CHRISTIAN bed-and-breakfast owners may have to start rethinking their “gays not welcome” policies following an important court ruling on discrimination.
According to this BBC report, a judge has awarded damages to a gay couple who were turned away from the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance by a miserable pair of Jesus junkies who own the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull
Peter and Hazelmary Bull 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, and they were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.
The couple said in a statement:
When we booked the hotel we just wanted a relaxing weekend away, something that thousands of other couples do every weekend. 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.
Speaking outside court Mrs Bull said she and her husband would discuss an appeal with their lawyers.
The Bulls said their policy had been in force for the past 24 years
We are obviously disappointed with the result. Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody.
In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said that, in the past 50 years, social attitudes in Britain had changed and it was inevitable that some laws would “cut across” some people’s beliefs.
I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants’ beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold.
He added:
It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.
Gay equality charity Stonewall said it was delighted at the outcome. Its Chief Executive Ben Summerskill 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.
Brace yourselves for howls of “persecution!” from bigots everywhere.
Hat tip: Marcus
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
January 18th, 2011 at 11:53 am
They can howl all they like. In the UK and USA the rules state that if you are open to the public then you are open to all the public.
It is very easy to be a bigot, all you do is register your business (B&B) as a private club that you must register with and is thus not open to the general public. Or better yet register as the ‘church of white-heterosexual immaculate conception’ or some such. Or don’t register as a B&B and sell tickets to stay there only thru other white-hetero churches.
Ya I know nothing was mentioned about race but I have found that most gay bigots are also general bigots about most everything else, once you get them pinned down.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:57 am
It seems “gay” wasn’t the problem, it was their being unmarried. So let’s get Elton John to go and stay there and see what happens…
January 18th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Bravo.
January 18th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.”
You mean we’re starting to live in a country fit for the 21st Century, as opposed to the 1st Century AD? Where will it?
January 18th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
End?
January 18th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
The missus and me have been happily living together for 20 years without ever feeling the need to tie the knot. Perhaps we should pay a visit to the Bull’s house of fun(damentalism). Unmarried atheists sharing the same bed – I’m sure they’d love that one too!
January 18th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
It’s nice to read some good news here occasionally.
Even if it was an issue about marriage, that in itself makes it an issue about it being a gay couple. As mariage is still only between a man and a woman (as Civil Partnerships are no the exact same thing), then by discriminating against them because they are unmarried, it could be argued that they were being discriminated again because they are gay.
January 18th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Lead to next, actually.
January 18th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Do they stop menstruating woman from sleeping in the same bed and room as their husbands?
They cant go picking a choosing what crackpot biblical principles they follow. All mixed fibres must be banned, along with all shellfish eaters.
January 18th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
The Judge has made the correct decision based on English law, a law that the religiots continue to flout. No doubt the Bulls, funded by xtain loony friends, will waste more of their money and the courts time trying to get this decision overturned.
The bigots are out in force on the Daily Wail site!
January 18th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
On the rights issue, good. I do however feel that 1800 for the hassle of finding another bed for the night is a little much.
January 18th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
The booking form on their web site still carries their warning about married couples.
I realise they’ve only just lost the case and won’t have had time to change it yet, but it might be worth keeping an eye on it in the coming days to see if they remove it.
As I said when the story broke a few months ago, I’d be surpised if many heterosexual unmarried couples get turned away from there. It’s easy to fake being married when you’re a hetero couple. Unless they ask for your marriage certificate at check in.
*thinks their problem is with gay people and the “marriage” thing is just their way of doing homophobia in a sly way*
January 18th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
From the BBC report:
The Bulls said their double rooms were only for married couples – but Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, being civil partners, have exactly the same legal status as a heterosexual couple.
The 2010 Equality Act has consolidated the law in this area and cleared up some grey areas.
I retract what I said about them not being the same. They should both be called marriage for sociatal reason though.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I meant to put this link in my post.
