P.K. Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 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. Clicky. This took place in 2008. However in 2004 a B&B owner did exactly the same thing here and was not prosecuted. He was struck off the Tourist Board list though. So have things moved on in 4 years. Possibly not according to this. Paging spook to thread. Can you be gay and a Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Paging spook to thread. Can you be gay and a Christian? And LDV. Can't have a religion-sexuality thread without LDV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 It seems to me that you cannot hold any personal beliefs at all if they contravene what the state (most of the time europe) thinks you should think !!! The chaps in the judgement seem perfectly fine to me and had a reasonable interpretation of the judgement but it is sad that a belief which another holds has no weight at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 it is sad that a belief which another holds has no weight at all. I'm not sure it is sad. Some people have religious beliefs which are, at worst, out of step with modern society. But there are others with beliefs which have no place in society - and those views shouldn't be protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 But there are others with beliefs which have no place in my idea of society - and those views shouldn't be protected. Fixed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I understood that the couple banned ALL unmarried couples sharing a bedroom, regardless of gender. So what exactly makes these two unpleasant homosexuals so special? They weren't married. Why didn't they just complain and report them to the tourist board or something. This semms a petty, prissy action taken by two characters with a particularly aggressive attitude. This B&B was, after all, the couple's home and they have beliefs. Even if I don't agree with all they may think, I truly believe in their right to their beliefs. It's not as if they're extremist whatevers blowing people up. What I don't understand is that there are many holiday accomodations that stipulate "No single sex groups allowed", and they seem to get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Paging spook to thread. Can you be gay and a Christian? And LDV. Can't have a religion-sexuality thread without LDV. Maybe not, but...it's all been said before. But yeah, you can be a Christian and gay. I know Christians (and Muslims) who are gay. But then other Christians might tell you that they are not true Christians. Spook can only tell you whether someone can be gay and Christian based on his personal understanding of Christianity from a Baptist background. A unitarian or many quakers, for example, would say something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I understood that the couple banned ALL unmarried couples sharing a bedroom, regardless of gender. So what exactly makes these two unpleasant homosexuals so special? They weren't married. Why didn't they just complain and report them to the tourist board or something. This semms a petty, prissy action taken by two characters with a particularly aggressive attitude. This B&B was, after all, the couple's home and they have beliefs. Even if I don't agree with all they may think, I truly believe in their right to their beliefs. It's not as if they're extremist whatevers blowing people up. What I don't understand is that there are many holiday accomodations that stipulate "No single sex groups allowed", and they seem to get away with it. What do you mean by SO special? I presume many heterosexuals have booked rooms with being married. And maybe even shagged in the beds too! But anyway... Ask yourself whether it was quite all right in 50s and 60s for hotels, landlords in Britain and cafes in American were quite justified in banning black people from their establishments or homes? I find it it a difficult issue because it touches upon the subject of freedom. Should a person have the ability to act on their prejudice and ignorance to place barriers to other people accessing things, such as a room for the night? The effects are pretty devastating when people have to face other's bigoted in such a way when they just want to go about their day to day life as others do. Even so, I am more inclined to think that such things should be reported to the Tourist Board, were the hoteliers to be then struck off and possibly advertises as a homophobic establishment. Though the law does allow them to take the matter up through the Courts. If it was a question of race, do you think anyone else would do otherwise? I would rather that than people being forced. But again, people in the past had to be forced in Britain and America to change their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I understood that the couple banned ALL unmarried couples sharing a bedroom, regardless of gender. So what exactly makes these two unpleasant homosexuals so special? They weren't married. Why didn't they just complain and report them to the tourist board or something. This semms a petty, prissy action taken by two characters with a particularly aggressive attitude. This B&B was, after all, the couple's home and they have beliefs. Even if I don't agree with all they may think, I truly believe in their right to their beliefs. It's not as if they're extremist whatevers blowing people up. What I don't understand is that there are many holiday accomodations that stipulate "No single sex groups allowed", and they seem