So reports the Press Association:
Christian hotel owners who refused a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge ruled [yesterday].
Peter and Hazelmary Bull were breaking the law when they denied Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy a room at their hotel in Cornwall in September 2008.
Judge Andrew Rutherford made the ruling in a written judgment at Bristol County Court as he awarded the couple £1,800 each in damages.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
Observations of an Expat: Middle East Consequences (Tom Arms)
Our challenge is needed now on the cost of living crisis (Katharine Pindar)
We must rebuild Music Education (Mary Reid)
Oddities (Mary Reid)
Dundee Chess Congress 2024 #dundeewestend
GUEST POST No sign of an end to defections in local government
Al Pinkerton: "The Chagossians have been dispossessed again"
Monday night is Parish Council night...
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Urban ReLeaf Dundee
Welsh Labour hospitality row
Peter Martin 
Steve Trevethan 
Nonconformistradical 
Jenny Barnes 
Mick Taylor 
24 Comments
The question is, when is the court case for this “gay men only” hotel in Blackpool though? http://ow.ly/3GiwC
Great news for Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy.
It is amazing, even after 5 years of having civil partnerships, just how much prejudice and homophobia still exists out there.
Britain still have not moved on that much, There are many still people with the opinion, what they do in their own home, or what goes on behind closed doors, as long as I don’t have to see it e.t.c, e.t.c
Dizzy – either they’ve changed their policy because of the court case, or their “gay men only” policy wasn’t genuine anyway, as after a recent phone call they’d said they’re quite willing to accept heterosexual people too.
And of course the LibDems will be pushing for the resignation from the Coalition Government of the Conservative MP who supported the criminal (and illiberal) activities of the B&B owners? Or is a Tory led Government so they wouldn’t dare?
Maybe I’m in the minority then but this is not an easy issue for me. Overall I believe in the court verdict but I also believe in a right to arbitrarily deny services..
I guess I would be okay to allow B&B’s to turn away gay couples if they displayed that fact clearly at the front of the establishment, and also some kind of clause saying that if the couple can make the case that they have nowhere else to go, then they must be allowed to stay.
“I guess I would be okay to allow B&B’s to turn away gay couples if they displayed that fact clearly at the front of the establishment, and also some kind of clause saying that if the couple can make the case that they have nowhere else to go, then they must be allowed to stay.”
And people accuse Liberals of woolly thinking …
As a Christian I am often hugely embarrassed by those who hold misogynistic and homophobic views and portray them as the majority Christian viewpoint. If you look at the numbers of C of E worshippers who support Women Bishops and Gay Church Blessings you would see that there is a sizable proportion, if not a majority, within the Church who do not share these much publicised views. Most, like me, see any loving relationship between two adults as something to be cherished and celebrated.
This particular case was slightly different in that they would also have banned an unmarried heterosexual couple from sharing a bed, a fact that the Judge accepted (I’m assuming this was backed by evidence). This made it more a matter of competing rights than some previous cases.
I guess if they had advertised their B&B as a Conservative Evangelical Christian establishment they would have had my support. Likewise, I see no need for the Gay Hotel to accept heterosexuals as they are obviously catering for a niche. In this case though, they were happy to accept people from outside a limited grouping for presumably business reasons, and therefore had, in my opinion, lost the right to impose a set viewpoint on them.
@Rich
“Maybe I’m in the minority then but this is not an easy issue for me. Overall I believe in the court verdict but I also believe in a right to arbitrarily deny services..
I guess I would be okay to allow B&B’s to turn away gay couples if they displayed that fact clearly at the front of the establishment, and also some kind of clause saying that if the couple can make the case that they have nowhere else to go, then they must be allowed to stay.”
You are kidding right? Display the fact clearly at the front door?
What are you suggesting, a sign that says no Gays? Or maybe a Warning circle, with 2 matchstick men holding hands, with a Big Red Line across the Circle?
We have laws in this country against discrimination, and those laws apply to those who want to operate a business from their own home. Running a Bed & Breakfast is no different to owning your own Hotel or a Public House, If you live on the premises, it is also your own home. If you chose to open up your home as a business, then that’s your choice, but Laws still apply.
These B&B owners are full of crap, saying that they didn’t allow unmarried heterosexuals either, what did they do, ask each resident to provide a marriage certificate before they allowed a booking?
“I guess I would be okay to allow B&B’s to turn away gay couples if they displayed that fact clearly at the front of the establishment,”
And where would you draw the line if they wanted to discriminate against other groups? I thought that only the most simplistic Tories didn’t understand that there are bound to be some conflicts between individual liberties.
“I guess I would be okay to allow B&B’s to turn away gay couples if they displayed that fact clearly at the front of the establishment,”
It’s never OK to turn away Gay couples, it’s OK to run a specific service, there are Muslim, Christian and other faith retreats all over the country, but this was not one, it was a general B&B and therefore should comply with the rules.
Why has the Gay Hotel not had any problems, because it was clear that it supplied a service to a Niche. The same way that religous reatreats throughout the Country have not had any issues regarding excluding people. This couple seemed to want their cake and eat it…
Rich, the right to deny service must be on the basis of the individual not on their membership of a grouping, particularly a grouping of which they cannot choose or have little control over. So I should be able to refuse to offer a hotel room to someone who has a reputation for not paying bills but not to someone who is gay (or black, or Irish).
