Gay couple win case against hotel owners who refused them service

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by BBC

Bristol gay couple win Cornwall B&B bed ban case

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, 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.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

"When we booked to stay at the Chymorvah Hotel this was not, as some have suggested, a set up sponsored by a pressure group, we just wanted a relaxing weekend away - something thousands of other couples in Britain do every weekend," Mr Preddy said.

"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.

He said that the judgement showed that civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages.

"Judge Rutherford has found that our treatment was an act of direct discrimination and therefore a breach of the law," he added.

Speaking outside court Mrs Bull said she and her husband were considering an appeal.

"We are obviously disappointed with the result," she said.

"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 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."

Judge Rutherford granted the Bulls leave to appeal against his ruling.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy's case was backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

John Wadham, a director at the commission, said the hotel was a commercial enterprise and subject to community standards, rather than private ones.

"The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay," he said.

Gay equality charity Stonewall said it was delighted at the outcome.

"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," its chief executive Ben Summerskill said.

"Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice."

Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, which funded the Bulls' defence, said: "This ruling is further evidence that equality laws are being used as a sword rather than a shield.

"Peter and Hazelmary were sued with the full backing of the government-funded Equality Commission.

"Christians are being sidelined. The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

[thefruitfarmer]

John Wadham, a director at the commission, said the hotel was a commercial enterprise and subject to community standards, rather than private ones.

"The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay," he said.

Gay equality charity Stonewall said it was delighted at the outcome.

"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," its chief executive Ben Summerskill said.


I always understood a business could just decline to do business with anyone, without giving any reason.

Why they actually gave any reason to their potential customers is beyond me.....

[jordy_on_bass]

That is absolutely ridiculous, this isn't the 50's anymore.

I was going to voice my opinion on the matter, however if I do, I have a feeling that I may be attacked by the more conservative people on TB, so I will keep my mouth shut...

[Kosko]

Which is exactly like stuff like this can be gotten away with Jordy. Truly discriminatory actions should be dealt with judicially, I think they got what they deserve.

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by jordy_on_bass

I was going to voice my opinion on the matter, however if I do, I have a feeling that I may be attacked by the more conservative people on TB, so I will keep my mouth shut...

I don't typically keep up with those sorts of threads because they tend to go on and on in endless back and forth babble but can you please show me where someone has been recently personally "attacked" by these diabolical conservatives on TB? This statement sounds like silliness to me. If someone personally attacks you then just share it with a mod and they'll take care of it.

bc

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by thefruitfarmer

I always understood a business could just decline to do business with anyone, without giving any reason.

Why they actually gave any reason to their potential customers is beyond me.....

I'm no lawyer, so I'm very possibly wrong, but I thought that was the way it worked aswell. (It's certainly how it has worked in shops/pubs I've worked in, I had the right to refuse sale, without giving reason).

I think the whole thing was flared up because, as you said, they gave a their reason.

[thefruitfarmer]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I'm no lawyer, so I'm very possibly wrong, but I thought that was the way it worked aswell. (It's certainly how it has worked in shops/pubs I've worked in, I had the right to refuse sale, without giving reason).

I think the whole thing was flared up because, as you said, they gave a their reason.

They must have virtually said "you are n't staying here because you are gay".....

There could have been an entire hotel full of homophobes who would have walked out if they knew gay fellas were in the hotel, which would have really made the business suffer.

All they needed to do was decline the business.

[Lady Kayri]

I worked in the hotel industry here in the US for 21 years (2 in a hotel in Deadwood, South Dakota; then 19 in a resort hotel here in Cape May, NJ; will be working somewhere else this coming summer...) Both pretty small to middle sized hotels (30 rooms in SD, 69 here in NJ) places, I can't remember anyone at the front desk EVER asking anyone their marital status. Only people we wouldn't rent to were teenagers without their parents (after numerous incidents with teens destroying rooms.) I guess a real small hotel or B&B might be a bit different, but - it isn't the owners business if that couple are just a couple of guys / gals who are a 'couple' or if they're just two guys / gals taking a break from home and aren't interested in 'coupling' if that makes any sense. I don't know what the law is like in the UK, but here, if you're in business, you aren't allowed to discriminate against anyone no matter what your religious views are. Now, if you are a non-profit, run by a church, etc. then the rules are a bit different; but even the Boy Scouts here are getting pressure to not discriminate against gays (what's funny, to me at least, is that the Girl Scouts don't give a rip about the sexuality of the girls who are members...I'm sometimes surprised they haven't picked up some of the meeting places the Boy Scouts have been forced out of..)

