The hoteliers had argued they were trying "to live and work in accordance with our Christian faith" when they refused to let the two men share a bed.

@michaelpetek

Of course they were judging other people's behaviour and they were asserting a nonexistent right.

And so every double bed is a "marriage bed" for the purpose of "sexual acts"?

Well now we know how your mind works.

All right, they were judging other people's behaviour, but then again who doesn't.

To go back to first principles, sexual acts are lawful only between consenting adults. Mr and Mrs Bull were being asked to participate, by providing the means for their commission, in sexual acts they did no consent to.

It would appear that this gays-only hotel is in violation of the Equalities Act and your common law principle. What shall we do?

http://www.guyzhotel.com/

A gross invasion of the private space by the state. B&Bs are not inns or hotels.

Thanks for this clear explanation David. There's been a lot of commentary about how people should be free to trade with whomever they want, and this is a lovely rebuttal.

But they did allow them to stay in their "inn", just not in the same bed.

Ed West

That is why I used the word "couple".

Your point was anticipated...

@Des Demona: A "gay only" hotel would be as much a breach of the relevant legislation as was the B&B in this case (in fact, as there would be an outright denial of any service on grounds of sexuality, as against the refusal to provide a service in a particular way - a double room).

Given the costs, I can't help but think those funding the defence might have been better advised to try and book various "spinsters of this parish" into hotels advertising themselves as "gay only" - at least the same publicity impact, and a far lower cost.

David,
Your point was that they were being un-Christian and uncharitable by casting the poor pair out into the cold, like the innkeepers in the Bible. That simply isnt true; they may have been breaking Britain's law but they werent breaking any agreed Christian understanding of charity.
Ed

@michaelpetek

I think you may have misunderstood what was going on here. No-one was asking the B&B owners to participate. If they had been, then it would have been much more clear cut that they would have been within their rights to refuse.

All the guests were asking was to be allowed to share a double bed. No-one else had to join them.

I'm a bit disappointed that this piece lacks Mr Allen Green's usual rigour. As I understand it, the owners of the B&B did not turn the couple away and so were not in breach of any principle of common law. They merely refused to let the couple share a double-bedded room. In so doing, they were implementing a guest policy which had been on display on their website and which stated that, because of their beliefs they did not offer a double bedded room to an unmarried couple (presumably they regarded a same-sex civil partnership as not equating to marriage). This was a common practice in many establishments up until the last few decades. (Hence the number of Mr. & Mrs. Smiths who pseudonymously checked in.) Were all such establishments also in breach of the same civil law principle then? If so, I am not aware of any legal challenge ever made against hotels etc..
I do not know if the owners offered this couple separate rooms but if they did then they can hardly be accused of having turned them away. Indeed, given that the B&B's policy was clearly stated on their website, I do wonder why the couple chose to go there in the first place if they expected to share a double-bedded room.
I welcome the appeal being made by the B&B owners - they need to know whether, under more recently implemented anti-discrimination legislation, they can still carry on their business in the way in which they have done in the past, or whether they should give up the business because they cannot fulfil current legal requirements.

Very interesting point about the Constatine case. Though my initial thought is whether we can question it as remaining good law, for example a 'right to religious freedom' may have had an effect.

The case also shows the increasingly horizontal effect of rights, which is markedly different to the line which was taken under the HRA:

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/01/the-hall-and-preddy-case-horizontal-ri...

@Adam The B&B owners here are not "disgusting individuals" as you assert. That is most unfair. They are religious social conservatives who believe that physical acts of homosexuality are a sin and that by encouraging it they are also sinning. They have the same attitude towards pre-marital hetero sex. Your allusion to their "outrageous and hideous prejudices" is simply projecting your own morals onto a situation that does not involve you.

One thing that isn't mentioned here is that Christians are instructed in the Bible to be law-abiding citizens and be submissive to authorities, insofar as those authorities are not unjust.

