“A WARM & friendly welcome awaits all guests at Susanne Wilkinson’s Swiss Bed & Breakfast in the idyllic village of Cookham, near Maidenhead in Berkshire … This Swiss-English family offers first class hospitality in their spacious & comfortable home to business, tourist or family visitors from all around the world”, according the B&B’s internet blurb.
Gays not welcome at the Swiss B&BH
False!
The “welcome” does not extend to “all guests”, as Michael Black and John Morgan, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, discovered when they were turned away from guesthouse in Terry’s Lane, Cookham (Tel 07758 505 014 or 07769 648 003) by Christian fundie Wilkinson when she discovered they were gay.
Wilkinson admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples.
The couple have now reported the matter to Thames Valley Police.
Under the Equality Act 2006 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Ms Wilkinson told the BBC:
They gave me no prior warning and I couldn’t offer them another room as I was fully booked. I don’t see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I’ve held for years just because the government should force it on me. I am not a hotel, I am a guest house and this is a private house.
Michael Black left and Morgan
Black and Morgan were in the village, near Maidenhead, to meet some friends for dinner and to see a local play.
Black told the BBC:
We’re two respectable middle-aged men – John is leader of the Lib Dem group on Huntingdon Town Council. Â This was the first time either of us had experienced homophobia at first hand, despite being aged 56 and 62, we were shocked and embarrassed.
He added:
Mrs Wilkinson saw us both before we got out of the car and immediately acted in an unwelcoming, cold way, but my boyfriend and I were polite and friendly. She said if we’d told her in advance she would have told us not to come. She apologised for turning us away. I asked for a refund of the deposit, which she gave me without quibble. All she said about her reasons for turning us away was that it went against her convictions for us to stay there.
Black said:
We’ve since told a large number of friends and acquaintances and the reaction has consistently been amazement that this should have happened. I’ve reported the matter to Thames Valley Police who have confirmed that they are following it up.
A spokesman for Stonewall, which campaigns for equality and justice for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, said turning someone away on the grounds of sexual orientation was illegal. Derek Munn, director of public affairs, said:
Stonewall was delighted when the law changed in 2007 so that lesbian and gay couples could go on their holidays like anyone else. In open and shut cases of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation the law’s quite clear – it’s illegal for businesses to turn away gay customers or discriminate against them when providing goods or services, and this can’t be overridden by personal prejudice.
Hat tip: BarrieJohn
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 21st, 2010 at 9:02 pm
The Guardian report digs a bit deeper, and has this gem:
“We are Christians and we believe our rights don’t have to be subordinated. We have religious freedom and we are not judging that but we are not prepared to have that sort of activity under our roof,” he said. “These people are very organised and we have already been inundated with abusive calls and emails. It is really sad that people act like that.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....hotel-room
You couldn’t make it up!
March 21st, 2010 at 9:50 pm
All minorities should speak out against denial of equal treatment to gays. (Even at 36 percent of the world population, nontheists are still a minority.) Remember the WW II graffiti: “They came for the Jews, and I wasn’t a Jew so I didn’t try to stop them ………… Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to stop them.”
March 21st, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Just more Christianists thinking their chosen lifestyles give them the right to wantonly discriminate against others.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:07 pm
And of course we all know what would happen if atheists hotel owners were to turn away a fundie couple! No doubt this story will be twisted by the fundies who will whinge about those nice christians being persecuted.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I believe that was Martin Niemoller, Dr Harwood, though there seems some doubt as to what his words were precisely. It is a very impressive piece of prose, however.
http://www.serendipity.li/cda/niemoll.html
March 21st, 2010 at 10:19 pm
THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
March 21st, 2010 at 10:31 pm
I live in the U.S. where discrimination against gays is sanctioned by the government. So I refuse to even try to give my money at places of accommodation that is not known among the local gay community as at least being “gay friendly”. I have no problem whatsoever in giving my considerable expendable income to gay owned and operated, or gay friendly businesses. Screw these other people, they don’t deserve my money.
I’m even in the process of eliminating all my credit cards so I can stop giving money to the Mormons who own the credit company.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:47 am
What if their objections are not based in Christianity or any other religion? What kind of free-thinking is it to force one persons chosen lifestyle on another?
And then to threaten and abuse them because they think differently?
What kind of ‘freethinking’ did people have in mind exactly?
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:51 am
“I don’t see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I’ve held for years just because the government should force it on me.”
