View Full Version : Are they In the wrong business?
3369933700The Christian owners of a Cornish hotel told a court today that they turned away a gay couple because their faith prevented them from allowing unmarried guests to share a room.
In the first case of its kind, Peter and Hazelmary Bull denied the allegation that they discriminated against Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy because they were gay, but insisted their faith meant they believed unmarried couples should not share a room under their roof.
It was suggested during the hearing at Bristol county court that the Bulls had been "set up", but Preddy and Hall, who are civil partners, insist that they had no idea of the hotel's policy before arriving.
Martyn Hall, right, and his civil partner Steven Preddy outside Bristol County Court. Backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Preddy and Hall are claiming damages of £5,000 under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. The Bulls' defence is financed by the Christian Institute, a charity that works to protect "the religious liberty of Christians". Before the case began, around 30 supporters sang hymns and held up placards declaring: "It's their home" – a reminder that the Bulls live as well as work at the hotel.
Preddy told the court he booked a room at the Chymorvah private hotel in Marazion, near Penzance, over the phone after looking at its website. He had not seen its room policy, which appeared only on its booking form, he said.
When the couple, from Bristol, arrived at the hotel in September 2008, manager Bernie Quinn informed them of the policy. "I would say the body language wasn't great and it was clear we were not welcome in the hotel," said Preddy. After being turned away, they reported the Bulls to the police, the court heard.
Mrs Bull, 66, said: "We accept that the Bible is the holy living word of God and we endeavour to follow that." She said the hotel's policy was not to allow unmarried couples of either sex to share a double or a twin room, and that the policy had been in existence since 1986. The couple's faith meant they did not believe in sex before marriage and would not allow it under their roof, Mrs Bull said.
She explained that she took Preddy's booking over the telephone when she was ill and so failed to explain the hotel's policy. "There is no way I would have let them make the journey only to be disappointed," she said. "We were very surprised when the two gentlemen turned up the next day.
"This is our home; it's not some large corporation. We feel that under the eyes of God we need to feel comfortable there – and that includes sleeping arrangements.
"We feel that our faith and conscience means we are responsible for what happens under our roof and that the teachings of the Christian faith are opposed to sex outside of marriage."
The hearing heard that the semi-detached hotel has seven rooms in total – three doubles, one family room, two twins and a single – with the Bulls living on the ground floor.
The court heard that the gay rights group Stonewall had written to the Bulls a month earlier advising them of new equality rules. The claimants' barrister, Catherine Casserley, asked Quinn: "Are you suggesting this claim was a set-up?" Quinn replied: "It is not beyond the realms of possibility."
Preddy said he and his civil partner were members of Stonewall, but said they had no knowledge of the organisation contacting the hotel before their visit.
The Bulls' barrister, James Dingemans QC, said: "It is not part of the defendants' case to undermine the rights of same-sex partners. The defendants do submit their policy is directed to sex and not sexual orientation and is lawful."
The issue was raised during the general election campaign when the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, apologised after saying that people who ran bed and breakfasts in their home ought to be able to turn away gay couples.
The case continues.
Should they be allowed to turn unmarried couples away if they are in the hospitality industry?
GL :confused:
Should they be allowed to turn unmarried couples away if they are in the hospitality industry?
No, of course not. But I'm curious about a couple of things. Do they allow unmarried heterosexual couples? Do they work on Sunday?
No, of course not. But I'm curious about a couple of things. Do they allow unmarried heterosexual couples? Do they work on Sunday?
She said the hotel's policy was not to allow unmarried couples of either sex to share a double or a twin room, however, they failed to explain the hotel's policy...
GL ;)
She said the hotel's policy was not to allow unmarried couples of either sex to share a double or a twin room, however, they failed to explain the hotel's policy...
GL ;)
Okay, so they are prudes rather than specifically homophobic. What they're doing then is still illegal, but slightly less repellent.
3369933700The Christian owners of a Cornish hotel told a court today that they turned away a gay couple because their faith prevented them from allowing unmarried guests to share a room.
