Discrimination | Hotels | United Kingdom

Christian B&B Owners Who Denied Gay Couple a Room Lose Supreme Court Battle: VIDEO


We've been writing on and off since 2009 about Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who denied a gay couple a double room in their Bed and Breakfast, and then twice lost a court battle in an anti-bias suit brought by the couple. The inn owners, who closed their B&B in September for lack of business, brought their case to the UK Supreme Court where they lost soundly on Wednesday.

The BBC:

Five Supreme Court justices ruled against them on Wednesday after analysing the case at a hearing in London in October...

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: "Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation."

Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, said after the hearing: "What this case shows is that the powers of political correctness have reached all the way to the top of the judicial tree, so much so that even the Supreme Court dare not say anything against gay rights."

Gay rights group Stonewall said in a statement: "We are pleased that the Supreme Court has defended the laws protecting gay customers that Stonewall fought so hard to secure.

Watch the Bulls give a statement outside the court, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Good! Hopefully this sends a clear message to all backward looking idiots that no bigot can discriminate in the name of "Christianity"!

    Posted by: Tom | Nov 29, 2013 10:19:40 AM

  2. "the powers of political correctness"

    What a wonderful phrase. Pity it doesn't have any meaning. Perhaps someone should ask Mr. Judge to enumerate those powers. Do they include X-ray vision? Superstrength? Superspeed? Telepathy?

    I'm dying to know.

    Posted by: Hunter | Nov 29, 2013 10:27:23 AM

  3. Miserable discriminators, a pointless waste of time and money. I almost feel sorry for these narrow-minded old sad-cases.

    Posted by: danswon | Nov 29, 2013 10:30:14 AM

  4. Culture is renorming. The open display of antigay bigotry is no longer going to be tolerated (much less encouraged or reward as it was in the past.) The same thing happened with sexism and racism.

    That doesn't mean that racism, homophobia, sexism etc have ceased to exist. It just means that bigotry has been driven underground and into dark corners, where it will never go away. We must remain on our guard lest it attempt a comeback.

    Posted by: BZ | Nov 29, 2013 10:39:49 AM

  5. "We're not perfect people" -- but we're better than a bunch of fags and dykes!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 29, 2013 10:42:37 AM

  6. Some exemplary "Christians" they are! Am tempted to ask how much they would charge a VERY pregnant young girl and a "holy" if licentious mature man to sleep in a stable, but that is their fairytale . . .

    Posted by: Mike | Nov 29, 2013 10:59:15 AM

  7. Mike Judge - another so-called christian attempting to paint self-professed christians as victims.

    Posted by: John Freeman | Nov 29, 2013 11:57:12 AM

  8. Their attitude is self-defeating, silly and very old-fashioned. They somehow acquired the notion that they must prevent sin for anything remotely under their control. Essentially the outward appearance of impiety will shame them as bad Christians. This, of course, is a social more, not a Christian one.

    On the other hand, the UK does not have a first amendment, so parliament can set itself up to enforce any manner of political will it likes, despite protests of conscious. They used to prevent Catholics and Jews from worshiping freely, and now they demand comity from the sanctimonious. The problem is now we have laws in the UK that act in cross purposes and can result in inherent contradictions. For example, a gay couple could be charged with "offending Islam" by demanding to be served at a Pakistani establishment and saying the wrong thing when denied service.

    Posted by: anon | Nov 29, 2013 12:41:51 PM

  9. The fools kept proclaiming that the B&B was first and foremost their home, while deducting every single penny spent on it against tax. They're lucky the Supreme Court didn't accept the home argument or the tax man would have been a far bigger worry to them.

    Posted by: Randal Oulton | Nov 29, 2013 1:03:25 PM

  10. I'm sure they could open up a B&B that discriminates against us in Saudi Arabia.

    Posted by: woody | Nov 29, 2013 2:12:21 PM

  11. "Just ordinary Christians." "Britain ought to be a country of freedom and tolerance; but it seems religious beliefs should play second fiddle to the new orthodoxy of political correctness."

    In other words, their religious beliefs should take precedence over the rights of people who have other religious beliefs or no religious beliefs. And, in other words, Britain should really not be a country of freedom and tolerance.

