Christian hotel owners penalised for turning away gays

Run_to_da_hills

This story has got quite a lot of attention in AH, It has also drawn a lot of publicity in the media.

"Two Christian hotel owners punished for refusing a bed to a gay couple claimed yesterday that their religion is being suppressed.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull said Christianity had been pushed to the margins of society, and added: ‘Some people are more equal than others.’

They spoke out after a landmark court decision awarded £1,800 each to civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, who were denied a double room under the Bulls’ policy of allowing only married couples to share a bed in the hotel that is also their home".

I could see two sides of it, If the couple had the place advertised as a hotel or B&B they should go by the law of the land and have to accept people regardless of their status.

If they felt strong with their Christian values maybe they should advertise their business as a Christian B&B or retreat house rather than a "public" B&B. I am sure that the publicity from this case would get them a lot of business from those that respect their values.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Christian-hotel-owners-Peter-Hazelmary-Bull-penalised-turning-away-gays.html

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This story has got quite a lot of attention in AH, It has also drawn a lot of publicity in the media.

"Two Christian hotel owners punished for refusing a bed to a gay couple claimed yesterday that their religion is being suppressed.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull said Christianity had been pushed to the margins of society, and added: ‘Some people are more equal than others.’

They spoke out after a landmark court decision awarded £1,800 each to civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, who were denied a double room under the Bulls’ policy of allowing only married couples to share a bed in the hotel that is also their home".

I could see two sides of it, If the couple had the place advertised as a hotel or B&B they should go by the law of the land and have to accept people regardless of their status.

If they felt strong with their Christian values maybe they should advertise their business as a Christian B&B or retreat rather than a "public" B&B. I am sure that the publicity from this case would get them a lot of business from those that respect their values.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Christian-hotel-owners-Peter-Hazelmary-Bull-penalised-turning-away-gays.html

As an atheist I can see both side of it as well. I do think businesses that advertise themselves in a pretty standard fashion to everyone should serve people irrespective of an specific moralizing, so long as the customers are within the law.

At the same time I do think people should be able to set up enterprises that exclude others, if it is private enterprise and is clearly advertised. The fact that this might piss people off shouldn't be that relevant to whether it is allowed.

Splendour

Thanks for posting this Run to the Hills, was just gonna post this up

Apart from the legal end of things, I think they were wrong on a Christian level. Why should they put emphasis on this couple and not others who sin on a daily basis? The only difference between the gay couple and others who use the B & B is that their sin is outwardly obvious.
And if this couple are not Christian-what a missed opportunity to share the gospel!

prinz

Splendour wrote: »

Apart from the legal end of things, I think they were wrong on a Christian level. Why should they put emphasis on this couple and not others who sin on a daily basis? The only difference between the gay couple and others who use the B & B is that their sin is outwardly obvious.

AFAIK they had turned away other couples so it was not strictly down to the sexuality of the couple. They had refused to provide double rooms to other heterosexual couples who were not married too apparently.

Can't help thinking about an episode of Fawlty Towers when this case comes up. Pretty stupid thing to do if you have a public B&B although they had publicised their policy on the website of the B&B.

Splendour

prinz wrote: »

AFAIK they had turned away other couples so it was not strictly down to the sexuality of the couple. They had refused to provide double rooms to other heterosexual couples who were not married too apparently.

Can't help thinking about an episode of Fawlty Towers when this case comes up. Pretty stupid thing to do if you have a public B&B although they had publicised their policy on the website of the B&B.

I would use the same argument I used in my last post if it were an unmarried couple that were turned away too. Maybe the gay couple didn't know read the policy and just turned up? Of course, maybe they did and purposely made a booking. Either way- a missed opportunity IMO.

Monty Burnz

Would Jesus have turned away anybody?

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Pretty stupid thing to do if you have a public B&B although they had publicised their policy on the website of the B&B.

Yeah was thinking the same thing. Why run a B&B in a country where non-married couples are so common and you will regularly have to turn away customers.

While I think they should be allowed do this (given they advertise this in the interest of disclosure) as a business I think it is pretty stupid.

PDN

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would Jesus have turned away anybody?

I don't think Jesus would have run a B&B.

FWIW, I think the legal ruling was correct.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't think Jesus would have run a B&B.

