Here's an interesting case in England.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull were ordered to pay damages after they refused to accommodate civil partners Martin Hall and Steven Preddy. According to the Bulls, they didn't refuse the two lads for being gay. They think any sex outside marriage is a sin, regardless of the people's gender, but the Court of Appeal wasn't having it and ordered them to pay £3,600 for discrimination against homosexuals.
In fairness to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who took the case on behalf of Hall and Preddy, they didn't seek costs, which could have been ruinous, although who might have borne the burden is another question, since the Bulls were backed by the Christian Institute, which describes itself as a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. Dodgy, in other words.
I'm in two minds about this.
If a pair of elderly people want to take paying guests in their home, should they not at the very least be able to decide what bedspring-music they feel comfortable listening to in the middle of the night? I'm fairly certain that they would have felt equally uncomfortable listening to a heterosexual couple getting it on, and it seems to me that their difficulty has more to do with their own personal repressions that with any particular antipathy towards gays.
I think they're equal-opportunity bigots who hate anyone failing to abide by their Christian edicts, and it seems wrong to hit the poor old codgers for £3,600, simply because they hold particular views on who should or should not be conjobbling under their roof. As a private home-owner, I'd reserve the right to decide what went on under my own roof, in the very same way that countless parents have done through the generations.
What do you think?
But more to the point, what's going on with Martin and Steven? Why exactly did they feel the need to share a bed in the home of people they knew had such a dislike of anything contrary to a particular brand of religious lunacy? Were they trying to prove a point? They're not exactly Rosa Parks, are they? They live in a country where the laws protect the rights of every sexual orientation and none. Would it have been very hard to just walk away from the two old bigots and spend the night in a more friendly establishment?
That's what I'd do if I felt unwelcome. Was it really necessary to hammer the point home so forcefully to two religion-obsessed, sexually-repressed old buffers? I don't particularly like what Peter and Hazelmary Bull stand for, but I don't like ideologically-driven vindictiveness either, and that's what this looks like.
What exactly did the case achieve — an unlimited right for gays to share a guesthouse with owners who hate everything they stand for?
I know you'll probably have a hundred reasons why I'm wrong about this, but it strikes me as a battle about nothing. The war has been won and what's the point in rooting out the last of the opposition? Are the Equality and Human Rights Commission looking for an absolute, unconditional victory? Jesus, even I'm not that extreme.
We're back to tinkers drinking in pubs Bock it's all about the license. Hasn't this case been going on for years now? I thought it had been sorted ages ago. As far as the boys go I agree was it really necessary to put these people through that kind of shite? Would they get it on in Grannys house? Would they knoble each other in mammys house? much ado about nothing I would say.
My point isn't really about the law. I can understand that it's illegal to refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation, gender or religion.
The question is whether it's sensible in this instance to nail the owners.
To me, they look like the sort of people who might just as easily bar bikers, midgets or people with tattoos, but none of these groups are protected by equality legislation.
What an elegant couple and the background, really ties it all together. Magnifique!
"To me, they look like the sort of people who might just as easily bar, bikers, midgets or people with tattoos". True, but i'd bet that the gay-homosexuals would be top of that list and i'd bet, that, that list would be nailed to the wall in some back office, list laminated of course.
So why would anyone want to share a house with the miserable bigots?
Fuck you talking about, that was my whole point.
Ah, I see. Too complex, too late and by that I mean too "tired".
Having actually read that properly, I am certain that, that couple should not have been prosecuted, and should be left alone. The real point is, what prior knowledge did the two gents have of the guesthouse before they rocked up and what indeed happened when they did.
What's so special about Gay men anyway?
Rob » Equality law protects people against discrimination on various grounds, including sexual orientation.
This is promoting / protecting the rights of one set of people at the expense of another. The Equality Act lists 9 grounds of descrimination sexual orientation and religion being but 2. This couple are being discriminated aginst for their christian beliefs. If you run a business then surely you should be able to choose your customers. Would a muslim b&b owner be compelled to serve alcohol?
I'm all for equality but not when you deny others on the road to achievement.
No.8 » No, because drinkers are not a protected class of people under the equality law.
I know that, I was trying to make the point that this couple are expected to deny their cristian beliefs to allow an unmarried couple share a room in their house. PC gone mad.
€3600 good, €10000 better!
When this couple opened their home to the general public for B&B or bought it for that purpose it was no longer a private home and therefore the law applies
And who gave planning permission for that sign plastered across the house? Wouldn’t “The Bull and Cow” be a better name anyway.
I have no doubt the judgement is legally sound, but that's not the issue I was trying to raise.
While I think the hoteliers should have been allowed turn away the couple if they were against all unmarried couples staying in their accommodation, homo and hetero. At least this was the basis of the hoteliers' defence.
