"No marriage certificate, NO MARRIAGE BED!"...

HellFireClub

What does AH think of this?!?

Sarah Gordon and Kat Higgins, Sky News Online
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."


Mr Preddy booked a room at the B&B in 2008 and Mrs Bull assumed he was bringing his wife with him.
When he arrived with his civil partner Mr Hall, the pair were refused a double room by the manager Bernie Quinn, who instead offered them seperate single rooms.
The Preddys used the 2007 Equality Act Regulations to bring the case to court, claiming £5,000 in damages.
A month before Mr Preddy booked to stay at the B&B, Stonewall, the gay rights organisation, had warned the Bulls that a notice on their website about who could and could not stay was illegal.
The notice read: "We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only."

Peter and Hazelmary Bull have strict religious beliefs
Ben Summerskill, from Stonewall, welcomed the ruling.
He said: "You can't turn away people from a hotel because they're black or Jewish and in 2011 you shouldn't be able to demean them by turning them away because they're gay either.
"Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice."
Mrs Bull has argued that even her brother and his female partner were not allowed to share a room in her house due to her strict religious beliefs.
Their legal fees were paid for by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, while Mr and Mrs Bull's defence was funded by The Christian Institute.
Outside court Mrs Bull said the result was a disappointment.
"Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody," she said.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Gay-Couple-Win-BB-Discrimination-Case-Against-Christian-Owners-Damages-Of-1800-Each/Article/201101315897770?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15897770_Gay_Couple_Win_BB_Discrimination_Case_Against_Christian_Owners%2C_Damages_Of_%3F1%2C800_Each

snickerpuss

If they have such strict religious beliefs they might want to get out of the B&B business.

Duggy747

What was the €3600 for, to pay for the fuel they needed to drive to another B&B?

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Rabidlamb

Proper order, the pink pound should be well able to afford a hotel.

scientific1982

I think its boring.

FreudianSlippers

Would they have asked two heterosexual people for proof they were married? I think not.

HellFireClub

HellFireClub wrote: »

"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."

A month before Mr Preddy booked to stay at the B&B, Stonewall, the gay rights organisation, had warned the Bulls that a notice on their website about who could and could not stay was illegal.
The notice read: "We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only."

They booked it despite knowing this policy?
Sure, go right ahead, but "we just wanted a relaxing weekend break away"? Political fight more like

hondasam

I do not care TBH,

mikemac

HellFireClub wrote: »

The Preddys used the 2007 Equality Act Regulations to bring the case to court, claiming £5,000 in damages.

How are they out of pocket by so much? At the very most they would have to get alternative accommodation so that's a few hundred

Ca-ching, some easy compo here

seamus

Illegal to discriminate on such grounds in this country, thankfully.

Bill2673

I was once turned away from a B&B because of my big nose.........it was humiliating.

F-Stop

Hazelmary Bull? Really? No, really?

checkyabadself

I thought cottaging was their thing, never heard of them B&B-ing.

snickerpuss

bluewolf wrote: »

They booked it despite knowing this policy?
Sure, go right ahead, but "we just wanted a relaxing weekend break away"? Political fight more like

They mean that the owners had been contacted by a group and told this was illegal. There is no indication the gay couple knew this.

snickerpuss

snickerpuss wrote: »

They mean that the owners had been contacted by a group and told this was illegal. There is no indication the gay couple knew this.

Yeah but youd think theyd check the website

I phrased it badly, I just mean if the notice was up there and a gay group had contacted them...

hondasam

OisinT wrote: »

Would they have asked two heterosexual people for proof they were married? I think not.

The would not allow her brother and his female partner share a room because the were not married.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Barrington 14:04 "Shut the **** up, Leviticus."

HellFireClub

OisinT wrote: »

Would they have asked two heterosexual people for proof they were married? I think not.

Apparently they do, the woman who owns the place refused her nephew a room with his girlfriend on the same basis! I had a very similar issue in rural Mayo a few years ago for a wedding! I turned up with my girlfriend and we were looked up and down and given filthy looks when we turned up at the B & B. We couldn't work out what the issue was at all, then the religious statues all over the house and the crucifixes everywhere, we worked out that your wan wasn't happy with giving us a double room when she didn't see wedding rings... Sure weren't we still sticking young girls into Magdalene laundries in the 1980's!?!

Seaneh

LBGT/legal discussion/politics/christianity/boards.co.uk forum is that away

---

>

hondasam

HellFireClub wrote: »

Apparently they do, the woman who owns the place refused her nephew a room with his girlfriend on the same basis! I had a very similar issue in rural Mayo a few years ago for a wedding! I turned up with my girlfriend and we were looked up and down and given filthy looks when we turned up at the B & B. We couldn't work out what the issue was at all, then the religious statues all over the house and the crucifixes everywhere, we worked out that your wan wasn't happy with giving us a double room when she didn't see wedding rings... Sure weren't we still sticking young girls into Magdalene laundries in the 1980's!?!

Are you serious, what if you dont wear a wedding ring but are married.

HellFireClub

Seaneh wrote: »

LBGT/legal discussion/politics/christianity/boards.co.uk forum is that away

---

>

There's always one...

