Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Equality between the sheets

The "right" to discriminate cuts both ways.

By Nelson Jones Published 16 November 2011 14:03

Should a Christian hotel-owner be allowed to refuse a gay couple a double-bed, or is such discrimination no more than bigotry which the law should not allow them to indulge?

The case of Christian hotel-owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull is currently before the Court of Appeal. Earlier this year, the Evangelical couple were ordered to pay compensation to a couple in a civil partnership who had been turned away from their establishment in Cornwall. The conflict is easier to describe than to solve: the law regards civil partnership as equal, in almost all respects, to marriage. But the God worshipped by the Bulls does not.

There would be less debate if the Bulls had refused to employ a receptionist because they discovered that she was in a lesbian relationship, or indeed if they had refused to allow a lone gay man to occupy a single room. But the intimate circumstances of bed-sharing do seem to complicate the situation. The Bulls claim that only married couples are allowed to sleep together in their beds, and that any other arrangement would be an indulgence of sin. Put bluntly, the matter at issue isn't sexual orientation, it's sex - or rather the possibility of sex.

There's some dispute about whether, in fact, the Bulls have been quite so strict about unmarried heterosexual couples as they claim. A prominent member of the National Secular Society who stayed at the hotel in 2006 with his female partner reports having had no trouble getting a room (though they were a bit disconcerted to discover "religious tracts all over the place" once they had booked in). Be that as it may, if the bed being offered is a double one, then the owners are in effect facilitating sexual conduct that may go against their deeply-held convictions.

It's no coincidence that religion has emerged in recent years as a major battleground of social and legal rights. There have been rows about Islamic dress, crosses in the workplace, nurses praying for their patients, sex education in schools. In human rights law spiritual belief occupies an ambiguous status. It is both a category of protection -- for religion is increasingly seen as a source of personal identity -- and a cause of discrimination. It's not always easy to distinguish between the two. Behaviour which a believer may regard as intrinsic to his or her religious identity may involve inconveniencing or discriminating against other people, who also have rights. The law, and society, must choose whose right to upheld. Someone must lose.

Can philosophy help? The British Humanist Association has recently put out a pamphlet, Right to Object?, which takes a broader view of some of the issues at stake.

In his introduction, Alan Howarth locates the point at issue in the conflict between two principles: that of obeying the law (necessary for a functioning society) and that of following one's own conscience, without which one can scarcely be said to enjoy moral autonomy. Balancing the two involves defining a sphere of exemption from what would otherwise be legal requirements. Such a definition, Howarth writes, "must appear especially desirable in a society which prides itself upon its liberalism, tolerance, and its respect for the moral autonomy of individuals." This is true enough, but it does suggest that a certain self-congratulation may be at work here, and also perhaps an element of wishful thinking.

As the philosopher Peter Cave points out in his essay, the weighing and balancing that judges engage in when deciding difficult cases "are smokescreens for 'muddling through'". His own view, which I tend to endorse, is that the law should err on the side of liberality, allowing "a thousand preferences to bloom" provided that there are not significant social ill-effects. He would allow the right of a small hotel run by Evangelical Christians to refuse to offer a gay couple a double-bed, but also allow companies to enforce dress-codes that make no allowances for religious dress. What this seems to mean in practice, though - and what may be going on at a deeper level - is the privileging of the interest of both employers and service-providers at the expense of both employees and customers. Is this really sustainable?

In the case of Mr and Mrs Bull, their preference for a hotel run on the basis of traditional Christian morality need not unduly inconvenience gay couples provided that most hotels don't impose such restrictions. Indeed, hotels like the Bulls' might be said to increase consumer choice for Christian holidaymakers who share their unease at being in the proximity of gay sex.

And consider the converse case. There are hotels and guesthouses that specialise in serving members of the gay community, and may wish to turn away heterosexual couples. In February 2011, shortly after the Bull case came to court, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (in a typical piece of empire-building) announced that they would look into whether gay-only hotels discriminated against straight guests, even though it hadn't actually received any complaints.

In response, the owner of a gay hotel in Bournemouth complained that that Equality Act was a "double-edged sword" that was "killing gay culture." And indeed, one hotel in Blackpool that used to boast openly that it was "exclusively gay" now states on its website that it "welcomes all guests, new and old", presumably in response to the EHRC move. This is surely a perverse outcome of laws designed to protect minorities from discrimination. In the name of diversity, a bland conformism prevails, reducing choice and opportunity for customers as well as owners.

