Christian Swiss B&B owner Susanne Wilkinson ordered to pay £3600 damages to gay couple
On a Friday evening back in March 2010 Swiss B&B owner Susanne Wilkinson turned away a gay couple as it was “against her convictions” for two men to share a bed.
Michael Black and John Morgan reported the matter to Thames Valley Police.
At the time Mrs Wilkinson argued that as the property was a guest house as well as a private residence – as opposed to a hotel – she had every right to turn the couple away.
The human rights organisation Liberty acting on behalf of the couple argued that as the B&B provided services to the public, it was unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of that person’s sexual orientation.
A judge today has agreed with Liberty and ruled against Mrs Wilkinson ordering her to pay £3600 damages on the grounds of hurt feelings in accordance with equality laws.
The Christian Institute defended Mrs Wilkinson and today their spokesman Mike Judge is still arguing the private residence angle:
Yes, Mrs Wilkinson’s B&B is a business, but it’s also a family home. The law should be more flexible in allowing people to live according to their own values under their own roof.
A couple of points are worth noting.
I remember at the time folk raising the question of whether Mrs Wilkinson also refused unmarried heterosexual couples. Well according to Christian Today:
The judge accepted the sincerity of her Christian beliefs and that she had also refused to allow unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.
It’s also worth noting that Mrs Wilkinson claims to have been besieged with abuse:
[Mrs Wilkinson] asked for police protection after the story was first covered by the media, due to a string of death threats. ‘We had thousands of pieces of hate mail and very abusive phone calls. I had a hand-delivered letter put through the door saying that my house would be burned down,’ she recalled.
‘I had to call the police. They were very concerned and patrolled the lane we live on for five months and checked on us regularly.’
The judge has given Mrs Wilkinson leave to appeal and so we’ll see what happens.
In the meantime, I’m sure there will be legal analysis and implications etc posted online, and if I see anything interesting I’ll update here with links.
Tags: Law Moral Ethical, News, Religion Society
October 18th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
The BBC are reporting the opposite to Christian Today:
“Recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had “treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances”. ”
Pretty crucial point – though I’m not sure whether discrimination against unmarried couples on grounds of immorality is permitted in law either. The abuse and threats the Wilkinsons have received for their troubles certainly isn’t.
Bottom line is that people in business have to keep to the law whether they like it or not – or stop trading.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
“Bottom line is that people in business have to keep to the law whether they like it or not – or stop trading.” Totally agree… unfortunately the treatment they got is inexcusable.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
And the court has clearly made the right decision.
This is a business advertising its services to all that then chose to refuse to serve 2 customers on the basis of a prejudice. Her proclaimed christianity is a smokesscreen, if she had been a mormon and quoted the book of mormon to turn away a mixed race couple would you be cheering her on? What if she had read a page on in leviticus and turned away a woman for wearing wool and cotton? Supporting her christian principles fine for you?
Of course not. Its the evangelical wing of modern christianity and its obsession with gays that is behind this, and behind your support.
The rest of us feel that individuals have the right to be treated as individuals and served with respect by all businesses.
Get over it.
October 18th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I can only hope that the ‘Gay only’ establishments have the same laws applied to them with the same rigorousness. I won’t be holding my breath.
October 18th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Again the comment reinforces that this is about antigay bigotry rather than christianity.
Just for information, would you care to share any documented instances of “gay only” establishments acting in a discriminatory way?
October 18th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Mike, if this is about the law and equality, as many gay people tried to claim, then the law works both ways and if a Christian advertised an establishment as ‘non-gay’ it would be attacked and vilified with legal action taken against it by gays, as well you know.
Does speaking out the sides of your mouth come naturally to you or did someone teach you how to do it? It’s just that I find it hard to understand how you can hold two completely contradictory views side by side in your head at the same time.
October 18th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
I completely agree that the law works to protect all of us from discrimination. I would go further, the protection from discrimination is a great achievement of our society.
What I asked was for a documented instance of a gay only establishment behaving in a discriminatory way. If you have one I will be happy to support your campaign.
Otherwise, resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks just reinforces my view that the buttons this case has presssed are nothng to do with christianity but with challenging anti gay prejudice.
October 18th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
First off, your use of the claim that I resorted to a lazy ad hominem attack shows your lack of understanding of the term. I was referring to the two contradictory views in your head which you seem determined to somehow justify. Clearly you are also the sensitive type that does not respond well to sarcasm. Tut. Tut.
