Follow what beliefs you like, but when you force those beliefs on to other people it's you who is acting immorally. Enforce what "rules" you like in your own home, but if you intend to operate a business in this country or otherwise provide a chargeable service, then you should not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their age, rage, gender, sexual orientation etc.

The fact is that gay people are unable to get "married" in this country, so a "married couples only" policy is, by its very definition, discriminatory towards all gay couples.

+1

If this was a racial thing (i.e. no black people allowed) then it would be dealt with completely differently but is it really that different?

Hmm.. Interesting you suggest they were discriminated against on grounds of their marital status; It's actually still perfectly legal to do that in the UK - just check any travel brochure. The fact gay couple's can't get 'married' in the UK isn't actually an act of discrimination by them, it's an act of discrimination by the christian churches.

It is an odd situation all round - you wonder what they thought when they were told who the booking was for - did they assume they were friends? if they gave the same name did they assume they were brothers? Were they naive rather than actually bigoted? I suspect we won't ever find out the whole story as it's now ground into the realpolitik of 'ridding the world of bigotry' vs 'political correctness gone mad'.

Jon

Refusing a double bed to an unmarried couple is legal (AFA I understand it).

However, the judge (quite rightly IMO) decreed that, because the couple had a civil partnership, the owners could not refuse them a double room on this basis. Therefore the owners' refusal of a bed amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

It is quite possible, if the couple in this case had not been in a civil partnership, that the judge would have found in favour of the owners.


Some Christians - not all.

Christians are also required to obey the law:



The two owners may believe that civil partnership is not a true marriage and they are indeed entitled to that view. However in this scenario the law disagrees and, personally as a Christian, I agree with the law.

I realise this. I don't believe they are right in the argument they provided I was just saying that's what the argument was.

I agree wholey that the law over rides any beliefs or opinions that a business holder has.

Indeed.

Although I was sorely tempted to "fix" your second sentence:

Yep, yep, nope.
The law always overrules individuals rules. If it didn't the bnp would be out in bradford with guns and bats every week.

Clearly this is an attack on their sexuality, but what I was also trying to suggest that such a policy will always be discriminatory to homosexuals as, as the law currently stands, they are unable to get married even should they want to.

It's not the law. As far as the law is concerned they are married. The law doesn't recognise any difference between a civil partnership and a marriage consecrated in a church - in fact the law doesn't regard a 'church wedding' as having any legal status at all, you still have to sign the same forms and follow the same procedures as a registry wedding to make it legal. We don't have enough evidence available to say whether its actually about their sexuality, or about the christian idea that sex outside wedlock - between whoever - is a sin? Do we know if they've allowed heterosexual unmarried couples to share a bed in their establishment for example?

The point I am trying to make is because they are gay and that's the most obvious fact about them as a couple, everybody starts from the position that this is because they are gay. Yet what is the conclusive evidence that this is in fact the case? Is it impossible to rule out certain other cases from the evidence as public? Many presbyterian churches in Scotland are very conservative in all sorts of ways, including the idea of celibacy outside wedlock and the idea that only church weddings are valid weddings. I've encountered some fairly... cold treatment myself, simply because me and my partner aren't married.

It's a very normal human practice to assume that the most obvious answer is the correct answer. And, indeed, this is often the case. Often enough that we get into the habit of using it as a rule of thumb. However, a good legal judgement should be based upon the totality of the evidence, not merely that which fits the most obvious solution. The key fact is simply this : have they refused a double bed in the past to heterosexual unmarried couples. Without that fact, it is impossible to conclusively say whether this is to do with them being gay, or not being church-wed. I wonder if there is some evidence in this case that hasn't been widely reported and that is how the judge has come to the decision.

The fact they aren't church-wed is not the B&B owner's fault and I don't honestly see how they can be held responsible for that. I certainly don't see why they should be ordered to pay the couple £3600 in compensation for it. A decent month's wages (twice) for not being allowed to sleep in a double bed in someone's B&B? Strikes me as a bit disproportionate for simply that event. It seems to me, on analysis, that there is more to this case than meets the eye, or the headlines are reporting at least...

Jon

As far as I understand it the issue revolves around the legal status of civil partnership itself.

1. Hotel/ B&B owners can still refuse double beds to those who are unmarried and not in civil partnerships.
2. The owners asserted that, because they view civil partnership as being unmarried, they could refuse the couple a double room
3. The judge asserted that, under The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, there is no material difference between marriage and civil partnership.
4. Therefore the owners are not allowed to distinguish between marriage and civil partnerships with regard to their provision of goods, facilities or services.
5. Therefore the owners' refusal was discriminatory as they put the couple at a disadvantage due to their sexuality as defined under the Regulations

I don't think it is clear at all. Just because their refusal constituted discrimination on those grounds does not imply that the owners intended it as such.



One owner, Mrs. Bull, stated that:



Furthermore:



I'm quite willing to believe that, for the owners, this was about their sincere beliefs regarding marriage. However, the law does afford protected status to civil partnerships and the judge confirmed this.

From the evidence you've posted, it sounds much more like this is about the B&B owners not accepting the legal definition of 'marriage', which is as I expected. They're still stupid and... insultingly judgemental but it does suggest they're not homophobic. More singlephobic .

Jon

Well the simple fact is I don't see how having an admittance policy (of whatever persuasion) for one's own business can be misconstrued as "forcing" beliefs on anyone. They walked up to a door and it was shut in their face. Apart from a case of ignorant rudeness, I don't see how that's a crime.

Yes well I think it's quite clear I disagree with yet another aspect of "the law".

And let's not forget "the law" is hardly perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

The law certainly does make a distinction, hence they are "civil partnerships" and not "marriages" - they might afford the same rights under law, but they are not the same. You can guess which group the government were trying to placate with that compromise.

I was also not referring to this specific case, but rather commenting on the futility of having such a policy in place anywhere*, as it will always be discriminatory to gay couples until the law is changed to allow them to get married.

*that is, where B&Bs refuse to recognise civil partnerships.

Surely the B&B owners could have turned them away just because they could?

I am under the impression that if I went and bought a cheese sandwich down and Morrisons, I could be refused the purchase with no reason given.
If my impression is correct, could that not apply to this case?

You're correct, unless they did it because you're white, gay, a man etc...