J K

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

mmmmmmmmmmmmm womankind

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Some writings are full of crap and written worse than a Shakespearian play!
"The Book Of Biggins"

Seaneh

the book of biggins is indeed a very good example of something that is written very badly.

matrim

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Does that mean that they have to do it standing up or does doggy style count as not lying?

Penn

matrim wrote: »

Does that mean that they have to do it standing up or does doggy style count as not lying?

No. IT IS ABOMINATION!

Bill2673

Here's a few more from Leviticus.....they should turn this into a musical.

[SIZE=-1]"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1] to you." (Leviticus 11:10) (that is to say, don't eat shrimp or lobster, as they are in same league as same sex coupling - an abomination) (I wonder is shrimp on the menu at this B&B, 'twould be a laugh).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus [SIZE=-1]20:9[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]) [/SIZE](that is to say, don't slag off your ma to her face). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." [/SIZE][SIZE=+1](Leviticus [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]25:44-45[/SIZE][SIZE=+1])[/SIZE]

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." [SIZE=+1](Leviticus [SIZE=-1]19:27)[/SIZE][/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." [/SIZE][SIZE=+1](Leviticus [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]19:19[/SIZE][SIZE=+1])[/SIZE]

Canis Lupus

matrim wrote: »

Does that mean that they have to do it standing up or does doggy style count as not lying?

I thought it was just about telling the truth.

Ellian

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

I think you'll find that's pronounced "abumination"

curlzy

I hate when religious nuts try to instill their beliefs on others. Just because they believe an invisable man in the sky is watching everything they do doesn't mean everyone should be subjected to their wacko notions. I'm delighted for the gay couple, no one should be subjected to this kind of backwards bigotry in this day and age.

marzic

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

marzic 14.38:- I agree, if you're a man you should not lie to another man, unless he is a guard. But you can lie to a woman no matter what! Bros before Hoes!!!...

*blows finger pistols, but not in a ghey way*

I don't think people realise that I was being facetious

antodeco

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think people realise that I was being facetious

You were being crappy?

marzic

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think people realise that I was being facetious

You're use of vocabulary is excrement, I mean excellent!

biko

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

Leviticus was the first Gok Wan, who incidentally is super gay.

marzic

biko wrote: »

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

Leviticus was the first Gok Wan, who incidentally is super gay.

I kinda agree with this bit, essentially he is 'anti-mullet'.

Penn

marzic wrote: »

I kinda agree with this bit, essentially he is 'anti-mullet'.

Mullet is abomination.

efb

Ride me sideways was another one...

Not in this B&B you won't!

J K

and he's right about the lobster also. I think we have to be more economical in our dining habits until things pick up a bit again.

Cook my sock

It was the Greeks, They invented gayness.

Wolfe Tone

Its their own house they can refuse who they want tbh. I wouldnt want religious nutters in my BandB.

sensibleken

Deleted User wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Ah but does it not also say in Leviticus 13:47-59(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+13%3A47-59&version=NIV too much stuff to quote suffice to say a looooot about mildew)

So their sheets should be second to none and their showers spotless.

sensibleken

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Its their own house they can refuse who they want tbh. I wouldnt want religious nutters in my BandB.

its also a business so no they cant

yupyup7up

I'm not religious in any way shape or form, but shouldn't the owners reserve the right to refuse admission? What if 2 junkies showed up at the door? Surely if they own the B&B they can refuse whoever they want. Bit unfair IMO... Perhaps it should have just been thrown out.

AnonoBoy

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah but youd think theyd check the website

Who would think to themselves, "Oh we better check the website of the B&B in case they're bigots and aren't going to let us stay."?

If someone was refused accommodation because they were black would someone say, "Ah they should have checked the website to see if they were racists before booking"?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Its their own house they can refuse who they want tbh.

They can refuse who they want into their own private house. When they open it up as a public B&B however they have to have legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for refusing people.

Duggy747

Apparently the victim, Martyn Hall, isn't gay at all.

But his boyfriend is :pac:

*Ba-Dum-Bum.....PISH!!*

marzic

yupyup7up wrote: »

I'm not religious in any way shape or form, but shouldn't the owners reserve the right to refuse admission? What if 2 junkies showed up at the door? Surely if they own the B&B they can refuse whoever they want. Bit unfair IMO... Perhaps it should have just been thrown out.

is that 'quare-junkies' or 'str8-junkies'?

Wolfe Tone

sensibleken wrote: »

its also a business so no they cant

Well they should be able to, cant they have a "management reserve the right t refuse admission"?

rockonollie

Coincidentally, I just watched the episode of top gear where they have to build their own mobile homes and the campsite they went to in Cornwall had a clearly marked sign. "Families Only - No Same Sex Couples - No single persons under 21"

AnonoBoy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Who would think to themselves, "Oh we better check the website of the B&B in case they're bigots and aren't going to let us stay."?

If someone was refused accommodation because they were black would someone say, "Ah they should have checked the website to see if they were racists before booking"?
.

I always check the website and possibly tripadvisor too, just in case there are ANY notices I should know about!
And if someone was black and went to a "we only take whites" B&B, I'd be skeptical of their "I just wanted a nice weekend" claims too.