I strongly support the right of bar and hotel-owners to run single-sex gay-only establishments, so long as they are clearly signposted as such. They provide an important service to their community which would be compromised if they were forced to open their doors to heterosexuals. The quid pro quo must be the right of a few Christian hotel-owners to run their enterprises upon openly religious lines.

More from Nelson Jones

66 comments

Fri, 2012-05-04 23:12 — John Cheese (not verified)

Here is the crux of the matter in the US: Everyone can & will bash the Christians in terms of laws, rights & political correctness, but now that Muslims & Sharia law are edging in, the cowards are doing everything they can to not have to draw the line in sand with them... Up is down. I have my popcorn ready...

Wed, 2011-11-16 17:21 — The Church Mouse (not verified)

Nelson - fabulous blogging as always. I have previously wondered about gay-only establishments and equality laws. Whilst you may have found some which have changed policy, there are many more which have not, which must surely be contrary to the same rules which prohibit discrimination which it seems the Bulls have attempted to practice.

Like you, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of banning single-sex gay only establishments, but that is the law right now - it is just not enforced. One of the reasons some Christians feel persecuted is precisely because people like the Bulls find themselves on the front pages and dragged through courts, when the same does not happen in other circumstances.

The Bull's particular form of discrimination was an interesting case - my understanding is that they were fine for gay couples to stay in twin rooms, but not double rooms. As if gay people don't know how to push two beds together!

Nevertheless, I can't help finding myself agreeing with your conclusion. If we want one law for all and equality under the law - which I presume we all do - then it seems we haven't got the law right at the moment.

Wed, 2011-11-16 17:31 — The Thirsty Gargoyle (not verified)

I think there's a serious question of necessity here. UK law is required, under the Human Rights Act, to be in line with the ECHR. The ECHR is clear that freedom to manifest one's religion, beliefs, or conscience should be limited only when it is necessary to do so.

The question, then, is whether it is necessary to say that the likes of Bulls should be allowed to provide hospitality in line with their beliefs, and if so why is it so necessary?

Necessary, mind. Not desirable.

Wed, 2011-11-16 17:40 — jankaas (not verified)

@Ian

"Jankass:"

yeah yeah, still not funny, bye bye

Wed, 2011-11-16 17:41 — Des Demona (not verified)

@The Thirsty gargoyle

Exactly - and who is to decide the difference between one persons 'necessary' and one persons 'desire'?

The EHCR might be a great piece of wishful thinking but can easily fall down when it comes up against realities.

To the Bulls no doubt their faith is so strong that they believe it is a necessity that they follow what they believe it to be.

Nelson is absolutely right when he says that diversity is actually being stifled by bland conformity.

Okay, as far as the Bulls are concerned - they descriminated on the basis of sexual orientation - that is not on (forget the twin bed canard) - but now fellow religious fanatics know where they are and can book there at their hearts content.

You know, there is a difference between hurt feelings and human rights - I think sometimes the two get confused.

Wed, 2011-11-16 17:50 — jankaas (not verified)

@The Church Mouse

"Like you, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of banning single-sex gay only establishments, but that is the law right now - it is just not enforced."

just a quick question; where are all these 'single sex gay only' establishments supposed to be?

i have lived in Brighton, with its thriving gay culture, for 12 years and yet to find an establishment where i have been asked to prove my sexuality one way or the other.

Wed, 2011-11-16 18:08 — Ian5

Jankass: if you click the link in the article "look into" you will find a statement from a gay only hotelier from Brighton. Straights seemly damage gay culture!!!!!!, must resist the obvious response. Is it possible that the establishments just assumed you were gay... or straight depending on the hotel/B&B's leaning. Were you alone?

Surely a simple message on a website or when booking ,we cater MAINLY for the gay, Christian, Muslin etc community would avoid the need for all this. I'd simply not book a room, but nor would I be offended.

Wed, 2011-11-16 18:15 — jankaas (not verified)

@Ian

"Jankass:"

3rd time today, you think this is funny? or can't you get my name right for another reason?

do tell....

