Christian B&B owners lose appeal....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by danielf

Does it matter if they were not turned away for being gay but for one of the other mentioned reasons?

It might do.

Originally Posted by Gary L

It might do.

No, it really wouldn't. Gary, in all seriousness I think the concepts under discussion here may be a tad beyond you.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, it really wouldn't. Gary, in all seriousness I think the concepts under discussion here may be a tad beyond you.

Ok. I'll go and do the washing up then

I just realised I only had the mug to wash.

it might matter if a gay couple were turned away for another reason other than being gay, because they may look at it that the person was just using that as an excuse.

it was their own fault for giving the real reason.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Ok. I'll go and do the washing up then

I just realised I only had the mug to wash.

it might matter if a gay couple were turned away for another reason other than being gay, because they may look at it that the person was just using that as an excuse.

it was their own fault for giving the real reason.

In the article it says the couple where turned away for being unmarried ,acording to the owners it was the unmarried bit they objected to so i am struggling to understand how they make a living given the number of unmarried couples out there who have weekends away

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by martyh

In the article it says the couple where turned away for being unmarried ,acording to the owners it was the unmarried bit they objected to so i am struggling to understand how they make a living given the number of unmarried couples out there who have weekends away

haha yeah, that's a point

And Gary derails another thread...

Originally Posted by Gary L

it might matter if a gay couple were turned away for another reason other than being gay, because they may look at it that the person was just using that as an excuse.

Well yes, they might claim that. Anyone can claim anything they like. Fortunately, in this country, courts do not convict (or in this civil case, hold liable) without evidence. That's the subtle point that you can't, or won't, understand.

The evidence would be a statement on the website advertising a policy that is illegal under UK discrimination laws, or the owners telling a gay couple to their face that they can't have a room because they are gay. Not the couple in question offering an opinion on the 'real' reason they were turned away.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

It is stories like this that make me proud I summoned the strength to just walk away from a quite successful business venture I had worked hard for several years to put together having later discovered my gay associates where not suitable and that as is often the case had ulterior motives they had concealed from me. I have to say I am glad today I made that decision as criminal cases past present and future will be an ongoing situation from my ordeal once I realised I was being both used and bought. I will never work for or with or serve such like minded people again period, I would prefer to spend whats left in solitary confinement than bow down to those who encourage such behaviour amongst men especially to the younger generation wether below the age of consent or not.

This is a clear breach of article 9 of the human rights act, these people have had that right denied to them by the law in their place of business of which I hasten to add is a business that is often also ones home.

The law has violated these peoples right to moral conscience regardless of its foundation within their home and business and I dont doubt as a consequence placed them in a position of serious personal and economical compromise.

It's a rant Jim, but not so we can understand it.....

[Kymmy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266

Judge rules that they were discriminated against and ordered damages

[Russ]

I don't get it.

The judge accepted that Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.

So how was she discriminating against their sexuality?

[Kymmy]

The orignal news report stated "She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples. "

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

Presumably, the heterosexual couples weren't turned away, but merely stopped from sharing a double bed?

Does it say that though? From my limited knowledge of this case (happy to be proven wrong) it seems she refused them a double room and they chose (albeit dramatically) to leave.

It would seem she has done the same with unmarried hetro couples.

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The orignal news report stated "She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples. "

That makes a bit more sense then. I can see how some would consider this a victory (and to an extent I agree) but it does present a worrying precedent of how someone's beliefs can be legally overruled.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Russ

Does it say that though? From my limited knowledge of this case (happy to be proven wrong) it seems she refused them a double room and they chose (albeit dramatically) to leave.

It would seem she has done the same with unmarried hetro couples.

Sorry. I deleted my post after spotting that. I don't really have time to read the article now, so I'll refrain from commenting for now

[Kymmy]

Been through the BBC new articles on the matter and at no point did it say that she gave them any other room option.. Anyone got a link? Just that yes it does seem strange if she gave them the option of two singles but I can't find that she did??

You might have to read the court transcripts? The reporting on this is poor.