The hotel’s online booking form:
http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/bookingform.html
Will be interesting to see if their proviso stays put.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
@David Lawson
“They should both be called marriage for sociatal reason though.”
Agreed. The main reason they’re not is because of idiots like the Bulls.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Absolutely correct, @David Lawson, and that is the point that so many on other sites are failing to grasp. They were told to piss off not because they were gay, but because they were in a civil partnership and not “married”. Such discrimination is illegal, whatever people might think of civil partnerships, and that is why the E&HRC took this case to court.
January 18th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
@barriejohn,
I got married in a registry office. Would the fundies consider this not a marriage too, because it wasn’t in church?
I know it’s a civil ceremony, but not sure if that makes it a civil partnership too, ie is it the same basic service as gay couples get?
January 18th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
There are intriguing questions as to what constitutes marriage. We were married in a Registry Office but then we are hetero-sexual. What about those who are on their second, third or fourth marriage? Are they acceptible? Or what about the Las Vegas type marriages – ten minutes and you are married. An American bad leader, forget whom, was married seven or eight times. Is he OK?
I suspect the gay issue is the problem.
January 18th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“We are obviously disappointed with the result. Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody.”
“I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants’ beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold.”
This really drives me up the wall – the self-serving, oblivious arrogance of religious folk who think that by citing sincerity their bigotry should be granted special privilege. They do not seem capable of understanding that just because they really, really believe gay people are sub-human does not give them license to treat gay people as sub-human. It is quite sinister that they pretend that truly believing homosexuals are inferior is ‘not hostility’. They might as well say “we only burn witches to death because of our sincere belief they should not be allowed to live – we are not hostile to witches and we are NOT bigots”. What pisses me off the most is that they think such beliefs makes them good people, and somehow they can carry in their head the ideas that they are anti-gay enough to appease their god but at the same time definitely not one of those homophobes people go on about.
January 18th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Civil partnerships are quite distinct from marriage, whether the latter be conducted in a church or register office. Heterosexual couples are barred from having a civil partnership, and some have challenged this on the basis of equality! My Plymouth Brethren friends only grudgingly accept register office weddings, and a couple who had not had a religious wedding would not be accepted into fellowship in most places until their union had been blessed. I also remember the occasion when a Sunday School scholar’s parents were interested in “the gospel”, but I was warned to let the matter drop, as they were divorcees, and if they joined us that would “cause problems”! Christians are really nice people!!
January 18th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
I have heard quite a bit of bleating on the radio today. One thing that I noticed was the way in which all Christians are being implicated and the suggestion that it is now impossible for all the Christians in Britain to practice their faith. I would love to hear from some Christians that do not want to be associated with these people and can state that they don’t feel the need to practice homophobic bigotry as part of their faith.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
“We are obviously disappointed with the result. Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody.”
Well, your sincere beliefs about marriage *are* hostility to anybody by default. You are free to follow them out of public as much as you want to, but the moment you force your private beliefs into influencing another’s life, the law will rightfully come down on you like a hawk on a fat mouse.
And make no mistake about it: The law is above your belief for good reason.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
To be frank, I’m a bit pissed off about this one.
Whilst the couple that own the hotel need a kick up the arse and dragged into the 21st century, it does state quite clearly on their website their prehistoric views.
It has also annoyed my that Hall and Preddy have taken something that could have been very easily avoided and turned it into a cause.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Right on! I’m glad those right wing, daily mail reading bigots got what they deserved. Besides, the couple in question was married…they just happened to be gay.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Recent Tripadvisor reviews of the place:
“The welcome was hardly warm and that set the tone for the time we were there. Decoration is tired and well out of date in the public rooms as well as in the bedroom and ensuite. Grout needed renewing in the shower and as for pictures of the Andrex puppy – that was weird! And I have never before seen a nailbrush with a hotel name sticker on it!
I appreciate that the owners obviously have firm religious views but I think religious tracts and prayers left in the ensuite is taking it a bit far. We wandered the gardens which again must have been wonderful once but now look sad and decrepit. Even the chickens had poor lodgings with just mud and little left to scratch at in their pen. The steps to the beach felt precarious.