LOL, I was going to say that but wasn't sure how it would be taken ... great minds and all that PDN :pac:

Linoge

They turned them away for the wrong reasons. Marriage, although recognised by the church and is a religious ceremony, is a contract and there is really nothing religious about it. Atheists get married all the time of course. They should have turned these people away on the grounds that they were not Christian (or at least clearly not practising) should they want to inflict their morals on their customers.

Ghost Buster

No room at the Inn eh. The next thing they will be turning away pregnant ladies along with their husbands and diminutive beasts of burden

stephendevlin

Oldies stuck in thier cult ways. Did they have any white pointy hoods hanging in the hall lol

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL, I was going to say that but wasn't sure how it would be taken ... great minds and all that PDN :pac:

We seem to have been agreeing far too much recently. :eek:

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

We seem to have been agreeing far too much recently. :eek:

One fears a Damacus Road looming for friend Wicknight. He has been showing remarkable insight of late for who supposedly "cannot see".

(I'm but half kidding but can you imagine the hand-wringing over at t'other side. Just in case it does happen: I hereby predict an A.Flew style response )

Monty Burnz

PDN wrote: »

I don't think Jesus would have run a B&B.

Why not?

Anyhow, I thought one of the fundamental principles of behaving like a Christian is asking yourself how Jesus would handle certain situations.

If somebody whose car has been stolen is looking for guidance on how to react and asks, 'would Jesus forgive the people who stole his car?', you could correctly say 'Jesus wouldn't own a car', but you'd be missing the point of the question.

ubertrad

I fully support them in principal. If I had a B&B or hotel, I'd be a bit put out by having to put up practising homosexuals. But where do you draw the line? Do you reject unmarried heterosexual couples as well? Transexuals?

It is difficult.

I think a family B&B should have a right to refuse access to unmarried couples, but a hotel, not so much.

As regards the Lord, he didn't hang out with people whilst they were in the act of committing their sins. People often have a mistaken idea of the compassion of Jesus. He loved sinners, but he has a strong hatred for sin. We should share in his contempt for sin, but compassion for all of us who fall into sin.

Splendour

ubertrad wrote: »

As regards the Lord, he didn't hang out with people whilst they were in the act of committing their sins.

Don't mean to sound flippant, but He hangs out with me while I'm sinning.

Monty Burnz

Can anyone remind me again what Jesus said against practicing homosexuality?

Zombrex

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can anyone remind me again what Jesus said against practicing homosexuality?

Don't fornicate.

Monty Burnz

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't fornicate.

He did? And what is the definition of fornication?

homer911

Its important to note that there was no mention in the defence statements or court ruling about the couple being gay - the decision was based on the couple being unmarried. Clearly the court interpreted civil partnership (which can apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples) as equivalent to marriage in all but name, and therefore found they were descriminated against.

One could conclude that if an unmarried/civil partnership heterosexual couple turned up at their door, they would also have been turned away..

Monty Burnz

homer911 wrote: »

Its important to note that there was no mention in the defence statements or court ruling about the couple being gay - the decision was based on the couple being unmarried. Clearly the court interpreted civil partnership (which can apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples) as equivalent to marriage in all but name, and therefore found they were descriminated against.

One could conclude that if an unmarried/civil partnership heterosexual couple turned up at their door, they would also have been turned away..

It's a messy enough area, I'm a bit conflicted on it too. I can see why you can make and argument for folks to be allowed to conduct business within their belief system, but where do you draw the line?

And from a Christian perspective, I seem to recall a saying along the lines of 'judge not, lest ye be judged'.

ubertrad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's a messy enough area, I'm a bit conflicted on it too. I can see why you can make and argument for folks to be allowed to conduct business within their belief system, but where do you draw the line?

And from a Christian perspective, I seem to recall a saying along the lines of 'judge not, lest ye be judged'.

Gay sex is wrong. There. Judgement, but not the forbidden kind.

If my brother wanted to bring his fiancee over for the weekend, she will be allotted a separate bedroom. My mum won't enable fornication in the family home. I expect those Christians feel the same way about sodomy - they don't want to enable these gentlemen, who can, in any case, find some place else. If they knew the policy and arrived anyway, they are proving a point, just like this ejit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8261705/The-therapist-who-claims-she-can-help-gay-men-go-straight.html

This fella goes around trying to entrap therapists who want to help men who want to be helped out of the homosexual life. So much for tolerance and free choice, eh?

Monty Burnz

ubertrad wrote: »

Gay sex is wrong. There. Judgement, but not the forbidden kind.