    No sympathy for them. They are running a public business and have to obey the law, and have to extend freedom and tolerance to gay couples.

    Posted by: john patrick | Nov 29, 2013 2:24:59 PM

  12. I have come to loathe christians. The only good evangelical is a not breathing evangelical six-feet under.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Nov 29, 2013 2:56:47 PM

  13. No apology. Their home, no hostility? Christianity is no excuse for discrimination. I feel sorry for them, because they live their lives looking the tiniest angle to the world, they don't see the beauty of difference and other people not like themselves. It is a very sad way to live.

    Posted by: Matt27 | Nov 29, 2013 3:34:41 PM

  14. The resolution is pretty clear, and I'm not sure why Christians don't seem able to grasp or accept it.

    You can have your beliefs. Your beliefs can govern your actions. That's freedom of religion.

    But your beliefs can't govern the actions of others.
    That's freedom.

    Posted by: Vint | Nov 29, 2013 5:14:00 PM

  15. the right decision the bigots can have their beliefs but just not force them on others

    Posted by: Stephen | Nov 29, 2013 5:35:18 PM

  16. Right JAMAL49 however EVEN then the evangelical does no good because their casket is leaching metal and other harmful chemicals into the soil. Six feet under if fine but let the Christian finally ADD something . . .

    Posted by: Mike | Nov 29, 2013 7:44:33 PM

  17. This discussion has really shown the true colors of gay supporters - people full of hatred and unforgiveness. Imagaine if the couple were muslims...

    Posted by: tj007 | Nov 29, 2013 9:19:47 PM

  18. no one should be forced into a contractual relationship against their will. That is a basic human right and a core right of human freedom. To do so is fascist.

    Posted by: jamman | Nov 29, 2013 10:29:12 PM

  19. oh, boohoo. You weren't allowed to ban people from your establishment for no reason other than your ancient religious bigotry.

    Posted by: Reality | Nov 30, 2013 12:18:08 AM

  20. Somebody get Bryan and Maggie in on this, so they can waste what little money NOM has left on "helping" these losers appeal their case yet again.

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Nov 30, 2013 3:04:38 AM

  21. @TJ007: Same rules. And if it had been Christians turned away at the inn, same rules.

    @Jamman: The couple wasn't arguing that. They were arguing that they, as Christians, should have a special exemption from law to discriminate. Holding Christians to the same legal standards as everyone else isn't fascist.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 30, 2013 4:35:20 AM

  22. jamman

    They are not being forced into a contract against their will. These laws only apply to the PUBLIC sphere. If they advertise publicly for customers they cannot discriminate on certain grounds. If they wish to have only married heterosexual Christians as guests in their B&B they can do so by running the business by private invitation only. The claim that they are forced to rent rooms to gay couples is a lie.

    Posted by: Den | Nov 30, 2013 5:15:52 AM

  23. If you're going to write an article, please report the entire story. The couple didn't allow any couple, gay or straight, to share a bed in their B&B. This wasn't discrimination based on sexual orientation. Very one sided story. Also, the couple had their property vandalized by gay rights advocates.

    Posted by: Jared | Nov 30, 2013 1:18:50 PM

  24. I'm not a bible believing anything, but her statement sounded pretty reasonable to me.

    Posted by: andrew | Nov 30, 2013 1:44:01 PM

  25. @Jared: Untrue. They turned away a gay couple in a civil partnership. In Britain, gay couples are unable to marry; therefore, no gay couple would pass their marriage standard. (Would they have allowed in a married gay couple? Doubtful.) Married straight couples and unioned gay couples received different treatment by the inn owners. Furthermore, were straight couples asked to produce marriage licenses at the door? What if they'd been divorced, committed adultery etc.? This was about sexual orientation, as court after court has found.

    If the couple's property was vandalized, they could pursue criminal charges of the vandals. It wouldn't change the outcome of the case. If you run a public accommodation you cannot turn people away because you don't like something about them.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 30, 2013 2:35:20 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Day-After-Thanksgiving Recipe from Wylie Dufresne: Turkey Hash — VIDEO« «