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how deeply religious you are. You can't force your religious beliefs on other people, especially if you are running a for-profit business. You can disapprove all you want, short of harrassment, true. (And if I were gay, I suspect I'd be checking around for a gay-friendly hotel; I wouldn't want to go where I wasn't wanted and be subject to disapproval anyway. Much easier today, of course, with the internet and a lot more anti discrimination laws in place, than it would have been even 10 years ago.)

I just think it's a shame that this had to be brought to court; it's even more of a shame that the owners of the B&B still seem to not really get it. If you're in business to make money, you can no longer legally refuse service to anyone just because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation...

[KsToaDangr]

Originally Posted by thefruitfarmer

I always understood a business could just decline to do business with anyone, without giving any reason.

Why they actually gave any reason to their potential customers is beyond me.....

they can refuse service, but only if they have it clearly posted.

[jordy_on_bass]

DigMe,

Without going into a long ramble, the prejudices and discrimination I have witnessed from people with religious views has been absolutely absurd. I was called a heretic, lost, spiritually blind and a bad person by the teachers and fellow classmates from the private catholic high school that I attended. And it isn't like this was 20 years ago, I finished high school in 2005. I guess its just a deep personal hatred I have for religion, especially when they impose their morals in situations that do not call for it such as scientific research or in this case, business. And I know there are many religious/conservative people on TB in comparison to me, so that is why I choose to bite my tongue.

[DwaynieAD]

the owners of the business take all financial responsibility for said business. The government has no stake in the business whatsoever and as such they should not have the right to impose what they believe is morally correct upon the business owners.

If the owners of the business choose to not want homosexuals, different races, etc.. to be patrons of there business than that is on them. however misguided it may be.

for all the people gasping, crapping there pants and trying to find the words to tear me a new one please read this part: I DO NOT support what they did. I DO NOT think it was right, just, or acceptable. But I DO NOT think that its any business of any government to determine how someone wants to run there business IN REGARDS TO WHO THEIR TARGET CLIENTELE WILL BE.

I think the government does have a right to intervene in the case of public health and safety and other issues, so please don't attempt to bring those straw men against me (althought I'm sure several will)

I'm off to shovel some snow

TL;DR trampling on one person's rights for the sake of another person's right doesn't really get you anywhere

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by DwaynieAD

the owners of the business take all financial responsibility for said business. The government has no stake in the business whatsoever and as such they should not have the right to impose what they believe is morally correct upon the business owners.

If the owners of the business choose to not want homosexuals, different races, etc.. to be patrons of there business than that is on them. however misguided it may be.

for all the people gasping, crapping there pants and trying to find the words to tear me a new one please read this part: I DO NOT support what they did. I DO NOT think it was right, just, or acceptable. But I DO NOT think that its any business of any government to determine how someone wants to run there business IN REGARDS TO WHO THEIR TARGET CLIENTELE WILL BE.

I think the government does have a right to intervene in the case of public health and safety and other issues, so please don't attempt to bring those straw men against me (althought I'm sure several will)

I'm off to shovel some snow

TL;DR trampling on one person's rights for the sake of another person's right doesn't really get you anywhere

Interesting. So, where does it end? For example, lets imagine a land where say the majority were brunettes (lets say 90%) and 10% of the population were redheads. What if all the brunettes decided (by majority) that none of the business' they ran would serve redheads or supply the business' the redheads owned. That they wouldn't sell property to redheads or rent them property etc. They wouldn't hire readheads. They would only provide health and basic food to the redheads (no luxury items) in a non discriminatory way.

You can see where this is going. If you don't have anti-discrimination laws, what is to stop a majority population getting together and effectively segregating a minority or charing double prices for a minority etc. Again, that's the risk in the "private business can do what it wants" line of thought.

[R. Laevinus]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

Interesting. So, where does it end? For example, lets imagine a land where say the majority were brunettes (lets say 90%) and 10% of the population were redheads. What if all the brunettes decided (by majority) that none of the business' they ran would serve redheads or supply the business' the redheads owned. That they wouldn't sell property to redheads or rent them property etc. They wouldn't hire readheads. They would only provide health and basic food to the redheads (no luxury items) in a non discriminatory way.

You can see where this is going. If you don't have anti-discrimination laws, what is to stop a majority population getting together and effectively segregating a minority or charing double prices for a minority etc. Again, that's the risk in the "private business can do what it wants" line of thought.

I think he's in support of the free market ethos, in that market forces will take care of it, and that a business owner has the right to run his business however well or poorly he decides to.