Apart from the law you have:
Because they’re bigoted and based upon an absurd superstition.
Because you make more money by doing so.
Because people do it all the time. Changing and learning from your experiences is what makes life exciting and worth living. Otherwise you’re just going through the motions while waiting to die. Oh…sorry, that’s the fundamental tenet of your belief, isn’t it?
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:35 am
Maybe it would help if we all agreed on a definition for discrimination.
Ones woman’s discrimination is another persons freedom of speech.
SHE COULD HAVE LIED AND SAID SHE HAD A DOUBLE BOOKING!
Ok, so the women is a complete idiot, and no doubt a twerp, BUT
there is actually a HUGE difference between:
- refusing people a job because of something they do at home, and
- refusing to let people sleep in your home because of something they do in your home.
She said – had she been able to offer them a second room – no problem.
Meanwhile:
Hairdressers are being sued for not employing people unwilling to uncover their hair.
Firms are being sued for not providing special prayer rooms for mohammedans.
But someone says: Sorry folks, don’t give double rooms to people not married and WHAM!
Agreed, I think she should have found them a new place to stay and paid for it, but, even as an atheist, I think there is a definite imbalance on the old “what constitutes my right to practice my religion and what is just a pain in the a*”?
Seems if you follow mohammed you can do almost anything, including enter a bank fully mummed (which I am not allowed to do), whereas everybody else has to throw their wierdo principles out of the window.
Much as I disagree with her wierdo principles, I will back her to practice them in her own home!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:03 am
People seem to think it makes a diference that this was her home. But it was also her place of business. These guys didnt just show up and barge into her house, they booked a stay in her B&B!
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 am
gsw: she’s running a business, not inviting strangers in to sample her hospitality free of charge! You are completely wrong, I’m afraid!!
JT: spot on!!!
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:28 am
DT: it all depends on what the stupid bat considers “abusive”. If she is being told in no uncertain terms that her views are bigoted and mediaeval, then that is just the sad truth, I’m afraid, and she needs to join the rest of us in the Twentyfirst Century. I used to hold views similar to hers, but as JT says, I have grown up now, and I am pleased to read on other forums that the younger generation in this country, even Muslims, are far more open-mided than previous ones, so perhaps there is hope yet! Has she actually been “threatened”? It doesn’t say so here as far as I can see, and if she has, then the police should be informed. And please don’t raise that old chetnut again about us “forcing our way of life on others”! Firstly, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A LIFESTYLE CHOICE, as you erroneously aver, and secondly, I was not aware of any “Lifestyle Police” entering people’s homes and forcing them to engage in homo sex at the point of a gun!!
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 am
@barriejohn:
Strangely, I have experienced the “an unmarried man and women cannot share a room” more often on the continent than a “two men/two women cannot share a room”. So, how did she know they were gay?
If she had said “We are a fundamentalist, and extremely bigoted B&B so don’t come here if you are gay” in her advertisement, people wouldn’t have liked that either!
Actually, I would agree with you totally if it was a hotel, since it would then be purely a business, but B&B is more of a family ‘part-time’ paying guest arrangement.
I remember staying at a B&B in Cornwall many years ago, and I hated it! Since the owners had so many rules, we ended up only returning in the evening and leaving early next morning. Needless to say, there was no return visit and friends were warned to avoid the place.
I know people who run B&Bs, most guests are repeat or recommended by previous guests. Suing people who are designed to go broke anyway is a waste of time and money.
Maybe if we relaxed the increasingly PC never-say-what-you-mean rules, there would be less problems.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:56 am
She had every right to turn away those men and the fact they went to the police when you reimbused is utter cheek and a publicity/ money-making stunt. I don’t understand how muslims and every other religion/ ethnicity can come to this country and have their say in how things are done but someone who is a Christain, the native religion to this country, cannot say who stays in her house. It’s appalling! Well done, all I can say is well done for showing the rest of us that we don’t have to bend over and take it
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 am
So… the name ‘Christian’ is just a polite way of saying backward these days… Do they not know that homosexuality has been around a lot longer that their beliefs? Let alone most of the things that Christianity condemns has been around longer than it.
I wouldn’t mind so much if Christianity was there at the beginning all those tens of thousands of years ago when Palaeolithic era was in full swing, and Christianity was laying down the law… Alas it wasn’t, Christianity is still an infantile practice in the eyes of the world however, although it’s young, dumb and full of hate towards anything that’s not Christian, it hasn’t caught up with the rest of the world and is still as barbaric and backward as the day it was first spewed upon mankind.