You will not find a documented instance of a gay establishment behaving in a discriminatory way towards non-gays, as you are more than well aware, for the extremely simple reason that if non-gays see that somewhere is ‘gay only’ they tend to do the polite thing and stay away, rather than force themselves on to others. It’s a pity that ‘others’ don’t show the same respect.
Nowhere did I mention a ‘campaign’, yet you seem to make out that I am on one. Nor has anyone pressed my buttons, although someone has clearly been pressing yours, as indicated by the fact that ‘pressed’ has two s‘s, not three. I made a comment on this article as I am perfectly at liberty to do so, expressing my own views. What happened next? Let’s see…oh yes, you then started trying to pick an argument with me because you didn’t like the fact that my view was different to yours. Not got off to a good start with your arguments with me have you?
Had enough of wasting my time here in a futile argument, and am going to go and have a good workout for the next couple of hours, muscling up my buff body which got a lovely suntan during the summer.
October 18th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Hi Tim
you seem to be new to putting your arguments into words.
If I may offer a couple of suggestions?
Firstly try reading through your posts and try seeing them from the point of view of an impartial observer. Now, does it seem to you that an impartial observer will think the way you have approached your aguments to be clear, rational, and well thought through? Something to work on there.
Secondly when you are asked for an example of something to support a statement you have made- known as evidence- it is best not to respond with an attack on spelling, or a wild ridiculous generalisation, but with evidence, or a reworking of the statement that enables a discussion to progress.
Thirdly-do try and stay on topic.
Good luck with the buff body. Personally I don’t swing that way, but a healthy body can be a first step towards a healthy mind. Good luck with that.
October 18th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Can you provide an example of one of these “Gay only” establishments Tim.
Discrimination is discrimination, whatever its flavour, and if such establishments exist there would be merit in highlighting this.
October 18th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
I think maybe Tim’s point is that there doesn’t seem to be an expectation that businesses which cater exclusively to gay or lesbian couples have to follow the same requirements that the Wilkinsons or the Bulls have to.
For example an internet search will reveal several hotels in the UK that advertise as ‘exclusively gay’ or ‘gay only’ establishments.
You can also find articles in the Pink News and other media from 2011 which contained concerns about the incoming Equality Act which may force them to remove their homosexual or gay ‘exclusivity’ which formed the identity of such businesses. The Equality Commission did talk about looking into this aspect but I don’t think anything ever came of it.
I haven’t seen the recent judgement but do we have a situation where B&B owners who won’t rent rooms with a double bed to gay or unmarried couples are treated differently in the eyes of the law to establishments which cater exclusively to homosexuals, and as such could be seen as discriminating against people who are married? I do seem to remember reading somewhere that these establishments could fall outside of the requirements as their user group felt more comfortable and secure in a gay only environment.
Then again maybe the complexities and finer points of the law are too much for me!
October 18th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Since people want examples of gay-only hotels, here’s one:
Guyz Hotel has been run as a gay hotel for the past 24 years,
and is one of the most popular and longest established gay
hotels in Blackpool, catering for gay couples, singles and
groups who want a gay environment
with quality accommodation.
Previously voted 3rd best gay hotel in UK!!
Just in case that is not clear, this is indeed a hotel that excludes anyone except homosexual men:
Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel.
That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people,
but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels
locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money,
and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even have
STAG & HEN parties staying.!!!
If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively
gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment.
–
This seems completely acceptable – they have traded like this for many years, and continue to do so.
It really does seem as though ‘equality’ is a one-way street.
October 18th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I would hope tha we can all agree that discrimination is wrong, and I would support a prosecution of a gay only hotel that turned away a mixed gender couple.
But there is a risk of false equivalence here.
You can end up making equal real discrimination which is happening ( as demonstrated by this case) and hypothetical discrimination which does not appear to be happening.
October 18th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Currently the most recent Trip Advisor review of ‘Guyz’ is by a heterosexual couple who stayed there and who recommended it Ben. They said: “…Had an excellent nights sleep. Went down for breakfast, full english which was one of the best I have ever had. Would recommend for straight as well as gays.” Not equivalent to being refused accommodation. The hotel clearly caters for the Gay market, but not exclusively.
October 18th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Simian
In that case, their advertising is misleading, to say the least! I have to admit that I have not stayed (or attempted to stay) there myself.
October 18th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Simian
It would seem things have changed: the text I quoted was from a post I wrote about this at the time of the Cornish prosecution. I have just re-visited Guyz www site and it has changed significantly, so perhaps the equality legislation is being applied more even-handedly now than it was then.
