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
As a business owner I am not allowed to have a biased opinion about who I supply products or services to.

That's the bottom line. I also agree with the verdict. I thought there was an ATS thread about this story when it was happening, but I couldn't find it. It could have been a similar story.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




I thought there was a thread about it too.... Hmmmmm?

But the verdict was announced today and I'm glad it went this way.

I think they should and could have gotten a lot more out of it.

Surely if they are Christian and they do not wish to let these people into their home then that is their choice? There are plenty of otherB&Bs im sure they could have gone too.

Why should these people have to go through this because they chose not let someone who offended them into their home. (By offended i mean that they did not agree with their sexuality).

reply to post by KingDoey




I doubt it.... the law regarding discrimination in business is there for everyone to adhere to.

Just to add a video of the couple in question,, well just the woman anyway.

reply to post by blupblup


I don't have time right now but if I remember correctly many of these cases are being brought by the same xtian lawyers. They seem to be a new breed of holy ambulances chasers who are not afraid to lose as yet again it's others peoples money they are using to fight the cases (and god is on their side of course).

I applaud the courts for allowing decency to prevail, I wouldn't normally call xtians scum but in these cases we are talking about real scum no different to someone claiming the tripped on the cracks in a hospital tile.

Christians along with Muslims and all the rest need a kick in the arse for starting up religious intolerance and bigotry and I for one hope they get financially crucified.

* Other examples of failures: (Registrar) Ladele v. Islington Council; McFarlane v. Relate Avon Limited; Eweida v. British Airways; Caroline Petrie (nurse) and Olive Jones (teacher) - North Somerset cases.

I'm glad the right decision was made because it shows how biased and bigoted religion can be to discriminate against a gay couple who are in a civil partnership and happen to want a B&B to stay in for the night. I shook my head in dismay though when I saw the press conference after the ruling and she stated that the fine and compensation was helped by others who sent in donations to help them fight the legal case, proving that homophobia is alive and well in modern Britain.

reply to post by curious7

proving that homophobia is alive and well in modern Britain.

So long as xtianity claims the moral highgroound

reply to post by The Djin




Yes you're right, this couple had their legal fees paid by some Christian organization/charity who have also "helped" others in similar situations....

Pathetic really.


ETA: Found the charity.... they're called The Christian Institute.

www.christian.org.uk...

All they have to do to make this legal is change their policy to state that they will not rent single bed rooms to two adults of the same gender (regardless of their sexual orientation).

The decision might be correct according to the letter of the law but if so, it's a poorly thought out law.

If a hotel only wants to allow adults they should be able to (and many do) and it's perfectly legal (they will lose some business but that is THEIR business). OMG age discrimination! Likewise if a hotel only wants to allow gay couples (or straight couples, or singles) they should be able to (they will lose some business but that is THEIR business).

Originally posted by SevenBeans
All they have to do to make this legal is change their policy to state that they will not rent single bed rooms to two adults of the same gender (regardless of their sexual orientation).

How is that any different to what they've done?

Why would two adults of the same gender want to share a bed unless they were a couple?

I don't see what you're saying here.

The decision might be correct according to the letter of the law but if so, it's a poorly thought out law.

A poorly thought out law.... why?

Because it gives equal rights to people whatever their sexual orientation?

Again, not getting your point.