I know it seems a bit of contradiction “how can something young or new be primitive?” But believe me; it’s very possible for something new to be as savage, barbaric and hopelessly ‘Stone Age’ as Christianity is.
Forgive the rant, now Secular Humanism was the philosophy which stopped religious influence over the government and the running of the country, and the British government exercises that philosophy so… if the law states that it’s illegal to discriminate against some one for there sexual orientation then the Nazi that runs the Swiss B&B has committed a criminal offence under U.K. Law for which she must atone. Her religion and her beliefs will account for nothing.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 am
H – you’re priceless! Or is that post a complete joke? Christianity “the native religion to this country”? I think not. Ask the Ancient Romans. And, as the imbecile was breaking the law, I think that the people to see are…the police! You must be particularly thick, yourself, though, not to get the point that she can make whatever rules she likes about whomever stays in her house – AS LONG AS IT IS A PRIVATE DWELLING. Discrimination on the basis of sexuality is now against the law in this country, when providing a service to the public. And as for your final statement that “we don’t have to bend over and take it” – no further comment necessary!!!
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 am
gsw: you can’t make fine distinctions like that. It is a business, providing a service to the public, and she has to abide by the law. If she doesn’t want to put up gay guests she should run a chicken farm.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
And that would be a chicken farm with no cocks!
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I am entirely with BarrieJohn on this one. The woman is running a BUSINESS, which is promoted on the internet. I have no doubt that the fall-out from this incident will do the B & B a lot of harm, but I can’t help feelings that all of this could have been avoided if the owners made clear in their promotional material that theirs was an establishment operated strictly along fundamentalist Christian lines. This would ensure that homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, Jews and other “undesirables” would give the place a wide berth.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
H- You’re a part of the problem, your attitude and people like you make me sick to my core, you don’t register with me as a part of the human race because there’s nothing humane about you or your opinions. Your just a mindless collective of cells and tissue whom contributes nothing to the greater good of mankind, you just serve as something to flare tempers with your cavalier ‘speak now, think never’ attitude.
Please do some research before you start making claims, Christianity is not the native religion of this country, I think you’ll find if you bother to read books you science fearing barbarian, that ancient Britons had an animistic belief system, similar to Druidism and Paganism, Shinto of Japan or the Native American Indian tribes people.
These practices are a damn sight more virtuous than Christianity, they teach the respect and worship of nature and mother earth and our ancestors. In lament terms for your Christian ears ‘Things that exist’ or have ‘existed’ not some blind, fanatical conjecture of a big invisible man who lives in the sky, whom loves you and teaches you forgiveness and acceptance of others and will forgive you of your sins, but will send you to hell for them.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Seventh Cavalry to the rescue!
“The Christian couple are being advised by The Christian Institute. The case mirrors that of Christian B&B owners from Cornwall who are currently being sued over the same issue.”
http://www.christian.org.uk/ne.....bb-owners/
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Assuming this was not a breach of contract, they had every moral right to turn these people away. The question of illegality is irrelevant as this blog often stands up against immoral laws. No law should force you to conduct business with people you don’t like and portraying these two men as some kind of heroes is sickening. The owners may be idiots and immoral but that’s their right.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
I strongly recommend the chapter, “Synopsis of English Grammar,” in THE DISINFORMATION CYCLE, for commentators who confuse your/yore/you’re, and who/whom (who is nominative; whom is accusative; they are not interchangeable).
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Oh, for a week of all gay people in the land refusing to serve or employ anybody who is both heterosexual and Christian, just to see how that goes down with those defending this woman.
H – I think you will find that Christains [sic] in this country get to ‘have their say’ all the time, the buck just doesn’t stop with them anymore. How frustrating.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I have both Fowler and Partridge, Dr Harwood, but in our haste we all make mistakes on websites!
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:25 pm
The law disallows discrimination against gays. If you like, good, if you don’t please emmigrate to where the law is on your side. You could try a fundamentalist muslim country.
At the end of the day, all of us like some laws and dislike others. We do not take the law into our own hands. We follow what we like and even what we don’t.
By the way, Michael Wilkinson gay? He does look so camp with that moustache!