In the first case of its kind, Peter and Hazelmary Bull denied the allegation that they discriminated against Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy because they were gay, but insisted their faith meant they believed unmarried couples should not share a room under their roof.
It was suggested during the hearing at Bristol county court that the Bulls had been "set up", but Preddy and Hall, who are civil partners, insist that they had no idea of the hotel's policy before arriving.
Martyn Hall, right, and his civil partner Steven Preddy outside Bristol County Court. Backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Preddy and Hall are claiming damages of £5,000 under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. The Bulls' defence is financed by the Christian Institute, a charity that works to protect "the religious liberty of Christians". Before the case began, around 30 supporters sang hymns and held up placards declaring: "It's their home" – a reminder that the Bulls live as well as work at the hotel.
Preddy told the court he booked a room at the Chymorvah private hotel in Marazion, near Penzance, over the phone after looking at its website. He had not seen its room policy, which appeared only on its booking form, he said.
When the couple, from Bristol, arrived at the hotel in September 2008, manager Bernie Quinn informed them of the policy. "I would say the body language wasn't great and it was clear we were not welcome in the hotel," said Preddy. After being turned away, they reported the Bulls to the police, the court heard.
Mrs Bull, 66, said: "We accept that the Bible is the holy living word of God and we endeavour to follow that." She said the hotel's policy was not to allow unmarried couples of either sex to share a double or a twin room, and that the policy had been in existence since 1986. The couple's faith meant they did not believe in sex before marriage and would not allow it under their roof, Mrs Bull said.
She explained that she took Preddy's booking over the telephone when she was ill and so failed to explain the hotel's policy. "There is no way I would have let them make the journey only to be disappointed," she said. "We were very surprised when the two gentlemen turned up the next day.
"This is our home; it's not some large corporation. We feel that under the eyes of God we need to feel comfortable there – and that includes sleeping arrangements.
"We feel that our faith and conscience means we are responsible for what happens under our roof and that the teachings of the Christian faith are opposed to sex outside of marriage."
The hearing heard that the semi-detached hotel has seven rooms in total – three doubles, one family room, two twins and a single – with the Bulls living on the ground floor.
The court heard that the gay rights group Stonewall had written to the Bulls a month earlier advising them of new equality rules. The claimants' barrister, Catherine Casserley, asked Quinn: "Are you suggesting this claim was a set-up?" Quinn replied: "It is not beyond the realms of possibility."
Preddy said he and his civil partner were members of Stonewall, but said they had no knowledge of the organisation contacting the hotel before their visit.
The Bulls' barrister, James Dingemans QC, said: "It is not part of the defendants' case to undermine the rights of same-sex partners. The defendants do submit their policy is directed to sex and not sexual orientation and is lawful."
The issue was raised during the general election campaign when the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, apologised after saying that people who ran bed and breakfasts in their home ought to be able to turn away gay couples.
The case continues.
Should they be allowed to turn unmarried couples away if they are in the hospitality industry?
GL :confused:
i think they should.as its said its there home as well as there business
if its something they believe strongly in they have the right to refuse they
they should however make that clear to anyone booking in to stay with them
the chances are however it prob more of a case they didnt want a gay couple staying,which altho not right
prob still happening a lot these days in small towns,some people still think same sex couples are wrong
Okay, so they are prudes rather than specifically homophobic. What they're doing then is still illegal, but slightly less repellent.
It is not illegal to require that couples should be married....
GL :)
I think it's a bit sad really
I think it's a bit sad really
Which part?
GL ;)
They lost their case, anyway. It was in the news a wee while back.
BBC News - Christian hoteliers appeal against ban on gay couple (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12282087)
But it seems that the Gay Gestapo aren't all that innocent. Turns out they got wind of this couple's policy, then set them up by having these two men make a booking where they deliberately did not indicate their sexual orientation. Then when the two gay men are turned away - hey presto, you're sued! Cue fake moral outrage from the Gestapo and the rest of the establishment falling over themselves to be seen as PC.
Surely the Gay Gestapo have better things to do than bullying an elderly couple like this.
northernwaster
07-02-11, 20:04
They lost their case, anyway. It was in the news a wee while back.