October 18th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
This story really disturbs me. I don’t have much sympathy for the Swiss couple for losing their day in the court. To my view, they were providing a service and they failed to provide one to a paying couple. If they didn’t want gay strangers in their house they shouldn’t be opening it to strangers. How is that different to not allowing asians or black people or muslims from using their services. In the words of the prophet Malachi, they were the real sodomites, because they failed to be hospitable to their neighbors, clearly going against Jesus’ teaching of “love your neighbor as yourself”. However, they did not deserve to be treated like that. Intolerance is intolerance and they should not have to be afraid for their safety even if their opinions are wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right.I hope that, if the gay couple have any backbone, they will give that money back or to a Christian charity in order to start healing and understanding.
October 18th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Oh, and somebody has just pointed this out to me…
Welcome to Chaps Hotel Blackpool. Exclusively gay men only!
Chaps hotel is the largest and one of the best hotels for men only and perfect for Gay holidays and Gay weekends. Chaps Hotel, Blackpool’s Premier Gay Hotel is truly one of the most popular hotels in Blackpool and has been ‘the place to stay for gay holidays’ for many years. Close to the sea front, and within easy walking distance of all the Gay Bars, Clubs and Sauna’s that Blackpool has to offer.
Chaps Hotel have recently finished a complete renovation of all their bedrooms, adding comfortable new rooms with private facilities and re-styling all the rooms with new fresh colours. We offer Quality rooms at Reasonable prices. We have also added super fast Wi-Fi Broadband. Making Chaps Hotel one of the best Gay Hotels in Blackpool and throughout the UK.
There’s a relaxing Lounge/Bar open throughout the day and a comfortable Dining room where you can enjoy that all-important full English breakfast and most evenings a selection of home cooked dishes. If you are looking for a friendly gay hotel in Blackpool, this is the place to stay.
Our friendly staff are always on hand to give you all the useful information you need in order to explore this exciting holiday destination.
October 19th, 2012 at 12:51 am
Ben, a hotel that turned away straight people is not complying with the law. The point to remember, however, is that this is a civil offence, not a criminal one. This means that compliance with the law is not policed, but anyone who is a victim of non-compliance with the law is entitled to sue.
In other words, Chaps Hotel Blackpool can advertise itself as gay only as much as it likes, but if they turn away a straight couple or indeed a single woman or lesbian couple then they take the risk that they will be sued, and if sued they would lose.
October 19th, 2012 at 7:07 am
Jay, I think that advertising services is already covered. From the CAB website on service providers:
“Advertising
With a few limited exceptions, it’s illegal to publish an advert for goods, facilities or services which discriminates because of religion or belief, or which advertises discriminatory services.”
October 19th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Hurrah for common sense! The Christian Institute (or the Nazi Party at prayer) claimed as the B&B is also a family home the owners should be able to uphold their Christian beliefs concerning whom they allow in their home. I wonder if these conscientious Christians interview ALL their guests to ensure only those who lead lives compatible with their version of their Christian faith, pass their threshold? I suspect not. I wonder if they are discriminating when it comes to other aspects of their business – I wonder how a Christian business gets around prohibitions against usury? Odder still how hot these Christians are when it comes to Biblical fidelity when it comes to Lev 18:22; but seem strangely oblivious to the obligations of Matt 5:40…. How easy it is to be sanctimonious about scripture that affects other people’s behaviour (real or imaged in the sex-obsessed minds of a certain species of the pious) yet less enthusiastic about scripture that has a personal cost and might mean a good deal more scrutiny of the self, rather than an over-active zeal when it comes to the morality and integrity of others…
However there is a glimmer of hope:
‘‘I had to call the police. They were very concerned and patrolled the lane we live on for five months and checked on us regularly.’
Notes Mrs Wilkinson, after she received threats following the first reports of the story.
Perhaps now Mrs Wilkinson will see that the Law is there to protect the rights and welfare of the individual and as she and her business have been protected from bigots and hate mongers, she just might realise why the law is extended to even willy-woofters in the provision of commercial services… You never know…
@Ben – I agree, that we can’t have hotels that discriminate either… But two wrongs don’t make a right either, does it? And let’s be fair, Chaps Hotel is noting its prejudice openly, not passing itself off as a regular business and then turning people away when they roll up at the door! I’d have no problem with a Christian B&B stating that it was a Christian B&B and saying bluntly on its website ‘We only provide rooms to people whom we the owners perceive as leading lives compatible with the tenets of Scripture, as we understand them…’ But Ma Wilkinson doesn’t bother with troubling herself with such blatant ‘witness’ but instead goes for the ‘easy morality’ of queer bashing and hoping this gives her a semblance of outward morality.