What did Jesus say aboug gay sex?

ubertrad

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What did Jesus say aboug gay sex?

Have you not read the Scriptures?

Zombrex

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What did Jesus say aboug gay sex?

He highly recommended it, good for the circulation he said.

Fanny Cradock

I think the mistake would be to think that silence means indifference.

An interesting show here regarding two different approaches towards squaring committed gay relationships with Christianity.

Both guests on today's show are Christians, both are gay, and both run ministries supporting Christians of homosexual orientation.

However a very different ethos underpins each. The True Freedom Trust, run by Jonathan Berry believes that Christians with homosexual orientation should abstain from sexual practise. Courage, run by Jeremy Marks accepts committed same-sex relationships between Christians

Anyway, all this is slightly off topic. Let's try to discuss the matter at hand.

efb

Mark 7: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him"

Monty Burnz

ubertrad wrote: »

Have you not read the Scriptures?

Certainly not the bit where he says gay sex is wrong by definition. Can you please direct me towards it?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

He highly recommended it, good for the circulation he said.

And here I was thinking you atheists knew nothing about Scripture :pac:

ubertrad

Wicknight wrote: »

He highly recommended it, good for the circulation he said.

I wouldn't joke about it. It is a very serious matter.

Romans, chapter 1 (excerpt):

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

[26] "God delivered them up"... Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

efb

"For I was homeless and you gave me shelter"

TelePaul

ubertrad wrote: »

Gay sex is wrong

Though unlike discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, it's not illegal.

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please read the last part of my post. You are welcome to start another thread if you want to talk about the specifics of homosexuality in relation to Christianity. But let's stay on topic on this thread.

Apologies, when I wrote my post I hadn't updated it to see yours. But surely the attitude of Jesus towards homosexuality is relevant to the topic of two gay men refused accommodation by Christians on religious grounds? I won't make any further posts on the subject here if you deem it irrelevant.

Brenireland

Linoge wrote: »

They turned them away for the wrong reasons. Marriage, although recognised by the church and is a religious ceremony, is a contract and there is really nothing religious about it. Atheists get married all the time of course. They should have turned these people away on the grounds that they were not Christian (or at least clearly not practising) should they want to inflict their morals on their customers.

Not true normal marriage,which follow the teaching's of Christ and are blessed+have the blessing of a priest/Bishop of the catholic church are thee only marriages recognised by the Church,not Registry marriages which is 99% a legal marriage rather than a Normal marriage.

If the Marriage is blessed within the Church it is Religious & Normal.

efb

Love that word 'normal'.

PDN

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Apologies, when I wrote my post I hadn't updated it to see yours. But surely the attitude of Jesus towards homosexuality is relevant to the topic of two gay men refused accommodation by Christians on religious grounds? I won't make any further posts on the subject here if you deem it irrelevant.

It is relevant if you want to quote something Jesus said.

It is not relevant if you want to use a fallacious argument from silence.

Now back on topic please.

efb

Where's my post gone where I asked where Jesus preached in the Book of Romans?

TelePaul

ubertrad wrote: »

Gay sex is wrong.

Though unlike discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, not illegal.

Monty Burnz

PDN wrote: »

It is relevant if you want to quote something Jesus said.

It is not relevant if you want to use a fallacious argument from silence.

Now back on topic please.

What is the topic? I genuinely don't know now.

gbee

I think I have to support the Christian Hotel. I feel that proprietors must retain the right to allow guests on and in their premises.

It's not PC, but I have to side with their faith, especially as we have to allow for Muslims in nativity plays in schools and Ramadan and so forth ~

Otherwise, myself born a Catholic always a Catholic am an atheist with Buddhism and Scientology leanings.

If this was a Muslim issue there'd be riots in the streets and a Fatwa against the judge.

So, in essence I think and easy target has been chosen to exercise the law.

The law itself, I'm not sure on as we have had problems trying to avoid discrimination in the past against, women, blacks, gays etc. has only lead to a mirage of conformism.

Brenireland

efb wrote: »

Mark 7: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him"

Not so,those words were used in a different context.

Here worth a read!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

TelePaul

efb wrote: »

Where's my post gone where I asked where Jesus preached in the Book of Romans?

Yeah I posted something that seems to have disappeared too, on an iPhone so assumed it was lost in the ether. Whats the story here mods?

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But surely the attitude of Jesus towards homosexuality is relevant to the topic of two gay men refused accommodation by Christians on religious grounds?