We ate out. Breakfast time is listed as 8 – 9am – we had not appreciated that that meant in at 8 out by 9 for the cooked breakfast we were given – with no choice ( thankfully we are not vegetarians or fussy eaters) at 8.40am had obviously been sat about since 8am. It was tepid, swimming in fat and with poor quality ingriedients. Again no choice about toast – cannot remember the last time I ate white bread!
Grim. It was a world away from the place we had stayed the night before – which was clean, bright, and warm with plenty of choice. It did not have the location of Chymorvah but it had a whole lot more.”
——————-
“I suppose I should have realised from the website that stated that as they were committed Christians, they wouldn’t allow anyone not married to share a bed. As I was on my own this didn’t matter, but the place is full of religious texts, bibles all over the place – very freaky and uncomfortable. ”
——————-
“Never ever again will i let my other half book a hotel for us again!!
I dont even know where to start, maybe with the religious fanatics who run the place, or perhaps the bacon and sausage flaoting round my breakfast plate in a sea of grease, no i think i’ll start with the, why i first thought was, chich 1950′s charm….ummm no it had just not been decorated since before sliced bread was invented!
The service and ‘welcome’ was as friendly as havin a gun pointed to your face with a sinister smile on the face of the person about to fire it! not what i would have expected from people who describe themselves as ‘christians and accomadating in a unaccomadating world’!
The room was hidiously decorated and the ensuite (if you could a wardrobe with a loo and sink in it as an ensuite) was uncleaned from, what looked lie, the previous 2 weeks worth of stupid people who booked to stay here!
All in all i found the place very ‘sad’, it could be a wonderful place, the views form the gardens are stunning….its just a shame if you turn 3 degrees to the left you see the actual garden. ”
——————-
“The hotel in general is very tired, chintzy and has lots of religous texts and notices in the public areas. I felt it was a bit over the top especially when I noticed the mosaic on the reception desk which had the word Christ repeated across the top. ”
———————
Sounds lovely.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Oh, and I missed this bit:
“The welcome pack was tucked away in a drawer but there was a bible opened and ready to read!! There was also other religous pamphlets in the room.”
As I said previously, don’t let this place and the people who run it stop you visiting Marazion if you’re ever in that part of Cornwall. It’s a beautiful little place.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:38 am
Hang on! If they claim it was because the couple weren’t married that they refused them the accommodation, doesn’t that mean that they would treat a couple of characters from their book of fairy tales the same way? Not only was that la-la-land couple unmarried, but the female was up the duff!
These two should stop making excuses and admit it was because they hate homosexuals.
January 19th, 2011 at 7:33 am
The Daily Mail is really going to town on this story now!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....-room.html
Hotel owner Hazelmary Bull: ‘Much is said about “equality and diversity” but it seems some people are more equal than others’
Judge: ‘It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed’
Case brought by taxpayer-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission
Hotel owners facing financial ruin after they are ordered to pay costs
January 19th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Just have a look at some of the comments on that Mail site! I found one that I more-or-less agreed with and it is rated Minus 306 at the moment!!
January 19th, 2011 at 8:49 am
“We don’t necessarily discriminate. We simply exclude certain types of people”
I stole this from a list of ridiculous quotes but it fits.
January 19th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
As this story has unfolded I have begun to suspect that the gay couple may have gone after these hoteliers on purpose. It would appear that the Bulls make no secret of the fact that they are Godsoaked idiots and that any couple who are either unmarried or gay would be well advised to avoid them. Is it possible that these guys knowing that having their civil partnership to counter the unmarried rule, they could smoke out the homophobia and then take these people to court?
Papers like the Daily Mail are making an issue that the ruling will force them out of business. If that is the case, they really have no one but themselves to blame. Judging by the Tripadvisor quotes from Pete H, it is surprising that they are still in business now.