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Has these so called christians forgot they are running a b&b,or are they trying to avoid taxes,by saying that their b&b is now a private house.Ifso i think they have just let the cat out of the bag.Also by turning away paying customers it is not very christian like,they should be ashamed of themselfs.At this present state of afairs, what with the credit crunch,i dont think these owners of the b&b should be so picky.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
I proofread every posting at least three times before hitting SEND, but typos still get through. So I am not the one to throw stones at other people’s glass houses. My comment was aimed at persons who appear to be unaware of basic spelling rules, not those who do not catch all typos. And certainly my book is not the only guide to correct English.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I think the treatment of these two to be abhorrent, just as the other comments left here would indicate the majority to feel.
I think, though, that a business should be able to govern itself and run as it sees fit and deal with the consequences of that action. These two should make a complaint to a business bureau which would facilitate negative reviews of the business, not to a police or government agency. This only empowers government.
These gentlemen should find a B&B willing to accommodate them and then they should promote that business publicly. Let private transaction regulate itself without more government interference.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Unfortunately, Steve, there are a LOT of people who, upon hearing of this woman’s bigotry, will be beating a path to her door, not eschewing her little hell hole!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Who do these second rate hostelriers think they are? What cheeky bastards. A clear case of discrimination, but damages would be difficult to prove.
According to Sky News, the landlord of the B&B and his sensitive wife have been inundated with offensive messages since the news item aired. Well I can assure you that mine was one of them!
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:14 pm
I agree with you, barriejohn.
Authoritative regulation of morality and choice, however, is a futile goal and one that will negatively impact everyone.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
I thought that Christians were very proud of their principle of reciprocity, do not do to others that which is hateful to you. They are so proud of this principle of ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ that they even falsly claim that their founder Jesus invented it.
So how would Susanne Wilkinson feel if she had booked a holiday and travelled down to her digs only to be told at reception, “Sorry, but it is against our convictions to let Christians stay here, so fuck off and find some bigotted deluded shitwits like yourself to put you up?”
To all those that have come on this thread to defend her actions I ask you this:
Would you be defending her if she had refused accomodation to black people just because they were black? Would you be defending her if she had refused accomodation to Jews just because they were Jews?
You may try to claim that this is different but it is not, it is exactly the same, shame on you for being too stupid to know that.
Just so that you know, I am herosexual and so have no vested interest in this matter.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Christians distinguish between the person and the act. So, for example, I may disapprove of prostitution, but a prostitute is a human person made in the image of God, and entitled to respect as such. So it is with homosexuality, an abhorrent practice, which is not just against the law of God, but against natural law, which can be comprehended by people of all faith and none. Until very recently, homosexuality was taboo in virtually every culture.
Homosexuals are human persons and entitled to respect. My reading is that Mrs Wilkinson did respect them as people, but was not prepared to allow them to share the same bed. It is her house, and any interference with her rights as such is wrong and unjust. She is a brave woman and needs our support.
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Perhaps if Ms Wilkinson had followed the the example of the “righteous man” , Lot, from her bible, and sent her daughters out to be raped by the sodomites, then her god would have been justified in raining fire and sulfer on her guesthouse. Oh, but, shit!!! She’d have to leave forever, and if she looked back, she’d turn to a pillar of salt.
By the way, “righteous” Lot got drunk and raped both his daughters. If you don’t believe me, look it up. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html
NeoWolfe
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:24 pm
There is so much wrong with your comment, St Patrick, that I wonder where to begin. For one thing, what the bloody hell is “natural law”? Considering the fact that many animals besides humans practice homo and anal sex, and that these acts are physically possible, then they must per se be perfectly “natural”. And until the Old Testament was compiled, and largely written, by Jewish elders in the 1st Millennium BCE, homosexuality was seen by many societies as quite normal behaviour. Oh, and if you consult that holy book of yours, instead of making up your religion on the hoof, you will find that GOD HATES SINNERS!
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 am
@William Harwood:
Oh, you is preeching two the choir man!
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
You might think a pair of dimwitted Christians would have drawn an analogy between their ejecting would-be guests in the dead of night and that sad little tale of Mary and Joeseph being told there was “No room at the inn!”.
I’m simply astonished they didn’t go so far as to offer Michael and John their stable.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
There is more information about the couple here:
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.u.....our_views/
Mr Wilkinson actually comes out with this garbage:
“We’re sorry they’ve been upset and we’re upset. It’s a clash of two different points of view.