It was only on my second reading of the piece that I realised they were actually in a civil partnership – obviously the law denied them the opportunity to marry – for this reason I think the court was right to find against this bigoted couple.
The legal system that wouldn't permit them marry can prosecute a christian hotelier for refusing the same unmarried couple to share a room in his hotel. And you agree with that?
Some of the adjectives/nouns used on this post and subsequent comments to describe this elderly couple are disgraceful to say the least. Sexually repressed, Miserable bigots, Two old bigots, The Bull and Cow.
Are these descriptions based on hard facts? Or just preconceived notions, or worse still prejudice. Or are they based simply on the photograph shown?
And what about the saintly homosexuals, what was their motives for bringing this case.
Fuck sake, get a grip. Theses are two elderly people for fucks sake. Winning this case did not strike a blow in defence of equal rights for homosexuals.
Its PC gone fucken mad.
Ah LJS you are misguided. In our perfect, PC world to disagree with a minority group is to be tarnished a devil. Homesexuals can do no wrong, they certainly never cause offence. This couple hold christian beliefs that prohibit unmarried couples from sharing a bed in their b&b. This smacks of Peter Thachell and his Outing campaign.
We have women only gyms, marathons, the ICA, gay rights, Pavee Point in fact the only people who can be dissed are white males. Portmarnock GC were taken to court for refusing women members. Yet the ICA and Curves can exclude men without a peep of outrage. By the same token of exclusion these bodies must be biggoted. It's freedom of speech as long as I agree with what you're saying.
Does it mention anywhere how they feel about dwarf throwing ?
As long as the dwarfs are legally married, and non indulging it what the Bulls would perceive as anti-christian behavioue, I can't see a problem.
This case was reported a year or more ago and has gone stale. Who says the owners of the hotel/guest house are 'miserable bigots'? Don't they have a right to believe that homosexual intercourse goes against the teaching of the Bible? Just as other readers of the Bible nowadays say that intercourse outside the marriage bond is fine as long as people love one another? Does anybody believe in adopting a liberal attitude towards people who wish to conduct their guest house business according to their puritan christian convictions?
Revisiting this stale case does call to mind the rights and apparently legal wrongs of pub managers to refuse certain categories of customers drinks – an issue somewhat different from the guest house situation, in that public behaviour in a crowded premises is the troubling matter. If a pub manager believes that certain customers will become 'animated' and obnoxious to other customers if served two or more rounds of drinks (because the manager has had experience of such quick collapse of self control with members of that category in the past) then surely, on commonsense grounds at least, the manager should have discretionary power to order staff to withold service.
What is about christian religious belief that gives people the right to behave in a bigoted manner. If the flying spaghetti monster told me that I should address all black people as 'nigger', could I use that as a righteous defence if I was prosecuted. Probably not, but only because not as many people in the FSM as those that believe in the white bearded man in the sky. Using religious belief as a defence is bullshit !
Obviously, by definition, they're bigots, and claiming Christian beliefs is no defence at all.
What I'd like to know is why anyone would want to spend the night under their roof.
According to dictionary.com : bigot = intolerant person. Are we not all bigoted sometime? But we don't all end up in court. I don't particularly agree with the Bulls but I do defend their right to do business with whom they choose. They have no legal obligation to accept anyones business.
Why would conjobbling be offensive though?
I wouldn't like to be listening to you conjobbling.
I'm a Ninja conjobbler. In and out, nobody sees anything and it's all over very quickly. I wonder do Christian fundamentalists hate Ninja conjobblers too?
Yes, what is a bigot? If it means an intolerant person, then we are all intolerant of certain things and types of personalities. Big Ian Paisley has often said that he is a bigot, meaning that he does not tolerate scriptural error and those who spread errors. "I have hated God's enemies with a righteous hate." he has memorably said.
Somebody who tolerates everything and every kind of personality must be a saint, a sczitzophrenic, or an impossible character fit only for a sci-fi novel. I think on this thread the term biased people might be more exactly used instead of bigots.
Well it gets fairly mixed reviews on Trip Advisor. Some of the bad reviews are gas – "Service: Appalling," and "The breakfast was the worst i have ever had during my trip in West England," being some of the highlights.
http://www.tripadvisor.ie/Search?q=Chymorvah+House
Homosexuality is more than just a sexual outlook —— it is a political power. That is nearer to the real reason why these people lost their case.
They shouldn't be in the hospitality business if they can't overlook their religious beliefs.
As for the Gay couple? how did they find out they weren't welcome?- did they arrive to be told they weren't welcome? if so, they then had the hassle and bother of finding alternative accommodation. weekend probably ruined.