I note your own business website proudly claims to have clients which are large intuitions – many of which have liberal employment policies when it comes to homosexuality. Do you ever turn away work from such organisation because they have positive gay employment policies? It would be interesting to hear, from someone as religiously conservative as yourself, how you decide whether to accept work, if the organisation or people you are going to work with have liberal policies when it comes to gay employment (or other issues that might conflict with Christian belief – e.g. when it comes to a company’s financial or ethical dealings and practice?). Or do you have problems having gay people in the groups that you work with? I’m not asking this to be a smart arse, I just think it is a genuinely interesting point that you run a small business and yet are also a conservative Catholic, I think it would be interesting, given what you have written above to hear how you practice your beliefs and yet run a business that offers services to a diverse audience.
October 19th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
@ FrRichard: I would point out that there is a difference between offering B&B accommodation and offering, say, sandwiches to a gay couple.
Clearly there are compromises we all make: for all my abhorrence of abortion, I am not languishing in jail as a result of refusing to pay taxes which support the NHS which provides abortions.
Perhaps I should be; but I do not believe that my compromise on that means I should still not speak out against abortion.
Likewise with business relationships: I take a view on whether an organisation, or the part of it with which I engage, is something with which I can work in good conscience. I have turned down work on that basis. The question is where one draws the line. Gay-friendly employment policies:probably not; active promotion of the gay lifestyle: probably.
I have no problems working with homosexually inclined people: I have no hostility towards them, nor fear of them, any more than any other category of sinner (ie me and the rest of humanity). But I see no reason why I (or anyone else) should be obliged to condone, or be formal accomplices in, behaviour which we believe to be wrong.
For what it’s worth, I see myself as a traditional rather than ‘conservative’ Catholic: I do not think the language of political discourse transfers over to religion with any accuracy or subtlety.
October 19th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
@FrRichard
Btw I note that your comment implies that you have identified me and my business website. Whether or not you have done so accurately, I cannot know.
Either way, I would ask you not to disclose: one thing I do fear is repercussions for my family from people who take exception to my views.
For that reason I will not enter into any discussions about the specifics of my work (or whoever’s site you are looking at) but I am happy to talk about principles.
October 19th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Tim, try going to a ‘gay only’ bar or club. I can assure you, they will make you very welcome regardless of your sexuality.
Why are some Christians so hung about this issue? If all Christians stuck to the ten commandments Mark 12, the world would be a nicer place x
October 19th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
The problem here is that ‘morality’ is equated with achieving a certain social status or attribute. The ruling on the Bulls’ case made a similar point when it was noted that they too refused double bedded rooms to unmarried couples (tho’ there is evidence to say suggest this ‘policy’ was not consistently applied) – i.e. that not having a double bed does not preclude two people having sex; nor does the fact two people of the same sex sharing a bed mean that they are going to have sex (on school trips I had to share a double bed with fellow pupils – I know friends have had to share double beds with someone of the same sex at Spring Harvest – what would the sex-obsessed Christian Institute make of that I wonder?). The very fact that a person – who claims to be a devout Christians – becomes so prescriptive about this issue suggests to me that she has missed the point of the Gospel!
Again and again in the Gospel narratives we’re told that ‘outward’ morality is no sign of either righteous nor God’s favour. Though I am sure many of us have fathomed this out for ourselves if we have any self-perspicacity or experience of life in general or life within a conservative Christian church in particular! The real problem is that the Christian Gospel calls us to be seamless in our application of scruples about the behaviour of others (and moreover ourselves). Unfortunately, it says more about the preoccupations of the minds of some of our fellow parishioners, that they equate sharing a bed with ‘immorality’. (My partner and I (we are a same-sex couple) stayed at L’Enclume in Cartmel a few weeks ago in a double room – and we didn’t have sex during our stay!). The problem is if you are going to be proscriptive about who can stay because you want to enforce a certain ‘Biblical’ morality under your roof, then you are going to have to be a damn sight more searching about the lives of your guests than just making decisions on the allotting of rooms on married status. All Mrs Wilkinson is really doing is playing the part of the Pharisee and dividing the world into the ‘clean and unclean’ – mainly (I suspect) so she can feel better about herself. Let’s us remember the Pharisees were squeaky clean! They lived lives of unscrupulous Biblical morality, yet did Jesus welcome them with open arms?