“We’re very sad that the state of the country is that such laws exist at all. We would say actually we obey other laws, we obey God’s laws.
“We’re not discriminating on race, religion or any other reason and we want to make it really clear we’re not homophobic.â€
And here are some comments, just as if to prove that “you don’t have to be homophobic and retarded to live in Buckinghamshire but it sure helps”:
“Homosexual activity is clearly stated as a sin in the bible. If you believe in what the bible has to say you cannot then knowingly allow homosexual union on your premises, simple as that.
“In certain countries homosexuality is unheard of – I don’t mean swept under the carpet, I mean it does not exist.”
And another:
“I am not homophobic but believe in one simple fact: men are not born gay!
“You cannot compare a gay man’s rights to those of an afro-caribbean man.
“I’d like to see some stats on gay couple adoptions – I wager that a much higher percentage of such adopted children end up in gay relationships than the national average.
“I want my children to grow up and have children themselves because I want to be a grandad one day – so when I see them looking at two men in a clinch on the front page of a gay mag on a shelf in WH Smith it really bugs me because I think their minds are being influenced by this material.
“I don’t like the way traditional views are now being aggressively attacked as homophobic.”
He believes it, so it must be true!!
March 24th, 2010 at 9:50 am
My sincere apologies. My previous post was NOT supposed to be in bold throughout, but “disappeared” again without giving me the opportunity to edit. How embarrassing!
March 24th, 2010 at 9:52 am
PS The only word that was supposed to be in bold was the first one – “this”!!
March 24th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Michael and John should have said they were married.That way everyone would have known there wouldn’t be any sex taking place anyway?
March 24th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@chrsbol: you raise an interesting point. If the two men had been married, and if, as they claimed, the couple were not homophobic, would they then have allowed them to share a bed? (I think I know the answer!)
March 24th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
What I find odd here, is how little “Freethinking” in going on. If it is a Freethinking given to respect differing points of view, why is there so much intolerance of differing views being expressed? Anyone who questions the consensus is vilified and abused. A bit of a phyrric victory, that one, folks…
March 24th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
You’ve missed the point completely, I’m afraid, Dusty! We are only intolerant of people with closed minds, not people who ask questions!!
April 4th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Just more ‘Gays’ thinking their chosen lifestyles gives them the right to wantonly enforce their choices on others.
April 4th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Precisely how does the requirement that gays have equal treatment equate to “wantonly enforcing their choices on others”? And gay, by the way, is no more a “chosen lifestyle” than being black. Rob, you are a twat!
April 4th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
As usual, a few militant “we speak for all gay people!” activists are making a mountain out of nothing, and giving the rest of us a bad name. This B&B is run by deeply religious people (whether you think they are narrow minded bigots or not, it’s their views and their house). So what if we can’t stay there? For goodness sakes….. There are thousands of other B&Bs in this country which will take our pink pounds!
April 15th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
What an interesting read the comments have made particularly Mr barriejohn.
Until the governments social engineering over the last 13+ years homosexuality was viewed unacceptable. Young people have been educated since, and society in general, with the new engineered belief aggresively persued by the likes of Stonewall. Consequently we have the reverse in society that should you express your disapproval of homosexuality a word has been invented to place all such people as ‘homophobic’ {i.e. someone who hates homosexuals}
Examples on here of attacks on those who do not approve of homosexuality are, – idiot, twerp, stupid bat, dimwittd etc etc. How interesting that those who have demanded tolerance for the said act are incapable of demonstraing the much demanded same tolerence to those that disagree with them. Speaks for itself really. Many homosexuals appear to be the most intolerant group against all who disagree with them.
Whatever century we live in, natural law does not change. Holding the distinction across society, and supported by government laws, that homosexuality was not acceptable whilst tolerated has been aggressively attacked by the homosexual lobby who now gloat in forcing their view on the rest of society. Two wrongs never make a right if you think the former was wrong wouldn’t you say.
The attack on this B+B couple has been no more than a publicity campaign by these two people who should have just got on with it and found alternative accomodation. Hetrosexuals would have had to if denied a bed because they were not a married couple and this does happen.
Finally some people do not approve of homosexual lifestyles – get over it! It is called free thinking.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
“Finally some people do not approve of homosexual lifestyles – get over it! It is called free thinking.”
No it’s not, Rick, it’s called bigotry.
May 4th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Does anyone know why none of the local friends of the gay couple wouldn’t put them up once they were made aware of the refusal ?