Homosexual couple sue Christian hotel owners for refusing them a double room

[Matth]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5032...uble-room.html

Martyn Hall, who lives with civil partner Steven Preddy, has lodged a county court claim for £5,000 in damages, alleging 'direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation' against the hotel owners, Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

The question is, are these people the injured party, or are they simply trying to make a point for points sake by going against the Christian values which it appears they would have been fully aware of in advance.

Why should a couples sexual preferences be respected more than a couple's religious belief? Both are a matter of choice, so either both should be protected, or neither!

Would there be the same case if a Muslim run establishment had objected, I think not, since political correctness gone mad demands that we avoid offending every race and religion except our own (and mine varies between Agnostic / C of E by default).

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/e...andbelief.aspx

[idi banashapan]

oil doesn't mix with water. why try it?

I think they knew they wouldn't get a double room when they booked and this is just another exercise in trying to push the boundries a little further. While i do not support the view the couple have i respect their right ot have it and practise it and maybe if this couple had that level of understanding for the couple they expect for themselves this would never have happened.

[moaningmags]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I think they knew they wouldn't get a double room when they booked and this is just another exercise in trying to push the boundries a little further. While i do not support the view the couple have i respect their right ot have it and practise it and maybe if this couple had that level of understanding for the couple they expect for themselves this would never have happened.

I agree, I went to the website and on picking a room to book you quite clearly see the following:-

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).
Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.

No-one can claim they didn't see it, it's not hidden away.
Call me cynical but I think they're simply trying to make some quick money.

[danielf]

Well the hotel owners were aware they were breaking the law, and someone's challenged them. They were hoping for people to quietly accept their illegal policy, and some people didn't. Tough luck, **** happens. I wonder how they enforce their policy anyway. Do they compare wedding rings at check-in, or do they ask for marriage certificates?

[frogstamper]

Blimey what do the owners do check straight couples fingers for an untanned ring to make sure they are not fibbing.
Personally I haven't much sympathy for the hotel owners, thirty odd years ago you could have substituted the gay couple for a black couple and there would have been an excuse why they couldn't stay.
Hopefully in another thirty years we'll look back on events like these with a more enlightened outlook.

If this was the only hotel in that area i might agree with some of you that say it's wrong but it isn't there are others so why didn't this gay couple go to one of them. No they pick the one where they can see they will be able to kick up a fuss it's competely stupid and was unnecessary.

End of the day these are people that have a religious belief and they enforce it last time i checked people were free to practice their religion in whatever way they choose. No one is forced to stay at their accomadation and if you choose to do that you do so in accordance with their rules which as has been stated they do not hide on their webpage and i doubt they hide them in phone conversations either. This is a couple looking to be offended and looking to start a problem that really isn't there to be had.

As for this oft quoted "thirty years ago black people were banned from this and that" yes that might have been the case and that was ignorance and prejudice this is religious conviction there is a vast difference and as anyone that uses these forums often will know i am not religious but i defend the right of any and all to have their belief and practise it however they choose.

[lucy7]

There are a lot of establishments like this all over the world, that clearly set out that they are Christian run.
This hotels "rules" went a little further than most, and stated their views about marriage, and that wished no unmarried couples to use the same bedroom.

I feel the gay couple are testing their rights, and are looking to publicise the rights of gays, I personally do not feel it is about the money.

It will be interesting to see the out come.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

I was listening to lbc yesterday where nick ferari was interviewing a spokeswoman for the gay couple about this. They knew before hand the hotel's policy and still turned up knowing full well they would not get a room. Also even though they said their action is not about the money they are claiming 5000 pounds damages! When asked if they would accept an apology, instead of the money they said no. I think that says more about the couple's motives then any hurt they might have felt.
In regard to one of the earlier posts on this thread questioning what the reaction would be if the owners were muslim, i'm willing to bet that if that had been the case then this thread would have already had 100 plus posts, with the common theme being muslims and immigrants are being pandered too and that they should all be deported back to their stoneage countries.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

...In regard to one of the earlier posts on this thread questioning what the reaction would be if the owners were muslim, i'm willing to bet that if that had been the case then this thread would have already had 100 plus posts, with the common theme being muslims and immigrants are being pandered too and that they should all be deported back to their stoneage countries.

I'm sorry to say you are probably right. Let's try the shoe on the other foot (so to speak):

Christians are immigrants and are being pandered to, they should all be deported back to the Midde East.

Hmm. I wonder how many people would buy a newspaper if that was the headline...

[Kymmy]

If they rejected the couple of sexual orientation then in simple terms the hotel was wrong to refuse the rooms based on the current laws... If they don't like the current laws then they have a simple right to set up a hotel elsewhere that doesn't have the laws or start up a business which doesn't have such laws..

The warning on the website is that it states 'a marraige between Man & a Women'..It doesn't then give any scope for civil partnerships (even once performed in a church) nor does it give leeway for foriegn single sex marraiges..

It's not as if it's a brand new law and has been in force a couple of years now..

If it was based on Christianity then why also doesn't it restrict against thost married in a registry office...or perhaps unbaptized individuals

Well 50 years ago people hiring out accommodation could set what ever rules they wanted..it was a take it or leave it situation.If you failed to pass whatever criteria they set you had no leg to stand on.

However here we are 50 years later when racial,religious, and sexual discrimination is against the law so anyone thinking they can use the religious discrimination angle to bend the rules to suit themselves had better think again.

[piggy]

i might be wrong here, but i thought a hotel/bb accomadation can refuse service like a landlord of a pub can,ie im not serving you go away. what is the problem here? imo this is another minority forcing there views on the majority. are hotels that advertise no children breaking the law?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

If it was based on Christianity then why also doesn't it restrict against thost married in a registry office

Maybe it does and just no-one has pulled them up (or tried to get money out of them) yet.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

...or perhaps unbaptized individuals

Because perhaps unbaptised people don't neccessarily have a lifestyle that the owners are uncomfortable with?

[Kymmy]

But that's the thing...they're not picking on all apects of those who are not christians..instead they have selected a wording that prohibits one distinct group which is breaking the law... By doing so their Christian beliefs can NOT be a defence..