January 19th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
What Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy should have done is take the two beds, pushed them together and fucked like bunnies. Very loudly. One of them should’ve gone down to the reception with a ‘tube of smarties’ in his dressing gown and asked if they could possibly have some olive oil as they’d run out of lube.
But seriously, the result of this ruling is brilliant news. I hope this sets a precedence!
January 20th, 2011 at 12:57 am
Hmmm….looking at their booking form, it says:
Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).
So, not just “marriage” as the issue – even if a gay civil union were called a marriage, it’s not between one man and one woman, so they wouldn’t be allowed to stay….and, as an interesting sidebar, neither would anyone of a polygamous faith ! How much louder would the cries be if they’d barred a polygamous Muslim, or Mormon or whatever ?! Faith vs Faith….the funniest battle of all !!
Rog
January 20th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I’ve noticed that bigots always expect people to think their bigotry is just fine as long as it is “sincere.”
January 20th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Proof that it’s an anti-gay thing rather than an anti-unmarried people’s thing:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/c.....med-i.html
January 21st, 2011 at 8:29 am
Pete H: If these facts can be substantiated, will they be charged with perjury?
January 21st, 2011 at 11:09 am
@barriejohn
I’m not a legal expert, so I’d only be speculating. I suppose they could, but my guess would be that it would depend on at least a couple of extra factors:
a) Maybe they’d need more than one heterosexual unmarried couple to come forward and testify as these people did – ie, their marital status was never raised by the owners. You’d probably need more than just this pair to prove that they regularly had unmarried couples in that they didn’t question over their marital status. Otherwise if it was just this pair, they could claim they just forgot to ask this one time?
b) Someone would need the will to make an issue of this evidence and be willing to push it towards further action, ie possible perjury charges. Maybe the NSS would want to pursue it?
Hopefully someone does.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:54 pm
If you want a laugh regarding this article, try reading Bob Hutton’s ludicrous take on the whole thing.
http://bobhutton1.blogspot.com.....laugh.html
January 21st, 2011 at 5:04 pm
That’s brilliant Marcus. Even a spoof couldn’t come close to that!
A Christian couple who wish to run a Hotel in accordance with their beliefs – how pretentious!!
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:11 am
The Mail have yet ANOTHER take on this same story now!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....cuted.html
They’re not being persecuted – they broke the law, and then argued that black is white, so they have to take the consequences!! Anyway, if it’s a “loss-making business” and he is so ill, aren’t they better off pulling out and retiring now?
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Barriejohn, is this a case of the compassionate, loving Christians at the Mail asking us to feel sympathy for the circumstances of other human beings?
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Only when they’re white, heterosexual, conservative, Christian and “middle class”, apparently, JMW!
January 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
Did anyone else watch The Big Questions this morning? For once I am speechless!
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Thanks for the tip, BJ. Good grief, there are some pretty horrendous people on this programme, particularly the bald chap at the start of the segment about the hotel torturing himself with attempts to logically justify discrimination and not call it discrimination. Then he turned nasty as he finally made the homophobia bubbling beneath the surface abundantly clear by insisting that ‘buggery’ is morally reprehensible and any reasonable person would agree. Right…
But it is great to see that other people (mostly young people) have no respect for them and their nonsense. I can see an anger in the wrinkled faces of those who feel affronted at no longer being allowed to be bigots, mixed with bewilderment at how they have lost the moral high ground. It is a shame to see so many people who are probably fairly decent folks clinging to their prejudice as if it were a virtue while all about them goes to hell. They do not seem to be able to understand that no longer being able to treat ‘certain people’ differently is a good thing – because of course they were never ‘certain people’ themselves and therefore things must have been good to begin with.
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Yes – and here’s the link for anyone else who missed those pearls of wisdom:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007zpll
That bald coot seems a regular self-appointed “rentaquote” on the programme. He appears to be cast in the mould of Stephen Green, poor bugger (so to speak!). Where does the BBC find these people, and who exactly is he?