Wed, 2011-11-16 18:26 — Ian5

funny no, deliberate yes, I think your an ass, and as you felt comfortable calling me a twat I though you would not mind. An ass is just a fool a twat is an offensive soft form of c***. You take your pick, which do you prefer.

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:06 — gerry (not verified)

Ian - yes, Islam's fanatics have been pushing for more sharia law in the UK, and already there are over 150 "informal" sharia councils in this country, dealing with "family and marriage issues"..the thin end of the wedge, as you correctly say.

Jankaas - Islamic extremists want sharia law to govern all of their lives in the UK, just look at their websites from the Islamic Forum Europe, Muslim association of Britain, FOSIS and many many others...part of their goal is to normalise sharia for the 3 million Muslims living here: extremist imams (perhaps 80-90% of all UK imams, accoridng to the Quilliam Foundation) already advise their congregations to deal with issues of child abuse, domestic violence, rape, etc from within and not report it to the police...they want a parallel legal system, and extremist community pressure has ensured that in many places such as Tower Hamlets, Luton, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, this has largely happened - sharia courts are already the legal system! In the UK!

It is sickening, and vile: I know of a case where a wife was brutally raped by her husband, but pressured by the local mosque not to go to the cops and thus bring shame on the family and community - she was instead forced to attend a sharia court, where the husband was actually found not guilty of rape beacuse there was no corroborating person to back the wife's claim!

In Islam, of course, the word of a woman in a sharia court is worth one half of that of a man...and this example happened just this year in London! The woman hasnt dared to go the police even now...

So Sharia is being implemented ever more widely in the UK as we speak...that is how Islam's fanatics work: within a few years, the communtiy pressure will be total and virtually all inter Muslim crimes - in the UK - will be dealt with by sharia courts..the UK will have been successfully balkanised!

Wed, 2011-11-16 18:50 — jankaas (not verified)

@Ian

"as you felt comfortable calling me a twat"

great, cross polluting from another thread, where i only used bad language because you started the name calling.

i did not once call you names on this thread. (untill just about now...)

what a petty twat you have shown yourself to be.

Wed, 2011-11-16 18:53 — gerry (not verified)

Ian/Jankaas - dont get your collective knickers in a twist! Insults of all sorts are part and parcel of NS thread...

Now back to politics!

Ian is right - Christianity, Islam and Judaism all reject homosexuality, seeing it as a sin and abomination. In 2011, only Islam now actually enforces legal sanctions against it, ie death! Some 10,000 gays have been murdered, for example, in Iran since its Islamic revolution in 1979...and earlier this year an 18 year old Islamic extremist, Mohammed Hasnath, was convicted for plastering "Gay Free Zone" stickers all across London, stickers quoting the Koran's punishment for homosxuals, which is death/ He was given a non custodial sentence for this very blatant hate-crime!

So I can't really get worked up over a Christian B+B refusing to take homosexual couples..I think, as with gay-only b+bs in Brighton, exceptions should be made for them in this one field.

It reminds everyone exactly how illiberal and hate-filled most religions are.... but as I said, we should all be more mobilised by the threat of Islam's hundreds of thousands of fanatics, and their would be sharia police...

Wed, 2011-11-16 19:14 — Ian5

Gerry 100% agree.

Fundamentalists of all creeds are an evil to be watched, and stood against.

Wed, 2011-11-16 19:21 — jankaas (not verified)

@gerry

" Insults of all sorts are part and parcel of NS thread... "

not averse to some of this, just that i find it utterly infantile to make "funny" versions of usernames.

"In 2011, only Islam now actually enforces legal sanctions against it, ie death!"

that's not quite correct. gays are killed in Nigeria and Uganda in the name of Jesus/Christianity. even in the US there are plenty of Christians who will hurt you if you are openly gay.

"So I can't really get worked up over a Christian B+B refusing to take homosexual couples..I think, as with gay-only b+bs in Brighton, exceptions should be made for them in this one field."

and as per my 1st post today, i don't accept that 2 wrongs make a right.

"we should all be more mobilised by the threat of Islam's hundreds of thousands of fanatics, and their would be sharia police..."

this is essentially all in your mind. there is nothing these few UK based hotheads do except remind us of how far we've come in the west. not too long ago you went to jail for being gay.

we must resist the urge to over-react. we really must.

