« ‪Barclays to pay £60 million compensation‬ | Main | ‪Koran-protest pastor banned from UK‬ »

January 19, 2011



I trust the BBC will be giving the Penzance hoteliers an opportunity to put their views across.

Hell will freeze over before that happens I suspect.

Winston Smith

They’ll be hosting a chat show next. There just aren’t enough camp TV presenters


Many Christians are comfortable with the 'equal rights' that are afforded by civil partnerships but a civil partnership is not marriage. We have reached a situation in this country where people scoff at Christian religious beliefs but Islamic beliefs at their peril.
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
The house rules were clear. An appeal is essential.

David MacDonald

It’s the dog I’m sorry for; many B&Bs do not allow dogs.


This is an absolutely correct decision. If not where do we draw the line? Do we want to go back to the fifties when there was all sorts of racial and other discrimination?

shameless plugging

An article written about a year ago on this topic:

(If you remember this was the same case that got Mr. Grayling in trouble during the election)



Sorry veteran that's a contradiction unless you consider religious discrimination not worth bothering about.


No Petros you are wrong - where does Jesus say that homosexuality is wrong? Christianity is just being used in this case to hide bigoted prejudices.


Petros, many Christians also have no problem with homosexuality. It isn't a religious view, it's a cultural view. In any event, religion can't justify discrimination. If the couple don't want gay couples staying there, they can choose not to have a public business.


What is at issue in this case is not that the hotel owners hold christian views but that they decided to act upon their views in defiance of the law and discriminate against another group of society. No one forced them to be hotel owners and their christian belief does not entitle them to special privileges above the law to decide who and who not they deem to be worthy of staying at their establishment.

The bottom line for this and the other professions where such conflicts have arisen is that if belief prevents you complying with required duties or the law itself you are in the wrong job.


Did you read my first post Raj and veteran? I didn't say I had a problem with homosexuality. My point is that people complain about discrimination but don't recognise religious discrimination.
If the notice said 'No dogs', 'No children' or whatever that would be accepted. Why not 'Married couples only'? Please don't tell me that people living in a civil partnership are married, they are not. What they do is up to them but they should be sensitive to house rules like the rest of us.


"Please don't tell me that people living in a civil partnership are married, they are not."

The state denies gay people the right to marry and this is then used as an excuse by bigots to refuse entry. The point is that no one gets the right to the interpret law according to their beliefs.

"What they do is up to them but they should be sensitive to house rules like the rest of us."

Absolutely no. Discrimination should be exposed and crushed wherever it rears itself and in no way tolerated.


Marriage is the union of a man and a women for the purpose of procreation, as far as I know that is not the case with homosexuals. Ealing tory, you seek not to argue the case, you seek to clamp down the debate by calling all those who disagree with your narrow view point. This is typical of soviet style hard left politics.
Whatever happened to tolerance? The discrimination in this case was between married and unmarried couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual. Discrimination happens everyday, universities discriminated between the more academic and the less academic, a man might offer his seat to a women but might not to a young man.
Our laws and Liberties are based on our ancient Christian heritage. By persecuting those who hold views that were commonplace 40 years ago, and are essentially conservative we are heading towards totalitarianism.
The commenters who compare this to racial discrimination are completely wrong. Racial discrimination is unreasoning, inexcusable and wrong.
I fear that it may be too late for the tory party. It has been taken over by metropolitan liberals and is obsessed by the culturally marxist 'human rights'.


So Ealing Tory, how do you propose to crush you discrimination against Christians?


"Marriage is the union of a man and a women for the purpose of procreation"

Is it? What about heterosexual couples that remain childless? At what point does a straight married couple lose the right to be married by not producing offspring? Gay couples can adopt children and lesbians can use in vitro fertilization and sperm donation, is that not procreation? Using procreation as a justification for marriage is just plain nonsense.


"So Ealing Tory, how do you propose to crush you discrimination against Christians?"

Christians aren't discriminated against. They get to follow precisely the same laws that everyone else gets to follow in this country. That is called equality. It is christians who want special rules to discriminate against others purely on the basis of their belief.


Yes it is, marriage enable moral procreation(or used to anyway before the sexual and moral revolution of the 1960s).
Marriage is defined by the Church of England as between one man and one woman. Unless you seek to de-establish the church (a deeply un-conservative thing to do) you can't have any other tenable position.
Legal changes that equalise the union between two men or two women with Christian marriage, re-distribute the special privileges give to marriage to others. A privilege which is not exclusive is not a privilege. Marriage needs these privileges because it is difficult to maintain against the many forces that threaten to break up individual marriages and forces that seek to topple marriage from it's position is society.


That is poppycock Ealing Tory. Read my first comment regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


I couldn't give a fig what any religious definition of marriage is, we don't live in a theocracy. The only definition of marriage that interests me is the legal and secular one. Christians can define marriage any way they like but when it comes to the law they must respect equality.


The law doesn't care why you illegally discriminate. There is no conflict of rights here at all - the law says that if you do business with the public we expect minimum standards of decency. This includes treating the gay "married" the same as the straight married. Calling marriage "civil partnership" doesn't alter the fundamental nature of the relationship. Besides, the Quakers now recognise gay marriage - indeed, one reading of the marriage act suggests that they can ALREADY perform gay marriages as the statute merely refers to marriage within the use of the society of friends.


