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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

instead they have selected a wording that prohibits one distinct group which is breaking the law...

Kymmy they're also saying an unmarried man and woman who are away for a dirty weekend would not be welcome.

In any case they're not saying "no gays", they're saying the rooms with double beds are only available to married couples.

[moaningmags]

They have banned all unmarried couples – both heterosexual and homosexual – from sharing a bed.
They also said:-
Mrs Bull, 62, said that even her brother and his girlfriend had to stay in separate rooms when they visited the hotel.

I have to ask why this couple are running a hotel if they wish to limit it to a certain clientèle based on their own religious preferences? No one is forcing them to share a bed with the gay couple, so what the couple do is their own business and not a matter on which to be judged by someone else.

However, I do not think they should be sued as the couple knew in advance of the policy and I cannot see how this is worth £5,000! They just to consider their policy again and seek legal advice.

[piggy]

whatever your interests are surely you look to go somewhere, where you feel welcome not to cause trouble a quick google found this

http://friendly-places.com/categorie...ation=Cornwall

imo the the couple in question are touble making idiots (with a gay overtone!)

Originally Posted by Russ B

Kymmy they're also saying an unmarried man and woman who are away for a dirty weekend would not be welcome. In any case they're not saying "no gays", they're saying the rooms with double beds are only available to married couples.

But they are saying "no gays" in that they consider Marriage to be between a Man and a Woman. There is no way that a gay couple could share a room? I also would point out that a relationship between a man and a woman who are not married does not equal a 'dirty weekend'.

Originally Posted by 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,

I'd say that's not been established yet. Let's wait to hear what the court says before we start using phrases like 'illegal policy', eh?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

I have to ask why this couple are running a hotel if they wish to limit it to a certain clientèle based on their own religious preferences? No one is forcing them to share a bed with the gay couple, so what the couple do is their own business and not a matter on which to be judged by someone else.

Using an extreme example to illustrate a point here, I'm sure a lot of people would be uncomfortable offering a room to a heroin user. Before any of the PC guys have a go at me, I'm not saying homosexuality is (or should be) as illegal as taking heroin, but some people clearly are uncomfortable with the drug use lifestyle (regardless of it being illegal) and would not want to promote it.

[lucy7]

I am not well up on the legalities on all this.
If they do not wish to let certain people stay surely that is their right.

The post office master, his position was to serve ALL the public, but in this case do the couple have the legal right to let or not to let who they wish to stay at their hotel??

I own a holiday property, I do not let everyone who asks to stay, stay.
That is my choice, I feel I am allowed to make it as well, and I do not even know anything about their sexual preferences, or if they are married or not!

Originally Posted by 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.

Mm, let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a good rant. There's no evidence anywhere of the hoteliers asking for any kind of proof of marriage. It's far more reasonable to conclude that they simply set out their rule and from that point on guests either comply with it or tell a lie to get round it. More difficult for a gay couple to get away with, I grant you.

Your comparison with racism is of course completely false, as I'm sure you were aware when you posted it. Nobody is barred from the hotel. The hoteliers simply decline to sell double-bedded rooms to unmarried couples.

Originally Posted by Russ B

Using an extreme example to illustrate a point here, I'm sure a lot of people would be uncomfortable offering a room to a heroin user. Before any of the PC guys have a go at me, I'm not saying homosexuality is (or should be) as illegal as taking heroin, but some people clearly are uncomfortable with the drug use lifestyle (regardless of it being illegal) and would not want to promote it.

Well as you confess it is an extreme example. Drug use, especially heroin, is a dangerous lifestyle and can often affect others in a negative way. So people who are uncomfortable with it have perfectly valid reasons to do so. This is not the case for homosexual lifestyles.

A couple being gay has no effect on other people, it is not a dangerous lifestyle and it does not fund despicable sections of society. It is simply a religious and/or moral belief, which is fine, but should not be imposed on other people.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Kymmy they're also saying an unmarried man and woman who are away for a dirty weekend would not be welcome.

In any case they're not saying "no gays", they're saying the rooms with double beds are only available to married couples.

Originally Posted by moaningmags

They have banned all unmarried couples – both heterosexual and homosexual – from sharing a bed.
They also said:-
Mrs Bull, 62, said that even her brother and his girlfriend had to stay in separate rooms when they visited the hotel.

Why then state "Married HETROSEXUAL couples" to the guests as the reason for thier refusal ??? and not just "married couples"????

It's a fact that by stating that then they are breaking the law, whether they have non-defence of ignorance of the law or they try to use religious freedom as an excuse...they have broken the law!!!

Originally Posted by Kymmy

It's a fact that by stating that then they are breaking the law, whether they have non-defence of ignorance of the law or they try to use religious freedom as an excuse...they have broken the law!!!

And as I've already said, I think that's for a court to decide. The facts of the case aren't in dispute here, however clearly the interpretation of them is.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well as you confess it is an extreme example. Drug use, especially heroin, is a dangerous lifestyle and can often affect others in a negative way. So people who are uncomfortable with it have perfectly valid reasons to do so. This is not the case for homosexual lifestyles.

No you're stating your own views there - some people feel that the homosexual lifestyle is also dangerous albeit in different ways. In my post I did say 'regardless of the legality' regarding drug use.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Why then state "Married HETROSEXUAL couples" ??? and not just "married couples"????

Possibly to set a difference between marriage and 'civil partnerships'?

Originally Posted by Russ B

No you're stating your own views there - some people feel that the homosexual lifestyle is also dangerous albeit in different ways.

I can't see how it is dangerous in this context? Especially when your comparison was with something with is certifiably dangerous...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

I can't see how it is dangerous in this context? Especially when your comparison was with something with is certifiably dangerous...

You don't see how it is considered 'dangerous' to the hoteliers because you don't share those Christian views.