Wed, 2011-11-16 19:33 — Ian5

@Jankaas "this is essentially all in your mind. there is nothing these few UK based hotheads do except remind us of how far we've come in the west"

Have to totally disagree, these hot heads head off to fight in Afganistan, these hotheads bombed the public transport system in London, attacked an airport in Scotland. I think there is a great deal to fear, and appeasement or apathy is the worst reaction we can have.

This case would not exist under sharia law.

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:37 — jankaas (not verified)

@Ian

"I agree with the theory of your argument on sharia law in the UK"

great.

"Islamic Sharia Council Thin end of a very nasty wedge."

and here we don't agree. for al the wrongs of sharia, it is no more bizarre, dangerous or threatening than, say, Jewish courts in the UK.

neither court can make a judgement stick if it breaks UK law.

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:46 — jankaas (not verified)

@gerry

"Islamic extremists want sharia law to govern all of their lives in the UK"

i know. that doesn't mean they'll get it though now does it? which is the whole point. for all their shouting and hysteria and stamping of feet, they will not get their way. no chance.

"sharia courts are already the legal system! In the UK!"

in the same way Jewish courts are 'legal'. their powers are trumped by UK law. it's a nice bit of window dressing, btw i also find these councils and courts ridiculous and insulting in our modern society. but they appear designed merely to keep the more extreme elements in Islam and Judaism pacified.

"In Islam, of course, the word of a woman in a sharia court is worth one half of that of a man"

same as in some extreme Jewish or Christian sects, funny that no? not too long ago women didn't have voting rights in the UK......

"within a few years, the communtiy pressure will be total and virtually all inter Muslim crimes - in the UK - will be dealt with by sharia courts..the UK will have been successfully balkanised!"

no chance, no way, just isn't going to happen if it interferes with UK law. i'll bet you that in 5 or 10 years it will still be a fringe activity, with only the very strict Muslims and Jews still praying that one day soon it will all be as they desire.

their problem, not ours

Wed, 2011-11-16 19:37 — gerry (not verified)

Jankaas - ONLY Islamic legal systems explicitly punish the mere fact of homosexuality with horrific brutality, with thousands of Amnesty-documented cases of legal rape, torture and murder. This is the difference with countries such as Uganda, where the lives of gays and lesbians are pretty horrific too - most of the violence done to them is NOT legal..whereas in almost every Muslim majority country, violence is almost exclusively legal!

Sharia, from the Koran to the Hadiths are unambiguous: you cannot be gay/lesbian and be a Muslim - it is as simple as that, so Muslims see gays and lesbians as the worst kind of criminals possible.

Thankfully, in Europe and the Americas, we have the Enlightenment to thank for curbing the horrific excesses of Christianity..in particular taking religion out of the legal system and process, which is why Islam and its millions of extremists are so dangerous..they are doing all they can in every single country where they live, to islamise the legal system.

A bigoted Christian B+B owner is truly,very small beer...

Wed, 2011-11-16 20:15 — Hrry (not verified)

I am disappointed to see such an article in the NS. Also, it would be appropriate that if the author is some sort of Christian he should admit it so that we know from what background he comes. That said...

People are misunderstanding the ECHR freedom to "manifest" ones religious beliefs: this right is to do with the free exercise of religious belief, not a right to practise those beliefs when they conflict with the rights of others. The best example is the weirdo sect who wanted to run a school using corporal punishment on the children ("spare the rod and spoil the child") claiming that their rights to manifest their religious beliefs as Christians overrode the law banning corporal punishment in schools. The House of Lords (as Supreme Court) threw them out. The Bulls, I predict, will go the same way.

As to gay only hotels, they were necessary refuges, safe spaces, when Mr Jones's friends ran society and there were no protections for LGBT people in mainstream society. Now we can be happily integrated and such places are no longer necessary.

Wed, 2011-11-16 22:02 — Ian5

Hrry: "As to gay only hotels, they were necessary refuges, safe spaces, when Mr Jones's friends ran society and there were no protections for LGBT people in mainstream society. Now we can be happily integrated and such places are no longer necessary."

That last sentence just made my day.

I hope you can lead a normal integrated life.

Wed, 2011-11-16 23:33 — Graeme Hancocks (not verified)

Second attempt to post! Frustrating.