I understand that - I personally am of the opinion that business and industry ought to be state-run though, so he and I don't quite see eye-to-eye.

[MIJ-VI]

Originally Posted by jordy_on_bass

DigMe,

Without going into a long ramble, the prejudices and discrimination I have witnessed from people with religious views has been absolutely absurd. I was called a heretic, lost, spiritually blind and a bad person by the teachers and fellow classmates from the private catholic high school that I attended. And it isn't like this was 20 years ago, I finished high school in 2005. I guess its just a deep personal hatred I have for religion, especially when they impose their morals in situations that do not call for it such as scientific research or in this case, business. And I know there are many religious/conservative people on TB in comparison to me, so that is why I choose to bite my tongue.

Ahh.., but TB's conservatives play bass and usually accept that the bandstand is home to many different instruments...

[MIJ-VI]

My .02? Seek out and support -friendly businesses:
http://www.rainbowtourism.com/
http://www.searchthegayweb.com/Travel/
http://www.gaytlvguide.com/start-here/gay-israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

[Vorago]

Let's do the Jewish test

Would it be ok for the hotel managers to turn down a Jewish couple (male & female) because they're Jewish?

[MakiSupaStar]

What idiots. Every male gay couple I know, have a lot of money because it's a couple of dudes earning the salaries that men command. No matter what my beliefs are, it would make good business sense to cater to gay couples. Not to mention that gay dudes are generally overly clean, and have a great interior decorating sense. If the let those dudes stay at their bnb they'd not only end up with a cleaner room but they'd get a better feng shui out of it.

[Rebecky]

Hooray for Bristol!

This is an interesting issue... I'm not sure where I stand. I'm normally quite into gay rights and I'm certainly not a Christian sympathiser but something makes this seem different.

I try to put myself in that situation with something I feel strongly about. I'm against hunting, so say if I owned a little B&B in some nice area of the countryside, which so happened to be close to some popular deer hunting area. Say some guys wanted to have a nice weekend away killing animals and would probably want to take their delightful trophy carcasses back to my B&B while they were staying. (I don't know if this is a conceivable story or not, but let's go with it.)

So would I be cool with that? No. In fact, if they came up to me and asked me if they could do this, I would probably stand there and vomit all over them.

Sorry to be disgusting.

So you've got to respect what people believe in. I think these Christians are silly for objecting to 'unmarried couples' sharing a bed, but I'm sure many people feel I'm pretty silly too for what I feel.

[R. Laevinus]

Originally Posted by Rebecky

Hooray for Bristol!

This is an interesting issue... I'm not sure where I stand. I'm normally quite into gay rights and I'm certainly not a Christian sympathiser but something makes this seem different.

I try to put myself in that situation with something I feel strongly about. I'm against hunting, so say if I owned a little B&B in some nice area of the countryside, which so happened to be close to some popular deer hunting area. Say some guys wanted to have a nice weekend away killing animals and would probably want to take their delightful trophy carcasses back to my B&B while they were staying. (I don't know if this is a conceivable story or not, but let's go with it.)

So would I be cool with that? No. In fact, if they came up to me and asked me if they could do this, I would probably stand there and vomit all over them.

Sorry to be disgusting.

So you've got to respect what people believe in. I think these Christians are silly for objecting to 'unmarried couples' sharing a bed, but I'm sure many people feel I'm pretty silly too for what I feel.

Interesting point.

I think it all comes down to where we draw the line, as a society; and moreover, which of those many lines we choose to codify into law.

[Vorago]

Originally Posted by Rebecky

Hooray for Bristol!

This is an interesting issue... I'm not sure where I stand. I'm normally quite into gay rights and I'm certainly not a Christian sympathiser but something makes this seem different.

I try to put myself in that situation with something I feel strongly about. I'm against hunting, so say if I owned a little B&B in some nice area of the countryside, which so happened to be close to some popular deer hunting area. Say some guys wanted to have a nice weekend away killing animals and would probably want to take their delightful trophy carcasses back to my B&B while they were staying. (I don't know if this is a conceivable story or not, but let's go with it.)

So would I be cool with that? No. In fact, if they came up to me and asked me if they could do this, I would probably stand there and vomit all over them.

Sorry to be disgusting.

So you've got to respect what people believe in. I think these Christians are silly for objecting to 'unmarried couples' sharing a bed, but I'm sure many people feel I'm pretty silly too for what I feel.

But can you compare someone's sexual orientation (something you're born with, you can't choose to be straight/gay) with someone's choice to be a hunter?

Sexual orientation is like a skin color, not like a hobby or profession.