to get away with it. This is something the Isle of Man will soon have to get used to when the Civil Partnership becomes law over there. The couple concerned were Civil Partners, which whilst not exactly legal marriage, does confer a very high degree of recognition and respect plus legal status. The Human Rights Act/Convention overshadowed this case in that the owners of the accommodation do indeed have certain rights regarding the peaceful enjoyment of their property plus rights expressing their religion. On the other hand, the law has to uphold the rights and freedoms of others such as the status of their legal relationship. In this the law/state can act in a proportionate manner and thus to some extent over-ride the human rights of the accommodation owners. Sex is not expressly part of Civil Partnership in the same way as with heterosexual marriage thus the law could not allow a Civil Partnership accorded by Parliament to be undermined by (a) implying sex and thus gayness (b)Cause the value of that legal partnership to be denigrated and devalued. Civil Partnership either stands fully recognised or it does not stand at all. In this the law also has take into account the rights of a legally joined couple in a Civil Partnership to enjoy their right to respect for private and family life as also accorded by the Human Rights Act/Convention. Think of the reverse. A "Gay Hotel" (and they exist!) might refuse a married heterosexual couple the right to share a room/bed together because they are "straights" or because they are not Civil Partners and thus not in accordance with the accommodation owner's faith? (Whatever that might be!) Could such a couple not then point to their marriage lines and claim discrimination? ie "You let Civil Partners stay but not married couples". The Court had to proportionately over-ride the immediate human rights of the accommodation owners in order to support the Civil Partnership rights of the legally joined couple. Collaterally, the judgement also supports the position of married couples. The moral is this, find some other cause to deny accommodation to people you don't like and do not use the occasion to flaunt religion and moral justification. How about "No vacancies" Better still, "No room at the Inn!" (And we need the stable for our donkeys) PS Can't wait to see the first Civil Partnership ceremony reported from Douglas Registry Office. Which pair of happy couple MHKs will stand there covered in confetti? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The hotel owners have brought this upon themselves with narrow minded bigotted views. You can think what you like as a private person but if you have a business that discriminates illegally, you'll regret it. Having said that, I think the damages awarded for hurt feeling were a little excessive. £500 each would have been more than enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 ...Could such a couple not then point to their marriage lines and claim discrimination? ie "You let Civil Partners stay but not married couples". The Court had to proportionately over-ride the immediate human rights of the accommodation owners in order to support the Civil Partnership rights of the legally joined couple. Collaterally, the judgement also supports the position of married couples... Just trying to cut down your post but to show roughly what I posted back to, but you seem to focus very much on civil partnership and marriage.What if it was a couple who were not in a civil partnership or (in some opposite world) a straight couple who were not married? It has happened where gay couples have come to a hotel and been turned away by asking for a single bed room. Marriage and civil partnership isn't relevant in my eyes. Unless I have misunderstood what you meant. PS Can't wait to see the first Civil Partnership ceremony reported from Douglas Registry Office. Which pair of happy couple MHKs will stand there covered in confetti?Maybe not confetti, that's what straight people use at their weddings. Maybe glitter. It is just a shame, however, that gay people are going to be stuck with this strange civil partnership thing. It isn't marriage, it is civil partnership. I just hope that gay people don't put up with the situation and demand equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 This is something the Isle of Man will soon have to get used to when the Civil Partnership becomes law over there. Oh, that broken record called Barrie Stevens is still trundling on. I reckon your hands must automatically type uninteresting shit as you sleep Barrie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Can someone be a homosexual and still a Christian? Now that is a question! In MY opinion the short answer is yes. So is the long answer, but there’s a whole lot of reasons justifying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Can someone be a homosexual and still a Christian? Now that is a question! In MY opinion the short answer is yes. So is the long answer, but there’s a whole lot of reasons justifying it. Cliff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I know next to nothing about the law, but the thing is, a Civil Partnership 'ceremony' is not legally a Marriage, is it? So how can the rule, clearly expressed on their website Chymorvah Private Hotel be illegal? And did these two nasty little characters deliberately set this whole thing up? And did the judge make a big fat mistake in pandering to the so-called distress of these two spiteful men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.