Perhaps the onus should be on the service provider in the event of denying service to provide a rationale acceptable to “a reasonable person” in the legal sense, i.e. a legal presumption in favour.
Chris
Rich, the reason there is anti-discrimination laws in the UK is specifically because businesses used to display signs saying “No Irish” or “No Blacks” – and it was as relatively recently as the 1960s.
That said, this is a difficult conundrum really. What we’ve got is a gay couple – in a civil partnership, I understand – wanting to make use of a service. We also have a married couple offering the service, with strong religious beliefs such that they do not wish to permit unmarried couples to share a bed. It’s further complicated by the fact that, unlike a hotel, this is a B&B and therefore part of the married couple’s house. So who has the stronger claim of right – the gay couple in wishing to obtain the service, or the married couple in wishing to uphold their religious beliefs?
I suggest that it should be equally unchristian for the C of E to deny equality to women who choose to make a commitment to become Bishops.
Surely,women are just as capable of doing good works on Earth and going to Heaven? As would anyone else.
In this case the plaintiffs who won the case said in interview that that by staying at that B and B they did not seek to prevent the couple from following their christian beliefs.
Also the B and B owning couple said that they would have prevented any unmarried couple from staying at their B and B. But how would they know who is married or who tells the truth?
If they had a policy of turning away any couple who wasn’t either married or in a civil partnership wouldn’t that be a matter for them – as long as try did allow couples in civil partnerships to stay?
“I guess I would be okay to allow B&B’s to turn away gay couples if they displayed that fact clearly at the front of the establishment.”
Substitute ‘black couples’ for ‘gay couples’. Then wonder if you read this on a ‘liberal’ forum.
“Maybe I’m in the minority then but this is not an easy issue for me. Overall I believe in the court verdict but I also believe in a right to arbitrarily deny services..”
I can’t believe this. How about “No Jews here”? Would that be OK? Judenrein B&Bs?
As a gay man I thoroughly welcome this legal ruling. I remember years ago trying to find “gay friendly” accommodation when I went away with my boyfriend was a nightmare and meant our choice was dramatically reduced. Effectively we were ghettoised. Now when I book a place, I can do so in the full confidence that I will (by law) receive equal treatment to anyone else. It is a huge liberation and reassurance.
If B&B clearly advertises itself as being run by fundamentalist christians, then I’m sure that would make almost all gay people keep well clear, but the fundamental point is that running a B&B means opening up your home to members of the public. If they don’t want gay people staying, then they are not qualified to run a B&B and should do something else to earn a living.
@Robert C
Well I never would have believed it.
Something I never thought would happen on here, but we have actually found something that we actually agree on 😉
If this couple claim that they did not allow unmarried couples to share a double-bed at their B&B how did they actually enforce it ? Did they demand that people bring their marriage certificates with them as proof before letting them have the room? I doubt they enforced it at all and suspect this it was just a smokescreen to try and deflect from their bigotry
As a letter in the Guardian today points out, this couple would have denied a room to Mary and Joseph – either because they were unmarried (in one version of the story) or because she was pregnant but not by her husband.
My understanding was that the B&B owners said that did not allow unmarried couples to share a room, in which case the important question might be why can’t same sex couples get married. If the law is supposed to extend the same rights to same sex civil partners as to married partners, why the need to keep the two states distinct ?
As someone who was brought up Christian, it offends me when people try and portray views like those of Mr & Mrs Bull as Christian or religious beliefs rather than what they actually are: personal beliefs with a basis in Christianity. As Steve Way rightly says the Bulls are not representative of Christians in Britain today.
While people like these are not representative, they are numerous though. Why do so many so called Christians use their faith as a yardstick to measure others by rather than themselves and themselves alone?
A person should have the right to defend his house against all odds. Against individuals, groups even the ‘state’. Liberty and freedom is basically found the basic assumption that in a persons authority in his own house. If this a hotel, that would have been a different matter. BUT it was their business and their house, they should have the right to deny whoever they want – without even having to give a reason. Even if they say they want to deny people because they are black, white, gay or straight. IT IS THEIR HOUSE, not the state’s (is the state going to pay their bills?).
It is basic where I pay the bill I say what is going and what not. On public roads in public places the state pays the ‘bill’
Steve Way
Are you saying that as long as an establishment advertises that it is for a certain section of the population, then it is allowed to get around this law and discriminate, and that this is the reason why gay men hotels are not forced to accept women or heterosexuals? Can you point to the part of the Equality law which says that you are allowed to target a ‘niche’ as long as you say so by advertising it thus, since that means that all this couple had to do was put a sign up saying ‘Christian only accommodation’ and they would have been within the law.
Doesn’t sound likely does it?
Don’t want to be too graphic, but one of my children works in a local hotel. A guest left an unwelcome deposit on the sheets and was blacklisted from ever returning. That was in a public not private hotel.
What happens on sheets in one’s own house..and that is what you are talking about in this sort of case… is very much a matter of owner’s rights. I wouldn’t want any anal acts on bedsheets in my own house.. and am completely unashamed of this. Many people are averse to human faeces in a way that they are not averse to other human fluids. Some would find the possibility of large amounts of blood beyond them, equally. Not too good with any quantity of human blood myself. Knees go week and shaky. What kind of loopy illiberal society finds this shocking???