'Christianity attacked' – hotel loses appeal
CHRISTIAN guesthouse owners who refused to let a gay couple share a double bedroom at their hotel in Marazion said they were "disappointed" after losing their appeal against a High Court ruling.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull claim they have been the victim of hate campaigns, have been forced to shut their business and have lost thousands of pounds since the case began more than three years ago.
-

Peter and Hazelmary Bull were ordered to pay £3,600 after court battle.
The couple, who run the Chymorvah Private Hotel, say they are now planning to convert their hotel to a Christian rest centre and are waiting for a Charities Commission ruling on their plans.
The Bulls were ordered to pay £3,600 after losing a legal battle against civil partners Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, from Bristol, who had booked to stay at their hotel in September 2008.
The Marazion couple appealed against the decision, arguing they had the human right to bar unmarried couples from sharing a double bedroom, in line with their beliefs. They denied discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, stating that they believed all sex outside marriage was a sin.
But Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Justice Hooper and Lady Justice Rafferty, sitting at the Court of Appeal in London, last week rejected their plea.
Mr and Mrs Bull did not attend the appeal verdict last week, but Mr Bull told The Cornishman afterwards: "The only thing that we can really say is that we are disappointed that we cannot run our guesthouse as we wish.
"We are trying to become a Christian rest centre, a charity, and in that way our biblical beliefs can be part of what we do for people who want to come here. They will have to abide by our rules.
"We don't have freedom of speech any more. Christianity is under attack."
The Christian Institute has provided legal and financial support for the Bulls' appeal, which took place more than a year after the original court decision in the case.
After the ruling, Simon Calvert, from The Christian Institute, said: "[They] have been penalised for their beliefs. A lot of people will think it is shame the law doesn't let them live and work according to their own values under their own roof."
What do you think? Should guesthouse owners be allowed to refuse gay couples? Vote in our poll to the right of this article.








52 Comments
View all
by Justapilgrim
Thursday, March 15 2012, 6:27PM
“I have answered yes to your poll question because, in this case, to have been forced to accept this couple sharing a double bed would have been forcing Mr and Mrs Bull to condone what their religious beliefs clearly tell them is a sin and, therefore, commit a sin themselves. This would be an infringement of their human rights under the European Convention. Strangely, if they had instructed their hotel manager, also a Christian, to accept the booking, he would have been entitled to refuse on the grounds that it would infringe HIS human rights!
Now let's look at motives. This has been dubbed a "hate crime" by some militant homosexuals but I would put it to you that the Christian hoteliers were motivated by love. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and that God destroyed two large cities because it was so widely practiced in them. The Bulls were, therefore, acting in what they believed were the best interests of the couple as their belief warns them of the dire consequences of committing that sin. Now let's consider the motives of the homosexual couple. If, as they have said under oath, they had read all of the hotel's website except the bit which clearly states that double rooms would not be let to unmarried couples, then they had alternate courses of action open to them on arrival. Firstly, they could have accepted the offer of alternative accommodation that was made and there would have been no problem. Secondly they could have accepted that they had not correctly read the the whole of the offer being made and (easily) found their own alternative accommodation. However this couple decided that their priority was to ring the police and bring down the full force of the, as yet untried, law upon this couple. I simply ask, was their motive love or hate? Would their reaction have been the same if the hotel had accidentally overbooked? If they were staying in a Hindu run hotel would they have prosecuted because they were refused roast beef, or in a Muslim hotel they were refused a bacon sandwich? The loving thing to do is to accept that certain people have strong beliefs and that it is wrong, whatever the law says, to try to force our own standards onto other decent people. Mr Preddy and partner suffered minor inconvenience over this matter at minimum cost to themselves. Mr & Mrs Bull have suffered the loss of their business, possibly their home, several acts of criminal damage to their property and more libelous entries on websites such as Trip Advisor than people who have stayed at their hotel. Who, I ask, is responsible for the "hate crime"”
by cornishdan
Sunday, March 11 2012, 6:18PM
“As a young gay couple (we are in our 20s!) i would feel very embarrassed if i was turned away simply for being Gay! I accept people for who they are, individual! People should have more rights to turn rude, foul mouthed people away from guest houses rather than because they will be sleeping in one bed!
i don't judge people - so why should they judge me and make decisions before even knowing me!”
by barrtribe
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 6:14PM
“by beachland , actually I totally disagree with your own post i aree with you point that my first post was confusing. Well to some people :)”
by barrtribe
Monday, February 20 2012, 9:58AM
“Beachland , BTW I totally agree with what you said in your post it was very clear and to the point. Cheers no disrepect intended :)”
by barrtribe
Monday, February 20 2012, 9:54AM
“Beachland, no real point apart from there's dicrimination in all walks of life, this is not always negative its just a freedom of choice.
Certain groups banging on about their rights to live how they chose whilst taking away the rights of others to live as they chose.
If you are gay fine its your choice but dont impose what you want to do on others and get the law and the PC brigade to force the issue. As you pointed out there are plenty of places gay couples are openly welcomed.
The issue wasnt about them being Gay it was about what the Christian couples beliefs as they see if allowed them to act in good concience.
If a christian walked into a mosque or anyone for that matter with their shoes on this would be disrespectful to a muslims belief; you wouldnt get a court forcing them to let people walk around in their sanctuary with their outdoor shoes on.
There was nothing discrimatory about my comment it was about freedom of choice for all not just the minority with a loud voice.
My apologies if my thinking was to lateral for you. I was just trying to make a point that there is discrimination in all aspects of life not just Gender.
Its about time that cetain members of the community grew up and learned to be confident and secure in who they are or their position in life and not take offence and go running to mummy to come get her big stick and punish the naughty people who dont aree with them.”
by beachIand
Monday, February 20 2012, 12:54AM
“by barrtribe, do you have a point based on discrimination of factual events. As I can't seem to see one in your post, doesn't make any sense to me.”
by beachIand
Monday, February 20 2012, 12:46AM
“by Vox_Populi
Sunday, February 19 2012, 7:13PM
"Perhaps the Bulls could a get few tips from these people:
http://tinyurl.com/6mw8nq7
They seem to cater for a well defined minority without being accused of discrimination"
It says gay and gay friendly, which means all men so is not discrimination on sexuality.
It means no women. But the details on that site are very vague and it's only a booking service website that uses various hotels and B&B,.
As for gender split law.:
Communal accommodation – residential accommodation which includes dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation – can be restricted to one sex only for reasons of privacy and decency or because of the nature of the sanitary facilities available.”
by barrtribe
Monday, February 20 2012, 12:21AM
“Their business their rules, the courts dont tell richard branson and the ilke how they must run their business. I would like to fly first class but cant because it cost more, im being discriminated . Sound rediculous doesnt it, i would like to see the courts make the same ruling if they were muslim.”
by Jonny2010
Sunday, February 19 2012, 8:22PM
“"If you are meaning "gay" as happy-clappy Christians, and others who are in need of rest, are not getting their rest, that could be a problem, but if you are referring to "gay" as homosexual "gay Christians", is this not a contradiction?""
So you think gay and Christian is a contridiction? It sounds like Youngcornwall still has a lot of growing up left to do.”
by Vox_Populi
Sunday, February 19 2012, 7:13PM
“Perhaps the Bulls could a get few tips from these people:
http://tinyurl.com/6mw8nq7
They seem to cater for a well defined minority without being accused of discrimination”