They shouldn't have put to risk that hard-earned income with a prejudiced and unlawful behavior which tries to make a rule out of their personal whims and peeves in the first place. If they can not or, rather, WON'T understand what a simple law says, they should have remained toiling, for their own safety and peace of mind, instead of trying to step out of their proper place by exerting a judicial sense which they had denied to themselves to begin with.
You always, of course, have a sense of your own righteousness or even a plain prejudice, but pretending to pass it as a right and a rule just because you "feel" it or, worse, because you feel your god or your ideas and beliefs compel you to do so, is the sort of imposition that identifies with what you call "fascist" behaviour.
This is the exact same problem that so many want to identify exclusively with Islamic morals: do you deem it an interference in the personal beliefs of those two very hard and decent workers the fact that they are asked to treat to married men as a perfectly legal marriage? Is that the "fascism" you were talking about?
They can keep their money to themselves, but they just can't get away with a plain case of immoral and unlawful discrimination without the corresponding lawsuit... that's not acceptable, at least not in the very core of the Western world that gave birth and full sense to the concepts of "law" and "right" and even "dignity" as we have them today.
After a shocking series of agreements with Quasar in other threads, I have to disagree with him on this. It may be very British to suggest a compromise which exempts some people from the law, but I feel it would be entirely wrong to do so here.
It's not a tenet of the Christian faith that homosexuals should be discriminated against in the way that happened in this case. Most Christians have no trouble abiding by this law and, as I said in an earlier post, the church hierarchy, many of whom are members of the House of Lords which approved the Act, have not opposed it.
If we allow one couple an exemption because their particular, perverse interpretation of the Bible compels them to discriminate, then we open the floodgates. Every bigot in the land only has to say that their homophobia is based on religious principles and they too will be allowed to do exactly as they please.
There can be no compromise; it has to be all or nothing.
The Equality Act requires everyone who offers services to the public to do so regardless not just of sexuality, but also of race, disability and a number of other distinguishing characteristics. Is that really so terrible? If Mr and Mrs Bull really cannot reconcile non-discrimination with their consciences, then they really ought not to be in the hotel business any longer. Recent press reports suggest that they may be driven out of business over this. Sobeit.
It is standard practice in Common Law countries, such as England and Wales for defendants representing a conscience driven position to receive free legal support to defend their beliefs. Thus atheist action groups will support those atheists defending their conscience driven position, as will gay rights groups offer similar support when defending gays.
This particular case has tested the appropriate legislation so that a precedent is established to guide people should a similar set of circumstances arise. Case law is both instructive, and an incentive to follow the relevant legislation or face penalties. All parties benefit from the the clarification that this legal decision offers the interested person.
I wonder if I should I feel flattered or intimidated that I and my 'claims' are 'researched' and that I am spoken of in the third person?
This seems to be another case of a high-minded heavy-handed English judiciary creating chaos for people trying to run a small business.
Furious that one of his staff had stolen hundreds of pounds from his business, Simon Cremer hung a sign saying ‘thief’ around the man’s neck and frogmarched him to a police station.
The bottom line is, it is unreasonable to expect the consumer to confirm in advance whether any particular aspect of his being conforms to the prejudices of the business owner.
That's why we have ordinary consumer rights legislation, let alone human rights legislation. People who keep at this nonsense should have their business sued into oblivion.
Time to resurrect this thread with some good news.
The hateful owners of the hotel took their case to the Court of Appeal where today happily they LOST.
The story is reported by the BBC here:
and anyone who'd like to visit the hotel site (if not the hotel itself understandably) can find it here:
I'm certain they will have hosted couples married overseas in the past without hesitation, and without questioning the legitimacy of the marriage certificate brought from another country.
Since they deny any hint of homophobia, but frame their objection only to unmarried couples, perhaps one of us Canadians should show up with our marriage certificates which are issued just as readily for same-sex couple as for mismatched-sex couples.
I doubt very much that they actually ask to see marriage certificates. People just don't carry them around. If you're a heterosexual couple and you claim to be married, I expect that's good enough.
What surprises me is that they haven't been made to take this prejudiced stuff down from their website.
Time to bring this thread back from the vaults for another airing.
The owners of the hotel, Mr and Mrs Bull, are now having to sell up, essentially because nobody much is prepared to carry their advertising. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will hear their appeal on 9 October.
It is always good to see an old and newsworthy thread updated.
Shame that they can't render unto Caesar.
This issue reminds of this old movie where a bloated Big Businessman bullies a small businessman telling him how to run his business and smashes up the business while he's at it.
Sticking to their principles.
No one want to be associated with their homophobia these days. Bad for business. These newspapers and ad places have to remember their bottom line. Well done for indirectly putting these horrid guesthouse owners down.
I was hoping there would be a Supreme Court decision by now, but it appears the judgement was reserved and we must await Their Lordships' ruling.
*I realize the rule was not no gays, but let's get real here, would they even blink if they were a straight couple? Would they require proof of marriage? Likely not. And what if the gay couple was married in another country and had a proof of marriage? Would they accept them? Likely not. So they are discriminating based on sexual orientation. My question to you then is: Do you believe that laws that protect people from discrimination are too intrusive?
pat doesn't seem able to distinguish between law intruding intro people's lives and private businesses intruding into other people's lives.
A "private business" which is open and, more importantly, dependant on other people, that is, a private business which in fact depends on the direct contact public sphere for its survival, is wickedly incoherent in claiming total freedom for itself but restricting that freedom to others. If they were a private club, silly discriminative associative rules might pass...
All you haters could turn your grumpiness into action by burning these people's house down.
Definitely Catholic, he's obsessed with burning people at the stake.
The full text of the judgement is here:
Yaay! Hopefully the costs of taking their bigotry to the courts will be highly burdensome.
Have you haters burnt down their house yet?
Oh Belamo! Are you suggesting the grumpy PC gays are angry at the humble English hotelier because they've taken on the American disease that hoteliers are expected to provide fantasy-palaces like the Dantes Cove hotel?
I know this because I've read Jessica Mitford's expose of American hotels where americans who claim to believe in egalitarianism can go to hotels and be treated like dukes and duchesses and they can treat the staff like slaves.
The gays are being hardline, unempathetic bitches in this English instance.
But claim to be completely empathetic loving people in another, such as this—