For my part I am more than happy for a B&B to state clearly in its advertising that it only welcomes guests that live by the owner’s perceptions of Biblical morality. But when judgement is made NOT on any knowledge about a paying guest, but rather the prurient imaginings of the B&B owner, then we are into rather difficult territory. As Ben notes above ‘sinner’ means ‘me and the rest of humanity’ and I’m afraid when you are in the business of offering a service to the general public, it is rather dangerous to begin making judgements informed by no other foundation than one’s prejudices and an overwhelming desire to make oneself feel better about oneself (at the expense of a paying guest). It seems ludicrous to me that anyone in a private business which offers services to the public should be able to discriminate on such flimsy grounds as sexual orientation. Moreover, no mention is made on the B&B’s website about the couple’s religious beliefs – Ma Wilkinson (I presume) states: ‘A warm & friendly welcome awaits all guests…’ There is no mention of religious scruples or a gradation of that welcome! Indeed, thinking about it, it is curious that no mention is made of the owners’ religious belief, if it is so important when it comes to the allotting of rooms.
The owner has stated ‘A warm & friendly welcome awaits all guests’… Perhaps if she’d been a little more honest in the first place, injury would not have been done to two potential guests whom she chose to extend an unfriendly welcome!
@Ben – yes, of course I know of our business and ‘true’ identity – but I would never disclose that here – tho’ I think we can rest assured that the webmaster would not allow such revelations anyway.
October 19th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
@Ben – typo – ‘I know of our business’ should read ‘I know of your business’.
October 19th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
It seems to me that those who are trying to paint the B&B operators as victims in this case are using the argument that as the business they operated was from their own home then they have different obligations to other businesses.
I don’t think that this argument holds water. Many small businesses are conducted from home. For example many doctors, dentists and pubs.
I’m sure we would all be appalled by a doctor saying that she would not treat a gay patient because her surgery was the front room of her home, just as we would be outraged by a publican refusing to serve a black couple because he lives above the pub.
So why the special pleading for the B&B?
October 19th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Think we have our priorities wrong, have to say there is something perverse about a society that is so obsessed with such matters, a squalid pink cabaret to the rhythm of jackboots.
October 19th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
thanks for your contribution Guy,
“cabaret” “jackboots” “pink” ” squalid” I see what you did there.
Subtle.
Thank you adding more weight to my hypothesis that despite all the protestations, this has absolutely nothing to christianity and everything to do with bigots being upset that discrimination against gay people is taken seriously.
October 20th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Webmaster, I thought you might have run the following story, which I think demonstrates just how shamefully Christians are being treated when they stand up for their beliefs!
‘Brenda Lutz, owner of the ‘The Blackened Grout’ B&B, Luton, has been sued by Richard Makepeace because she refused to give Mr Makepeace a room on the grounds that he was overweight. Ms Lutz (divorced) claimed she is a committed Christian and the B&B is also her family home and therefore she cannot have guests in her home that lead lives incompatible with her Christian faith. Ms Lutz cited several Bible verses to back up her stance (Deuteronomy 21:20, Proverbs 23:2, 1Thess 4:4) and said: ‘He was a right porker, you could see he doesn’t use his body to the Glory of God. I don’t see why, in my family home, I can’t refuse a man who obviously leads an ungodly life.’
Mr Makepeace said that he was unaware there were any ‘conditions’ attached to the booking and was rather surprised when he was refused a room on religious grounds. He went on to say ‘She turned me away at the door, saying her rooms were only for people who led lives in accordance with Holy Scripture and as I was obviously fat, I was a glutton and misused my body.’ Mr Makepeace, who claims to be suffering from a glandular problem, has sued Ms Lutz for discrimination. His legal fees are being paid by a fast-food multinational that heard of his plight and wished to help. Ms Lutz is being supported by her local church and ‘Ambulance Chasers for Jesus’, a Christian legal charity. The case goes to court next week. In a separate action, brought by Ms Lutz, she is suing the Bedford and Milton Keynes Sumo Wrestling Club for intimidation on the occasion they convened a protest at her refusal to give Mr Makepeace room; the club members held a ‘sit-in’ on Ms Lutz lawn – she is also suing the club for causing subsidence to her property…’
October 20th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
By the way Fr Richard, this is probably as good as time as any to confess that I have used your “theological ambulance chasers” without acknowledging the source
October 20th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
@ Kate – For your information yes, I did used to go to any bar that served me booze when I was younger, and this included gay bars. The lesbian bars were most unwelcoming for some obscure reason even though I assured them I was a lesbian too, and the homosexual ones, well, if heterosexual men are as sexually aggressive as gay men then I am not in the least bit surprised that women get pissed off with them. A lot of men, no matter what their preference, do not seem to understand that the word ‘No’ means ‘No’.