In my experience as a christian minister, I have come across a lot of fundamentalist types such as the Bull's, who have a real and rather unhealthy hang up about sex. The gay issue has become for them something of a totemic issue on which to hang these hang ups.

Jesus did not have anything to say about the subject of homosexuality but rather a lot to say about inhospitality and exclusion (which is actually the sin of Sodom by the way).

If anyone wants to run an establishment as "married only, "gay only", "heterosexual only, even "no sex at all only", then at least advertise it CLEARLY AND PLAINLY for all to see. The way this couple were turned away was disgraceful.

I am surprised that Nelson Jones doesnt seem to see this basic point.

Wed, 2011-11-16 23:57 — Hrry (not verified)

@Ian

Of course I can and do lead a normal integrated life. My husband and I are a normal professional couple.

What is your point, please?

Thu, 2011-11-17 01:17 — Colin Jackson (not verified)

Great post Graeme H. Nice to know what Jesus had to say on the subject. Had he but existed, I'd give him a round of applause for that. Peace.

There is always the thin edge of the wedge argument. If you allow the Bulls to discriminate on the basis of their religious convictions, how can you complain when Holiday Inn choose to do the same (hypothetically, of course)?

Like most people, had the Bulls chosen to clearly advertise their preferences and stated "we mainly cater to the Christian community", were I looking for somewhere to stay, I'd simly tut at theit narrow worldview and move on without thinking about it further. But to turn away two people at the door is damned rude and contrary to accepted social mores. A slap in the face: "you're not welcome in our home; your lifestyle disgusts us". It won't do.

The same argument applies to gay-only establishments. I'm certain people will respect the hint.

The difference between gay-only establishments and Christian-only establishments is that Christians ate not a historically excluded monority who have good reason to prefer a secure and safe enclave.

Fri, 2011-11-18 00:20 — DavidPollock

@zinoviev makes a basic point. Fluffy liberalism that says (with Nelson Jones) that in the name of freedom of religion or belief every prejudice should be accommodated as long as it is advertised is a perversion of human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom to manifest your religion or belief so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Would Jones allow “No blacks” or “No Jews” signs? “No Muslims”? What about campaigns to advocate such discrimination?

Jones is falling for the manipulative campaign of a Christian fringe who are determined not to be outdone by Jews and Muslims in the competition to be the most persecuted religion. Few of the observations of Lord Carey or ex-bishop Nazir-Ali or the Christian Legal Centre on the subject bear any sustained scrutiny, and their motivation lies in politics at least as much as in human rights. As Jonathan Bartley of the Christian think tank Ekklesia (à propos the Nadia Eweida case) says: “People should be aware that behind many such cases there are groups whose interests are served by stirring up feelings of discrimination of marginalisation amongst Christians. What can appear to be a case of discrimination at first glance is often nothing of the sort. It is often more about Christians attempting to gain special privileges and exemptions."

This is not by any means to suggest that the question of how to deal with claims of conscientious objection is simple. It is not, as my own contribution to the British Humanist Association’s booklet mentioned by Nelson Jones makes clear. For those interested, an earlier version of my paper is on line here.

Sun, 2011-11-20 20:06 — freedemocrat

The property is not simply the Bulls home but a commercial business. Imagine the reaction if I set up a grocery store but refused to offer a service to say, vegans, vegetarians or fruitarians. It is time for adult, rational, evidence=based, world-wide legislation to prohibit all forms of religious ideology and practices. Grow up humanity!

Fri, 2011-11-18 00:29 — john c (not verified)

The Bulls are offering a public service, ie a guesthouse, they are subject to public laws regarding discrimination.The house is not only their house, but it is a place of buisiness,therfore workplace discrimination laws apply ,they have no right to inflict their faith on others within a workplace.

Fri, 2011-11-18 04:09 — dilberto

Tolerance is a virtue, but when it is enforced by law as it increasingly is in western society then it is simply another form of oppression.

Fri, 2011-11-18 08:23 — Patrick (not verified)

Wow. I thought the proliferation of bible-addicted morons was a problem only on my side of the pond. Sorry to hear Cornwall has those types as well.

Fri, 2011-11-18 08:53 — gerry (not verified)

Jankaas - you missed the point: UK sharia courts are NOT a fringe activity even now - they deal with thousands of cases a year, including allegatons of child abuse, rape, domestic violence etc..and UK law is nowhere to be seen because, as I repeated, community, patriarchal and religious pressure does the rest..