"That is poppycock Ealing Tory. Read my first comment regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

And how were the hotel owners prevented freedom of thought, conscience and religion by letting paying customers stay at their publicly accessible and advertised establishment?


I beg to differ Ealing Tory, we don't live in a theocracy (where the clergy run the country), be we do live in one with theocratic aspects. We have a state religion, where Bishops of the Church of England sit in the house of Lords, the lords spiritual. Also Christianity, and morality lie at the heart of our politics. Most importantly our head of state is her majestry "Elizabeth II, by the GRACE OF GOD, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH". If that doesn't convince you that Christianity is key to our morals and civilisation I do not know what will.
What's wrong with tolerance? Why must we have equality? Why can't the Bristol couple live at peace in a society which generally does not approve of their actions, disdains their way of life and often dislikes their moral choices? After all that was the reasoning behind the legalisation of homosexuality. Of course homosexual adults should be free to live together as couples untroubled by the law, so why shouldn't a Christian couple run their B and B in accordance with their religion, the state religion?
The ideas that you espouse are more akin to a republican revolutionary marxist that a conservative.
As for Kreecha, the only discrimination the B and B were making was between married and unmarried couples. If that were to be illegal, there would be no point in getting married at all. Civil partnership is not marriage, it undermines marriage but it is not. I does fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship. A civil partnership is a temporary sexual union, the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Joe De Mocritus

We cannot allow individual's philosophy/religion/superstition to trump the law of the land. We decided as a socity to give homosexuals these rights, so we must abide by this decision.

Religion must never be allowd to trump reason and law.


@ Ronald

The Church of England may be an established church (for now) but in no way does that mean that in the 21st century it has any right to be, as you say, “key to our morals and civilisation”. Today Britain is secular and secular law, as laid down by our elected representatives in Parliament, not religious law applies.

As an aside let us not forget the basis of the Church of England, that being an adulterous king unable to keep to his marriage vows. Hardly the best example for the defence of christian marriage.

You speak of tolerance and that gay people should be free to live their lives but fail to understand that the very reason and purpose of equality laws (the very existence of which you lament) is that such a situation, unless protected by law, is abused, as in this very case. The law is there to protect the weak from the strong and ensure that all members of society are able participate and enjoy freedom equally.

Your glib insult of labelling people Marxists who do not subscribe to your narrow social conservative agenda is disingenuous. It is social conservatives, who by their very intolerance and desire to exclude whole swathes of society the right and freedoms enjoyed by themselves and usually for no other basis than dogma, who are the true enemy of modern conservatism and the individual’s right to participate in society according to their ability and means.

The law may be define marriage as being between a man and a woman but that situation is changing. The political will is growing to change the definition of marriage to being that of a union of two people irrespective of gender, as it is in Canada. The Liberal Democrats already support such a measure, Labour has done the same and the measure is being debated at ministerial level of the Conservative government. Enjoy your definition while you can.


@Joe De Moritus I'm not sure what rights you're talking about. I think when you say "we decided" you mean the metropolitan political class decided. Christianity is the basis of our laws, our art, literature, architecture, science, morals and traditions (with a bit of old paganism thrown in for good luck).
Also Christianity is the fundamental basis of our reason and law.
@ Ealing Tory
Alarm bells always right when people use the phase "in the 21st century". You can't take away the underpinning of our society without it breaking down. Just look around at our broken society, single parent families, failing schools and hooliganism.
It is ironic isn't it that the church that was founded because of a divorce was the strongest advocate for life long monogamous marriage in Europe. At least for 400 years.
The weak from the strong? I would say these laws are used by the strong against the weak.
I didn't call you a Marxist, I said your views on this matter were. If you went back 50 years you would be welcomed in open arms by the hard left.
I'm being narrow! The narrowness is with the political class who inhabit the "centre ground" (Which is in fact Social democracy), who condemn all those who disagree with them. What have I said that is intolerant? "Discrimination should be exposed and crushed wherever it rears itself and in no way tolerated", it seem as if you are the intolerant one. You can have tolerance or equality not both.
I am in no doubt that patriotic social conservatives are an enemy for 'modern conservatism', because modern conservatism accepts school selection by parental wealth, but not by ability, doesn't think that criminals should be punished, that Britain must remain in the EU, that we must surrender to terrorism in Northern Ireland, that believes in a sycophantic 'special relationship' with America, and that does not understand any countryside issues, and that thinks that the 'free market' will solve everything while letting our manufacturing go to ruin .
So you accept that modern conservatism is not conservative at all and does not seek one bit to overthrow the British Cultural revolution.
That's just it the 'political will' may be growing in Westminster among the liberal elites but it is not growing with ordinary people in provincial Britain. If Labour and the Liberal Democrats support it, it is in now way conservative. Just what exactly is conservative about trying to abolish marriage? I happen to live in Canada, and that law is just one in a series of liberal social and constitutional acts of vandalism.
One has to have dogma to oppose the dogma of the left.

The comments to this entry are closed.




Most Updated

Other Pages


  • Extreme Tracking