Christian B&B Owners Peter And Hazelmary Bull Appeal 'Unlawful' Gay Couple Ban

First Posted: 08/11/2011 11:19 GMT Updated: 08/01/2012 09:12 GMT   PA

Christian guest house owners have appealed against a judge's ruling that they acted unlawfully in refusing to allow a gay couple to stay in a double room.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who run Chymorvah House in Marazion, Cornwall, challenged a ruling, made in January by Judge Andrew Rutherford at Bristol County Court, at the Court of Appeal in London.

Judge Rutherford said the Bulls acted unlawfully in turning away Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, both from Bristol, in September 2008. He ordered the Bulls to pay the couple a total of £3,600 damages. Mr Hall, who is in his 40s, and Mr Preddy, in his 30s, had claimed sexual orientation discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

Mr Bull, 71, and Mrs Bull, 67, were in court for the start of the appeal hearing, which lawyers expect to end on Wednesday. Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were not in court.

James Dingemans QC, for the Bulls, told three appeal judges that his clients had no wish to "undermine" Mr Hall and Mr Preddy nor to disrespect them. But he argued: "The learned judge erred in failing to balance the respective rights in this case."

He said the Bulls believed that "unmarried sexual behaviour was wrong" but were not prejudiced against homosexuals.

Mr Dingemans said the law should be capable of accommodating Mr Hall and Mr Preddy's rights under equality legislation and the Bulls' rights to beliefs about sex before marriage.

"(The Bulls) have prevented hundreds of unmarried couple sharing double beds," said Mr Dingemans. "(Their) beliefs may be considered outdated, uneconomic, for those operating a private hotel but, we respectfully submit, they are entitled to manifest those beliefs."

He said the Bulls had an "absolute right" to believe that "unmarried sexual behaviour is wrong" and a "qualified right" to "manifest that belief".

"If human rights is to have any value at all, it must be respecting of all rights," added Mr Dingemans. "It should not be beyond the ability of the courts to accommodate both sides."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Filed by PA  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 43
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
European1919
I am the Pigmâ’¶n
10:10 AM on 11/09/2011
So Big Brother feels he needs to tell people who to let into their house or accept as guests.
The plot thickens.

Not that I agree with the couple ... it is just a matter of principle.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lawyer13
retired Lawyer, General and Psychiatric Nurse, wit
09:11 AM on 11/09/2011
This is a very finely balanced case, but I wonder what the Bulls will do when the Gay Marriage Act comes into law, they argument in not condoning sex before marriage will not wear the will it. I await the result of this appeal with interest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ppenguinator
Life's too imprtant to be taken seriously.
10:16 PM on 11/08/2011
When you own a house, it would be legal, though bigoted and shameful, to forbid anyone you like from entry on religious grounds.
If you choose to turn your home into a business, however, you must obey anti-discrimination laws, despite what your religion says. Otherwise, you could claim that gay, black, Jewish or poor people were against your religion and refuse to serve them.
08:12 PM on 11/08/2011
What a shame, they look like such a happy couple, if heaven is full of these characters I know where I'm booking for eternity.
01:00 AM on 11/09/2011
I'll see you down there :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:14 PM on 11/09/2011
You have an option?
07:48 PM on 11/08/2011
like a pub you can and should be able to refuse anyone entry to your premises, I would have gave no reason whatsoever before booting them off my porch
05:44 PM on 11/08/2011
Quote: "He said the Bulls ........ were not prejudiced"

So a sign saying "No Blacks or Irish" would be OK? Just as long as they are not prejudiced!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:35 PM on 11/08/2011
So far as I know, there are no religious (Christian) prohibitions about being black or Irish.

How does this equate to the Bull's desire to run their B&B according to their religious convictions?