That is how sharia works in the UK..it is replacing UK law, and yes its "their" problem but I think it is also "ours", when up to 3 million people in a country are not part of one legal system. In 5 years time, it will be too late and we will have an even more separatist and extreme minority within..only now with their own legal apartheid, with all the wretched implications for Muslim women and children, and (the few) non observant Muslims left...

Thu, 2011-11-17 11:35 — zinoviev

Let's allow hoteliers to put up signs as follows:

"No blacks"
"No Irish"
"No Jews"
"No disabled".

Thu, 2011-11-17 11:53 — John Dale (not verified)

"I strongly support the right of bar and hotel-owners to run single-sex gay-only establishments"

So I take you're in favour of permitting "No Christians allowed" signs on hotels too then? If this equality was allowed you can imagine the reaction it would provoke.

Thu, 2011-11-17 12:06 — Steve (not verified)

"How would you like it if you ran a bed and breakfast in which say your young child had to sleep in the bedroom adjoining a couple of gayers engaging in sodomy and banging away all night, eh?"

Really? That's your argument? It's pathetic. I would be no more concerned by this than I would if my child was in a room adjoining a very noisy heterosexual couple. My response would be the same: to go next door and ask them to keep the noise down as there's a child trying to sleep!

Thu, 2011-11-17 12:18 — Hrry (not verified)

I don;t think "clearly advertising their preferences" can save them. Would you expect a black couple faced with a "No Negroes" sign simply to " tut at thei[r] narrow worldview" and move on? That certainly isn't the society I want to live in!

Fri, 2011-11-18 11:08 — Notjarvis (not verified)

@Caroline
- The difference is that the Bulls -
- say that they would not have
- refused a twin room to the couple. - So the no blacks, no Irish analogy - is false. Homosexuals were allowed - it was the lack of marriage that
- was problematic. They will be
- stuffed when gay marriage is
- introduced.
They are stuffed now, as (supposedly) Civil Partnerships are to be treated the same as marriage in the eyes of the law.

- I feel sorry for the Bulls
- nonetheless, they have been
- needlessly hounded.
I don't really to be honest - they're fighting on a discriminatory point of principle. They could have stopped fighting this case long ago, and faded into obscurity.

Thu, 2011-11-17 13:07 — David (not verified)

Definitely don't want hotels saying "No blacks" or "no gays" or "no Muslims" etc!

But maybe we might look at this positively and say that we could licence a limited number of service providers to *specialise* on particular groups or behaviours?

Provided there are enough other hotels or bars in an area, some hotels or bars could be licensed to specialise in, for instance, gay men, women only, older people only, people who want a Muslim or Christian or Hindu environment etc etc."

Thu, 2011-11-17 13:36 — jankaas (not verified)

@Ian

"Have to totally disagree, these hot heads head off to fight in Afganistan, these hotheads bombed the public transport system in London, attacked an airport in Scotland."

Afghanistan; yes we've provided the perfect training ground for nutters, well done us eh?

London & Scotland attacks; thankfully a miniscule proportion of UK nationals involved, so thanks for reaffirming my point - UK Muslims on the whole are a law abiding bunch. with views i find abhorrant, yes, but then they are not alone in holding odious views.

"This case would not exist under sharia law."

do you have any idea what it would take for Sharia law to become part of UK law? i doubt you've ever wondered how that could possible materialise in practice, in the real world, in our liberal democracy. go on, have a long hard think rather than repeat your specious claim.

answer; it's totally impossible

Thu, 2011-11-17 13:56 — jankaas (not verified)

@gerry

"This is the difference with countries such as Uganda, where the lives of gays and lesbians are pretty horrific too - most of the violence done to them is NOT legal..whereas in almost every Muslim majority country, violence is almost exclusively legal!"

and i rather doubt the difference of 'legal' compared to 'tacitly allowed' makes the suffering/death any more palatable to the gay person on the receiving end? what do you think....

on Sharia in the UK, see my reply just now to Ian. would like to hear from you just how, in practice, this could ever possibly be intergrated into our UK legal system?

"A bigoted Christian B+B owner is truly,very small beer..."

in a way, yes of course it is. but 'we' fought for the much bigger prize of equality, and therefor even such small beer should be put in its rightful place.

