Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Oh FFS ........... well seem like nice boys !

Oh superly duper.

A pair of "nice guys" have won a court battle because they are gay!

Well no not really.
Well yes really !!

Basically the owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

"When we booked to stay at the Chymorvah Hotel this was not, as some have suggested, a set up sponsored by a pressure group, we just wanted a relaxing weekend away - something thousands of other couples in Britain do every weekend," Mr Preddy said.

"Because we wanted to bring our new dog we checked he would be welcome. It didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 in Britain we needed to ask if we would be.

He said that the judgement showed that civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages.

Hazelmary Bull said the double bed policy was based on "sincere beliefs"

"Judge Rutherford has found that our treatment was an act of direct discrimination and therefore a breach of the law," he added.


Now if you read further here into this you will see the now famous "Human Rights Bill" was used.

So the question I ask is .............

Are the human rights of sexual preference stronger in law than the human rights of religious expression????????

I mean we roll over and take it up the ass every day to pacify the ranks of the Islamic faith (excuse the pun) but now we are saying that being gay, and being of any other religious belief is greater than being Christian.

IMHO..............There is no other section of our society that is pandered to, bowed down too and generally given as much freedom and air time as that of the gay and lesbian movement.............Bloody ridiculous !!


Captain Ranty said...

I did a similar piece over at mine.

Oddly enough, I do have some sympathy for the lads. As a smoker I have been discriminated against for five years.

It isn't very nice.


The Last Of The Few said...

Its not the fact they are gay or discriminated against.

Its how do you draw the line in this instance.

Discrimination cover religion as well.

How can the judge say being gay is more important then the owners staunch christian value.

They have a right as well..........so has this ruling meant every gay person who stays at this hotel is now being dicriminatory towards the owners and their religion?????

You see they also had help from the human board............so has the owner human rights been breeched now due to their religious beliefs on same sex marriages.

Captain Ranty said...

I know. It's a thorny one.

The questions you asked in the piece was the most important: whose rights have been mangled, whose rights are uppermost?

I don't have the answer really, but if I were in charge, I would lean more towards property rights and leave the decision up to the owners. The people who sweated and toiled to make their own business get to decide. They surely should be able to pick and choose who stays and who doesn't?


The Last Of The Few said...

I agree Capt.

but if you read into the ruling sadly they have no grunds on sex, race, creed or colour.

I suppose you could refuse a intrevenous heroin user..........or could you???

If they are a drug user and doing no harm and they have paid for the room then are their human rights also breeched.

It is not an answer and I await many more cases like this...........I also await a hotelier sueing a couple who may ask for a room, they stay and they sue them after they leave because they were forced to let them stay and as a result feel agreaved.

Captain Ranty said...

I think the law says that you can refuse anyone but you should not state why.

If you do you end up in the shit.

Like the Bulls did.


subrosa said...

Mmm. I do hope the couple are going to appeal. That's a big fine. Also I agree with you LotF. If the B & B is the owner's home then they should be able to say who enters. This will cause upset in the B & B business and open the flood gates for all sorts of persecutions.

Budvar said...

I suppose for future reference, when same sex guests arrive and you have a problem with it, the answer is "We only have twin rooms available". If this isn't to their liking, they have the right to try find somewhere that is, and "I'm sorry sir but deposits are non-refundable".

As far as I'm aware, crappy unfriendly service is not a crime. If it were places like Blackpool would be bankrupt overnight.

Gays now know that they're not welcome at the place, and any who insist on staying are doing so to rub their noses in it.

The Last Of The Few said...


I feel the vindictive ones amoungst that community will do just that

Tony Sidaway said...

Whose rights were infringed in this case? The law is clear: the married gay couple were treated differently because they were gay.

The Bulls are running a business and they have to run it within the law. They have a right to their religious beliefs but those beliefs don't give them the right to break the law. Treating people unequally isn't allowed.

Civil partnerships were deliberately set up to confer equal legal status with marriage, so the Bulls should not have treated those men as if they weren't married.

Budvar said...

Leaving aside that "Equality" is just a social construct, and we're not all equal as being a man I'm incapable of breastfeeding and the woman next door being thick as pig shit is no Einstein are two examples of the top of my head that prove the case beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Secondly a "Civil union" is not a marriage, never has and never will be.
A marriage is a 2 parter, one the ceremony and two the consummation. Yes the law can change the definition of a marriage to what ever it wishes, as it could change the definition of a dog to a cat, but in reality it's still a dog.

Finally, minorities of whatever persuasion being granted special status is by definition not in the interest of equality but superiority and therein lies the rub.

Tony Sidaway said...

Budvar, thanks for your response. The equality we're talking about here is equality before the law--a social construct of course I agree, but an actionable one. The specific nature of the equality here is equal treatment. Sure, you cannot lactate and your neighbour cannot write a critique of quantum physics, but for things that you can do you should not be treated differently on the grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation, gender and whatnot. It's the usual stuff that stops prejudice doing harm.
On what marriage is, that's strongly bound to traditions that go far beyond the reach of law. But for legal purposes in the Equality Act and most other UK law it means in a legally recognised marriage or civil partnership. The Act explicitly grants both equal status. Obviously we can think whatever we like as long as we act according to the law.
I don't understand what you mean about "special status" in your last bit. This law is specifically to grant *equal* status. No special treatment.


Related Posts with Thumbnails