Whilst I am torn on this case because on the one hand the Equality Act is quite a solid piece of legislation and equates civil partnership with marriage, on the other it is difficult to reconcile the issues around faith and morality. The Bulls would not have turned them away if they had a twin room, and their policy I do not believe was deliberately homophobic as it applied equally to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Put into context, homosexuality is no greater a sin than lying, gossiping or adultery - there is no hierarchy of sin in the Bible. But Christians are called to love the sinner rather than the sin, so I feel it would be wrong to say that they were not inherently charitable people.

I don't see that the case, based purely on the interpretation of the law, could have gone any other way though.

@Matt Flaherty:

"simply projecting your own morals onto a situation that does not involve you"

That, of course, is an excellent description of what the B&B owners were doing. No-one was asking them to join in.

@Adam, Heresiarch last year wrote a wonderful piece about this that captures my views very well:

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/04/should-gay-hotel-owner-be-allow...

The belief that homosexuality (the act) is wrong or sinful should not bear the label of bigotry.

I am surprised that no other commenter has addressed the true nature of the hoteliers' offence: they refused to allow two men to sleep in a double bed.

Traditional Christianity condemns homosexual acts, but it doesn't recognise the existence of homosexul people; they are a modern, secular invention. A 'gay couple' are no different from two straight men, or brothers.

If the hotel is happy to allow two men to share a twin room, that seems to contradict Matt Flaherty's
point about encouraging sin. If you have privacy, you can have sex. You don't need a double bed.

The idea that sharing a double bed has a sexual meaning is not traditional either. Thirty years ago, it was commonplace and unremarkable for straight men, and it's only since gays have become visible in society that straight men have become less comfortable with it.

I conclude the hoteliers refused accommodation on the basis of secular, modern beliefs, not traditional, Christian ones.

The couple assume that everyone who gets into bed with someone is there purely for the purpose of sex. Maybe they are projecting their own randy nature onto gay or unmarried clientele.

I hope the pyjamas and sheets at the B&B aren't poly/cotton as that breaks Deuteronomy 22:11

I wonder where do the B&B owners draw the line. Would they withdraw a double bed from a room if they discovered that a heterosexual couple engaged in anal (or oral) sex. I am curious to know if the objection is to which orifice the entry is made or to which gender that orifice belongs.

I wonder if the bible makes this clear or the Christian Institute has clear policy on this matter.

What I don't get is why this couple believe they have a right, as 'Christians, to judge other people's behaviour, much less to mandate or proscribe it.'

It's always a good idea to read threads before posting.

"And any calling themselves Christians who tell others how to behave- on abortion, sexual matters, burning books etc. are not Christians. Got that?"

It's surprising this needs to be said, but the gay hotel is analogous only if a straight couple turned up and were refused a double room. In that case an offence has occurred.

The B & B owners injunction is plainly silly; as others have pointed out, the Bulls seem rather too concerned about the private habits of others for their own good. Would they deny a latter day Morecambe and Wise double act the last room available, if it were a double room?

The whole thing is a nine days wonder. The law states that business must not discriminate. The B&B is a business. Those who choose to be in that business have a law to obey. But everyone likes their fifteen minutes of fame.

Militant christianists do not have more rights than anyone else, however much they believe that some deity is on their side. If they're right then they can exercise those rights in their heaven.

Just to clarify this red herring of "But what about the Gay Only establishments"?

I've stayed at guesthouses and gone to bars that were identified (and clearly identifiable) as strongly marketed to gay men, just like the GuyzHotel that Matt links to. I was not turned away for being female, nor required to specify my sexual orientation before I could book.

GuyzHotel specifies they don't take "stag" or "hen" parties - responding to the a trend of hen-parties in particular regarding a venue catering to gay men as a tourist outing similar to going to the zoo. It is perfectly legitimate for them to declare upfront they won't cater for specific types of party gatherings - hotels are not obliged to cater for wedding or pre-wedding parties if they don't want to, providing they do so equally for civil partnerships as for marriages.

Interesting that most of these arguments seem to revolve around judgemental attitudes. There was something I once read or heard somewhere, about a very smart bloke who reckoned if a person was without any fault at all, they should only then feel entitled to point the finger of blame and punish the mistakes of others.
Hard to remember. It was a long time back, when England was still a Christian country.