"Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice."

Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, which funded the Bulls' defence, said: "This ruling is further evidence that equality laws are being used as a sword rather than a shield.

"Peter and Hazelmary were sued with the full backing of the government-funded Equality Commission.

"Christians are being sidelined. The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary."

No they can still be religious bigots but they cannot discriminate because of it. Simples.

That's like saying 'it's fine to be gay, you just cannot have sex with another man'.

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. 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 worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

That's like saying 'it's fine to be gay, you just cannot have sex with another man'.

At the end of the day, whenever you have people who follow given practices and others that oppose those practices, you're always going to end up with divisions.

As a first port of call, I do need to clarify that I don't agree with the B&B's decision to turn away the couple.

My comment was on Amnesia's phrase about "You're allowed to believe something as long you don't act on it" is the equivalent of saying "you're allowed to be attracted to men, as long as you don't have sex with them"

Hmm.

I do wonder how the case would have gone if there had been a requirement for no hanky panky instead of a complete refusal to let them share the room...

Hmm.

I do wonder how the case would have gone if there had been a requirement for no hanky panky instead of a complete refusal to let them share the room...

As a first port of call, I do need to clarify that I don't agree with the B&B's decision to turn away the couple.

My comment was on Amnesia's phrase about "You're allowed to believe something as long you don't act on it" is the equivalent of saying "you're allowed to be attracted to men, as long as you don't have sex with them"

Acting on a religion (as it were) is very different from discriminating against someone because they do something that does not conform to that religion.

I would add what about "turn the other cheek" attitude espoused by the church?