And Mike, take the stick out your backside and lighten up a bit. You appear to have had a sense of humour bypass.
And, following my doctor’s advice, this is my final word on the matter. You all drive me into the psychiatric unit of a hospital.
October 21st, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Hi Tim
thanks for popping back to tell us about your medical problems. I assume that you Doctor is actually treating you for Munchausens?
You see I don’t believe a word of your account of discrimination at lesbian bars. I note the plural, you are claiming this happened more than once.
When was it? Where was it? Any witnesses?
Earlier in the thread you became abusive when asked for evidence of your claim to be discriminated against for not being gay, and here you have typed out an elaborate and totally unconvincing fantasy to portray yourself as a victim. Why ?
October 22nd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Following on from Nick Griffin’s intervention I was having lunch in a pub where the people at the next table were saying that Chrisitnas should be allowed to discriminate and even put up no blacks signs if that’s what they wanted. It was all down to how Asians were taking over the country apparently. Then one of them noticed my Asian girlfriend and coughed loudly. There was an embarrassing silence.
I think that like a,lot of things there’s a certain bravado when these things are in the abstract, but when someone has to deal with it face to face it’s harder to be so nasty.
October 23rd, 2012 at 1:59 pm
@ Gordon – excellent!
I keep returning to the fact the B&B owners make no mention of their Christian faith on their website – which is curious if it is so important to how they run their business. The same is true of the Bulls in Cornwall, they too don’t/didn’t make mention of their faith. Could it be that they leave out God because they fear it may mar their business – i.e. that fewer people would visit?
In several of the discussions above there has been a return to the playground and the ‘na-na-n-na-na’ school of ‘debate’ – for want of a better word. A business aimed at a gay clientele states openly that it is a business ‘exclusively’ for ‘gays’ – so because this occurs, it is somehow right for others to discriminate against homosexuals. Given the gay businesses mentioned above make no secret of their ‘discrimination’ they are hardly examples of the same process of exclusion. The B&B owners appear to put their light under a bushel – they make no mention of their religious beliefs. I for one have no problem with a B&B stating clearly in its advertising that because of the owners’ religious beliefs, double rooms will only be allotted to married couples that produce a marriage certificate. But to keep their ‘discrimination’ hidden and restricted to the usual ‘soft’ targets seems underhand. I realise that there are legal restrictions concerning what a B&B can say, but there are plenty of euphemisms businesses use to say they are one thing, when really they are another. Everyone morning, on my way to work in Islington, I walk past a shop front that proclaims it is 24 hour Sauna – I know it is a brothel, but it can’t say it is, so it says it’s something else. Surely a Christian B&B could do the same and happily state it was a Christian run B&B and that would be enough for many gay couples to stay clear. Tho’ I should imagine it would put a good number of other people off too, which is probably why they don’t do it: a case of wanting your cake and eating it – hiding one’s faith when it might eat into your profits and proclaiming it when it might excuse your prejudices…
October 24th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
@Gordon,
Coughs loudley -
This all could have been so much worse, they could have been indigenous schemies claiming housing benefit for B&B.
Next stop the A4e forced labour camp, allegedly guarded by G4S.
What inspired all these militaristic initialisms?
October 28th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Tim raised this issue “I can only hope that the ‘Gay only’ establishments have the same laws applied to them with the same rigorousness.”
I’d actually hope the same, though not in the same punishing tone as I’m tempted to suspect he means it. The law is the law is the law, and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
When Tim says, this, though ” if non-gays see that somewhere is ‘gay only’ they tend to do the polite thing and stay away” I had to laugh. Is it politeness or distaste?
In any event, if a far-right Christian proprietor wishes to keep LGBT people away from their business, all they have to do is something like Chick-A-Fil does in the states: make it known that they take customers’ money and donate it to anti-gay causes. That will solve the problem of LGBT customers, with no lawyers needed.
Otherwise, though, the secular law in places such as the UK and Canada are very clear: if you are operating as a business, there are protected grounds on which you cannot discriminate. And if you are declaring expenses against your home as a B&B to the tax man, then it is a business, otherwise there is a tax audit way overdue, you can’t have it both ways.