Thu, 2011-11-17 13:57 — JED (not verified)

David you might be onto something there. Make a register of all the religious bigots running publically available services so the public can give them a wide berth. See how they go on when we're able to discriminate on the basis that they do things that are unnaceptable to the masses.
It always amazes me that many of the religious get their knickers in a twist at gay people having sex. There's an easy way round it, just don't think about gay eople having sex. That way it causes you no inconvenience at all....

Thu, 2011-11-17 16:22 — Ian5

Jankaas, I agree with the theory of your argument on sharia law in the UK, but its the extremists you need to convince that it will not come to pass. Its their belief that drives the concept, and the ills or evils that such a concept produces. Halal slaughter anybody. Islamic banking. Islamic Sharia Council Thin end of a very nasty wedge.

Wed, 2011-11-16 14:16 — jankaas (not verified)

@Nelson

"I strongly support the right of bar and hotel-owners to run single-sex gay-only establishments, so long as they are clearly signposted as such."

and i do not.

"The quid pro quo must be the right of a few Christian hotel-owners to run their enterprises upon openly religious lines."

don't agree with this either.

the gist of your article seems to be; two wrongs can make a right.

we can't allow any discrimination even it it is by the back door.

(pun noted)

Wed, 2011-11-16 14:31 — Flashbuck (not verified)

How would you like it if you ran a bed and breakfast in which say your young child had to sleep in the bedroom adjoining a couple of gayers engaging in sodomy and banging away all night, eh?

Fri, 2011-11-18 17:00 — David (not verified)

Peoples' rights are way more important than religious beliefs.

Mon, 2011-11-21 14:53 — Louise (not verified)

"How would you like it if you ran a bed and breakfast in which say your young child had to sleep in the bedroom adjoining a couple of gayers engaging in sodomy and banging away all night, eh?"

If I was bothered I wouldn't run a B&B from my own home.

Obviously.

Wed, 2011-11-16 14:49 — Caroline Farrow (not verified)

Eminently sensible as ever Nelson. I agree.

Wed, 2011-11-16 14:51 — jankaas (not verified)

@Flashbuck

"How would you like it"

irrelevant, i don't own a B&B. but those wo do go into that line of business are not allowed to discriminate.

"a couple of gayers engaging in sodomy and banging away all night"

to answer this let's imagine you own a B&B, and your child had to sleep in the bedroom adjoining a married heterosexual couple engaging in sodomy and banging away all night.

what would you do about that then....?

Wed, 2011-11-16 14:53 — jankaas (not verified)

@Caroline

unless your being sarcastic, same question to you i just posed Flash.

well?

Mon, 2011-11-21 15:04 — Louise (not verified)

@Caroline

They haven't been needlessly hounded, they broke the law, and they feel they want to keep on appealing which they have a right to do but they are the ones making an issue of it! And they are the ones who broke the law!

@Ian what is a Lesbian Dress Code! I am unaware of one, is this why I never pull? *rolls eyes*

Mon, 2011-11-21 15:17 — Louise (not verified)

Discrimination = being treated differently to everybody else.

Not being told to follow the same laws as everybody else.

The Bulls are claiming discrimination but what they mean is they want a special privilege. To be allowed to pick and choose a law based on whether it is in line with their own opinions.

Laws don't work like that. If people wanted to vote for the Christian Alliance they could. They don't.

Wed, 2011-11-16 15:03 — Caroline Farrow (not verified)

Personally I'd rather my child not be kept awake by anything, be that fireworks or noisy sex of any nature! I'm not sure of your point.

I wouldn't have a problem taking my family to a hotel where 2 gay men or lesbians might be sharing a room as they would probably be oblivious. Even if they did notice 2 same sex people were sharing a room they wouldn't jump to adult conclusions nor would I feel a need to pass comment either way.

What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is between them and their conscience.

Wed, 2011-11-16 15:10 — Ian5

What is the Bull's response to civil partnerships I wonder....must married people have gone through a church even Christian church wedding to be deemed suitable to sleep together? Are those married in civil ceremonies married in gods eyes?

I think the Bulls should have some say over who they accommodate, but not at the point of arrival at their home. Their policy should be clearly stated on the website or made clear on time of booking.