BBC News - Christian hoteliers appeal against ban on gay couple (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12282087)
But it seems that the Gay Gestapo aren't all that innocent. Turns out they got wind of this couple's policy, then set them up by having these two men make a booking where they deliberately did not indicate their sexual orientation. Then when the two gay men are turned away - hey presto, you're sued! Cue fake moral outrage from the Gestapo and the rest of the establishment falling over themselves to be seen as PC.
Surely the Gay Gestapo have better things to do than bullying an elderly couple like this.
I hope the tossers responsibe are proud of themselves, I really do. Why go out of your way to force your lifestyle down the throats of people who obviously don't want it. The elderly owners don't stand in gay clubs preaching the gospel do they? We are ALL allowed our OWN beliefs not just the crusaders
I'm struggling at how to put what I'm feeling into words about these gay "heros." Actions like this only harm relations between the different factions of socity. Time for them to stop the crusade and get on with their lives in peace - what we all want!
I hope the tossers responsibe are proud of themselves, I really do. Why go out of your way to force your lifestyle down the throats of people who obviously don't want it. The elderly owners don't stand in gay clubs preaching the gospel do they? We are ALL allowed our OWN beliefs not just the crusaders
I'm struggling at how to put what I'm feeling into words about these gay "heros." Actions like this only harm relations between the different factions of socity. Time for them to stop the crusade and get on with their lives in peace - what we all want!
There is nothing in the article to suggest that any third party was involved.
Where are you getting your information from?
northernwaster
07-02-11, 21:14
There is nothing in the article to suggest that any third party was involved.
Where are you getting your information from?
What are you on about 3rd partys? There is the elderly couple that own operate and LIVE in a hotel the way they want, and these 'heros' come to try and right a non-existant wrong - thats 2 partys!
Looks like you didn't read the article.
Two guys try to book a room and are refused - where are you getting the 'hero' angle from? :confused:
They lost their case, anyway. It was in the news a wee while back.
BBC News - Christian hoteliers appeal against ban on gay couple (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12282087)
But it seems that the Gay Gestapo aren't all that innocent. Turns out they got wind of this couple's policy, then set them up by having these two men make a booking where they deliberately did not indicate their sexual orientation. Then when the two gay men are turned away - hey presto, you're sued! Cue fake moral outrage from the Gestapo and the rest of the establishment falling over themselves to be seen as PC.
Surely the Gay Gestapo have better things to do than bullying an elderly couple like this.
Agree Mousey. That is quite weak imo.
The Gay couple were/are members of stonewall, however that is like being signed up to Greenpeace or friends of the earth...
It doesn't mean that they knew that the organisation (Stonewall) had contacted the hotel prior to their arrival.
GL ;)
Agree Mousey. That is quite weak imo.
I have to ask the question once again - where are you getting the information that they were bullied?
Could asking, presumably politely, for a room constitute bullying?
Could highlighting discrimination constitute bullying?
I think that is a leap too far to accuse anyone of bullying, given the information presented in the article, but please feel free to share if you have additional information
I have to ask the question once again - where are you getting the information that they were bullied? Could asking, presumably politely, for a room constitute bullying? Could highlighting discrimination constitute bullying? I think that is a leap too far to accuse anyone of bullying, given the information presented in the article, but please feel free to share if you have additional information
Rayden is not quoting information, he's agreeing with my personal opinion in my earlier post that this couple was being bullied by the Gay Gestapo.
Your statement in this post is mostly correct - highlighting discrimination is generally not bullying.
Rayden is not quoting information, he's agreeing with my personal opinion in my earlier post that this couple was being bullied by the Gay Gestapo.
Your statement in this post is mostly correct - highlighting discrimination is generally not bullying.
So - on what information do you base your opinion that the couple were being bullied?
Why do you claim there was 'fake moral outrage'? I would have thought pointing out discrimination was something to be lauded, not sneered at.
Which parts of my post do you not consider correct?
Rayden is not quoting information, he's agreeing with my personal opinion in my earlier post that this couple was being bullied by the Gay Gestapo.