I'm sure that married black couples and married Irish couples would be made welcome.
photo
BeeJayCeee
I still loathe Thatcher
07:43 PM on 11/08/2011
Religion is a choice, being black, Irish or gay isn't. Time this couple got new beliefs.
08:17 PM on 11/08/2011
"He said the Bulls............were not prejudiced"

No, just bigots. Much better.
04:14 PM on 11/08/2011
From the moment they go to offer a public service, they must abide to the law. Keep your principles for yourself. And only yourself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MatthewRobertson
I'm 26. I'm gay. I like film. I care about shit.
04:06 PM on 11/08/2011
But its THEIR Bed and Breakfast. If they don't want me there, I wont be there. Would anyone else go where they are not welcomed?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:33 PM on 11/08/2011
So that they can have their request for accommodation refused, and then sue for 'compensation'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MatthewRobertson
I'm 26. I'm gay. I like film. I care about shit.
01:24 AM on 11/11/2011
This is a possible stretch. Not everyone is wanting a free ride.
07:04 PM on 11/08/2011
Well, a lot of very courageous black people went where they were not welcomed in your country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MatthewRobertson
I'm 26. I'm gay. I like film. I care about shit.
01:21 AM on 11/11/2011
But it's a business. Why would I want my dollars to support someone who thinks I am an abomination?
photo
Valksy
civis mundi sum
03:56 PM on 11/08/2011
When the choice has been made to open a business, the person has consented to obeying all the laws of the land. From obeying licensing regulations, health and safety regulations and anti-discrimination legislation. If you don't want to obey, don't open a business.

The B & B owners are asking that their right to be bigoted be respected. But given that not all christians feel the same way that they do, it cannot be cited as at the fundamental core of their beliefs.

If the B & B owners win it will prove that civil partnership (which the two men renting the room had) is inferior to marriage and therefore marriage must be extended to all consenting adult couples who wish it to avoid being discriminated against. Should the the B & B owners lose, the law will demonstrate that people do not have a legally mandated right to discriminate based on a belief system and that the law of the land is sovereign.

The latter is the correct outcome. The alternative means that those who just BELIEVE in something (anything) hard enough can put up any discriminatory sign that they want.

I could point out to this couple that the money spent on legal fees (they are represented by a christian organisation) would be better spent on helping the needy and the suffering rather than trying to legally enshrine their right to discriminate but that would be stating the obvious.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:37 PM on 11/08/2011
"...If the B & B owners win it will prove that civil partnership (which the two men renting the room had) is inferior to marriage and therefore marriage must be extended to all consenting adult couples who wish it to avoid being discriminated against....".

In this couple's case it wouldn't make any difference, as they have their own specific 'Christian' definition of what marriage is.
photo
Valksy
civis mundi sum
04:49 PM on 11/08/2011
But they emphasised "marriage" as a term (to avoid saying "no gays" which is might be what they really wanted to say) and refused to accept a civil partnership as comparable. If the case upholds this point of view by letting them win, it is the same as admitting that civil partnership is inferior and/or different to marriage in a significant way.

Which is, of course, what a lot of LGBT people say anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark B Robertson
03:48 PM on 11/08/2011
They are running a business, you are not allowed to discriminate. Having a shared delusion, aka religion, still does not entitle you to discriminate in provision of services.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MatthewRobertson
I'm 26. I'm gay. I like film. I care about shit.
04:08 PM on 11/08/2011
Should they be allowed the discriminate? Of course, discrimination of some kinds is bad and can certainly be a bad business decision, but do the owners and creators of said business be allowed to steer it where they see fit?
photo
oneyippie
Leaning far to your left
03:15 PM on 11/08/2011
Obviously this couple should not be running a B&B if they won't allow unmarried to sleep together as they claim.

They have a right to believe whatever they want, but not to impose their beliefs upon others. Especially if it involves a business license.

Do you understand that concept, Christians?
03:54 PM on 11/08/2011
If God didn't say it it's not true :-)
06:48 PM on 11/08/2011
God remains remarkably silent on topics of this nature..... well, on all topics really. He probably wants to announce that He has changed His mind concerning gays, but finds Himself in a dilemma as you're not supposed to change your mind if you're infallible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MatthewRobertson
I'm 26. I'm gay. I like film. I care about shit.
04:11 PM on 11/08/2011
Legally, I don't know much about the laws in the UK, but that's very similar to the anti discrimination laws here in the U.S. My question is, should that law be challenged? If "Jack and Sally" want to start a business but are bigoted, why not allow them to reject me as a customer? I'd rather know who I am dealing with.....I don't want to financially support a racist or a homophobe....at least if they are honest, we know where everyone stands.
05:17 AM on 11/09/2011
you seem to be missing the point....