Indeed it is! I think it so important that it requires a thread of its own. We could go off on interesting tangent about the whole "what does Jesus say about homosexuality?" thing, but it would be a tangent to the thread nevertheless.

I'm open to starting a new thread that focuses entirely on homosexuality from a Biblical perspective, while this thread remains in business for more of a general discussion on the specifics of the actions of the hotel owners.

Fair? Or am I talking jazz?

efb

Brenireland wrote: »

Not so,those words were used in a different context.

Here worth a read!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Great, wikipedia.

The statement for me is very self evident.

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fair? Or am I talking jazz?

Entirely fair. I'm only a visitor to this board - I don't mean to rock the boat or upset anyone.

brosy

New poster but long time reader.

I would also love to know what Jesus said about gays specifically. If anybody knew right from wrong it was the son of God, but what exactly did he say about it again? It is imo essential to getting this thread back on track.

Thanks.

Brenireland

efb wrote: »

Great, wikipedia.

The statement for me is very self evident.

you seem to know your bible so (as correctly shown on wikipedia) [jude1:7][1] if you look it up is where you will find the story if your unable to read it on Wikipedia.

hotmail.com

Snip!

Backseat modding deleted.

antiskeptic

brosy wrote: »

New poster but long time reader.

I would also love to know what Jesus said about gays specifically. If anybody knew right from wrong it was the son of God, but what exactly did he say about it again? It is imo essential to getting this thread back on track.

Thanks.

Welcome brosy.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

AFAIK they had turned away other couples so it was not strictly down to the sexuality of the couple. They had refused to provide double rooms to other heterosexual couples who were not married too apparently.

Quite true, and they are perfectly within their rights to do this… prodably.

prinz wrote: »

Can't help thinking about an episode of Fawlty Towers when this case comes up. Pretty stupid thing to do if you have a public B&B although they had publicised their policy on the website of the B&B.

Publicising a potentially illegal policy does not make it ok.

homer911 wrote: »

Its important to note that there was no mention in the defence statements or court ruling about the couple being gay - the decision was based on the couple being unmarried. Clearly the court interpreted civil partnership (which can apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples) as equivalent to marriage in all but name, and therefore found they were descriminated against.

One could conclude that if an unmarried/civil partnership heterosexual couple turned up at their door, they would also have been turned away..

This is exactly right. The fact that they were gay is kind of incidental to the whole thing. The court chose to expand the meaning of the term marriage to include civil partnerships. Many other aspects of law already do this, so it is a logical expansion.

gbee wrote: »

I think I have to support the Christian Hotel. I feel that proprietors must retain the right to allow guests on and in their premises.

They have a qualified right to allow or disallow guests. There are simply some classes of guest that you are not allowed to disallow simply because they belong to that particular class.

gbee wrote: »

It's not PC, but I have to side with their faith, especially as we have to allow for Muslims in nativity plays in schools and Ramadan and so forth ~

Just because some organisations give into pressure for certain things does not mean other organisations can ignore laws.

gbee wrote: »

If this was a Muslim issue there'd be riots in the streets and a Fatwa against the judge.

But it wasn’t a muslim issue, nor was it a christian issue. The issue was and is, you are not allowed to discriminate against certain classes of people. Please bear in mind, this is not about the guy being gay per se, it is that the hotel policy is to only allow married people to share rooms. It would seem that the hotel are entitled to disallow non-married heterosexual couples and also non-civil partnered homosexual couples. That said, I can see cause for that to be challenged as well, possibly successfully.

gbee wrote: »

So, in essence I think and easy target has been chosen to exercise the law.

Apparently they did not do this specifically to have a test case, though it does seem slightly odd to me.

gbee wrote: »

The law itself, I'm not sure on as we have had problems trying to avoid discrimination in the past against, women, blacks, gays etc. has only lead to a mirage of conformism.

We are part of a union which has, as one of it’s primary aims, a desire to remove discrimination. It is unfortunate that often people discriminate, or wish to discriminate, on the basis of certain beliefs that they hold. I can understand why as a believer you think this is wrong (and I am also cognisant of the fact that some atheists feel the same), but the fact of the matter is your right to hold certain beliefs is a qualified right. The right to not be discriminated against is absolute. This means that when the two are in conflict, the right to hold a belief loses. In addition to this, when you choose to run a business you impliedly agree to abide by all the rules and regulations that pertain to that business.

MrP