If he is agreeing, then he should be able to defend his position, no?
Franken996
08-02-11, 17:31
not exactly the same thing but.. a number of years ago I was with the mot & her (female) friend in a poplar west of IRL town over a bank holiday w/e. Almost all the B&Bs were sold out so we booked a room through the tourist office.. when the three of us showed up, the auld battleaxe who ran the place obviously didn't like that a) the couple weren't married & b) we had a ladyfriend in tow who was to share the room with us.. so she make all sorts of 1950s type comments to try to make us feel uncomfortable ( that worked- not! we were just glad to have a room for the night) .. so that evening the three of us put on a big sound display in the room with bedsprings, fake moaning etc. But interestingly enough at breakfast ( ie just prior to getting her MONEY) the old bat was nice as pie;
She'd have been well within her rights to turn us away ..but most times cash talks louder than principles
not exactly the same thing but.. a number of years ago I was with the mot & her (female) friend in a poplar west of IRL town over a bank holiday w/e. Almost all the B&Bs were sold out so we booked a room through the tourist office.. when the three of us showed up, the auld battleaxe who ran the place obviously didn't like that a) the couple weren't married & b) we had a ladyfriend in tow who was to share the room with us.. so she make all sorts of 1950s type comments to try to make us feel uncomfortable ( that worked- not! we were just glad to have a room for the night) .. so that evening the three of us put on a big sound display in the room with bedsprings, fake moaning etc. But interestingly enough at breakfast ( ie just prior to getting her MONEY) the old bat was nice as pie;
She'd have been well within her rights to turn us away ..but most times cash talks louder than principles
Did you complain via the tourist office?, if you felt the B&B owner was not extending a Failte welcome!
GL ;)
GL ;)
The Gay couple were/are members of stonewall, however that is like being signed up to Greenpeace or friends of the earth...It doesn't mean that they knew that the organisation (Stonewall) had contacted the hotel prior to their arrival.GL ;)
I'm sure it was all just an amazing coincidence, GL!!!
So - on what information do you base your opinion that the couple were being bullied? Why do you claim there was 'fake moral outrage'? I would have thought pointing out discrimination was something to be lauded, not sneered at. Which parts of my post do you not consider correct?
Alright - I was harsh in my evaluation. However, I still think Stonewall was wrong to create this scandal. I feel that they used the law to their advantage against this couple. I think that these two hoteliers' beliefs are just as valid as the right of gay couples to be together. Would things have not been better served by the gay community just ignoring their hotel and taking their business elsewhere?
Alright - I was harsh in my evaluation. However, I still think Stonewall was wrong to create this scandal. I feel that they used the law to their advantage against this couple. I think that these two hoteliers' beliefs are just as valid as the right of gay couples to be together. Would things have not been better served by the gay community just ignoring their hotel and taking their business elsewhere?
Well, no, I don't. If something is wrong, it's wrong, and it should be opposed.
I think there are two quite separate issues here:
1) The hotelier's beliefs are as valid as the gay couples
2) Discrimination against minorities should not be allowed.
The answer to this dichotomy is, I believe, given in the title of the thread. The hoteliers have chosen a business which is inevitably going to clash with their beliefs.
If the hoteliers put up a sign saying "The Management Reserve the Right to Refuse Admission", I wonder would they get away with it? After all, you see that sign up everywhere.
If the hoteliers put up a sign saying "The Management Reserve the Right to Refuse Admission", I wonder would they get away with it? After all, you see that sign up everywhere.
Might get away with it once.
But it would be relatively simple to build a case against them if any more than that
If the hoteliers put up a sign saying "The Management Reserve the Right to Refuse Admission", I wonder would they get away with it? After all, you see that sign up everywhere.
To refuse entry but not to discriminate whilst doing so..
GL ;)
northernwaster
04-03-11, 20:05
Looks like you didn't read the article.
Two guys try to book a room and are refused - where are you getting the 'hero' angle from? :confused:
The hero gays trying to pick a fight thats not there as usual.
If they turned away a known peado no one would care - ITS THEIR HOME they have a RIGHT to turn away people they do not want in their own home.