Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  defense strategies

Hotel Owners Behind ‘No Gay Couples Allowed’ Policy: We Wuz Set Up!

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the British hotel owners who refused to let gay (civil union’d) couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy stay in a room with a double bed because they’re gay, are the victims of a set up! They claim.

Facing a £5,000 discrimination claim by the couple, the Bulls say their religious beliefs prohibit them from letting two men lie down next to each other at their Chymorvah Private Hotel — or even one man and one woman who are unmarried. (That Hall and Preddy are as married as the U.K. will allow them to be appears besides the point.) Not only that, but the gay couple’s attempt to book a room with them (way back in 2008) was an intentional ruse orchestrated by the activist group Stonewall, they insisted in court.

Bernie Quinn, a hotel employee, says the hotel received a phone call from Stonewall informing them about new equality laws that would make their policy, which they’ve used since taking over the venue in 1986, illegal. So it was a set up then? “It is not beyond the realms of possibility,” says Quinn. “I have no proof other than the phone call. I cannot assume for them what their motivations were or weren’t. I assumed, going back to the phone call, that we were expecting a Mr and Mrs Preddy and what arrived was two gentlemen.”

Um. And if it was a set up? Then too freakin’ bad for the Bulls, and kudos to Stonewall. My only wish is that they had a couple of Flip cams to document the check-in process.

By:           JD
On:           Dec 14, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 25 Comments
    • Daez
      Daez

      Private business owners should HAVE every right to decide who they want to do business with. Discrimination should not even enter into the equation.

      Oh, and if you honestly think forcing private business owners to do business with minorities that they don’t respect is a good thing then please explain the gay “rights” groups desire to boycot anything and anyone that doesn’t explicitly get down on their knees and kiss ass.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 9:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toddinsf
      toddinsf

      Wow. Do you even bother with history? We’d be back to the days of racial segregation in the South if people were permitted to discriminate like that. Amazingly bad idea.

      If people want to enter the world of commerce, then they have to play by the rules which govern that world – paying business taxes, meeting safety regulations, & NOT discriminating.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 9:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      @Daez: I remember very well the days of separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc and a lot of those were in privately held establishments. Using your logic, that means that would be allowed once again. Are you even remotely aware of history? Were you alive during the riots of the 60′s? I was and no way of ever returning to those days though it appears there are some who would wish it so.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 10:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ly
      Ly

      @Daez: I agree. All this modern PC stuff is just nonsense. Let’s bring back segregation too. I’m certainly uncomfortable with the state impinging on my right to hang a ‘No coloureds’ sign on the window of my B&B. It’s unfair that I can’t be a complete and total bigot and wallow in my own privilege.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 10:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @Daez: Are you serious? We can argue about the constutitonality of anti-discrimination laws, although this is the UK and not the US in this instance, but what does this have to do with boycotts? No business is entitled to your money. We have just as much right to boycott a business we deem as being anti-gay as the rightwing types do against businesses they deem as being pro-gay. All of us are perfectly within our rights to refuse to buy products from anyone for any reason we choose, as well as encourage others to follow our example. No one is compelled to follow our example of course.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kokobean
      kokobean

      I do not think they are wrong. Before you tear my eyes out..listen to me. Its their home. They have every right to say what can happen there or not. This is a b & b not a hotel chain. Its a private business. Im sorry but if they say no blacks allowed…im black btw…ill be pissed,probably raise some hell on it but i wont sue them for having their own rules in their own house. The gay couple should let it go. These people are old…it is simply not worth it. It wont change minds especially theirs…it will become fodder for anti gay groups to preach their fear mongering and it is simply not worth it.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 10:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Imagine the uproar if the business owner put up a sign saying “We do not do business with Christians” or “with Jews” or “with Asians.”

      @Daez: Perhaps a course in reading comprehension might help make you less apt to keep writing multiple posts that make no sense? Trying to equate individuals boycotting businesses with businesses barring customers shows that you missed the point. Again.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Jeffree: Perhaps you should take such a course because it really wasn’t a hard point to grasp.

      ———-
      Oh, and if you honestly think forcing private business owners to do business with minorities that they don’t respect is a good thing then please explain the gay “rights” groups desire to boycot anything and anyone that doesn’t explicitly get down on their knees and kiss ass.
      ———–

      Its really not that hard to read exactly what I wrote, but for your sake I will break it down.

      If you HONESTLY think that FORCING anyone to do business with ANYONE is a good thing then you are INSANE.

      Therefore, forcing this company to do business with gays and lesbians isn’t helping anyone. Normally, the left wing nut cases beg for a boycott of any company that is treating gays and lesbians unfairly. Therefore, you are forcing a company to cater to customers that would then boycott it. See, now was that that hard to draw from.

      Oh, and desegregation wasn’t needed. The businesses that don’t want to do business with minorities still show that. They show it in droves to the points where the minorities stay away from those businesses. If you leave the big city every once in awhile, you will see that segregation is still very well and alive in this country based on the fact that many people in this country live in areas where they have seen 10-20 black people in their entire life.

      Businesses that wanted to cater to minorities to increase their customer base would have eventually done so anyways in this world of corporate greed.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane
      AladinSane

      There is no point debating Daez. He is trapped in his ideology and is far, far away from anything reality-based. How long would you debate with Karl Rove or Glenn Beck?

      Dec 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Daez: said..

      “Private business owners should HAVE every right to decide who they want to do business with. Discrimination should not even enter into the equation.”
      _______________________

      Lets take your comment to it’s logical conclusion. There is one gas station in a small southern town. The closest different gas station is 20 miles away in a different town. So the owner of this gas station is an old style Mormon who believes that blacks are born with the Mark of cain and he doesn’t want them at his station.

      What if an employer says that they only want people who don’t vote, or who voted GOP to work for them? It’s their business, should they be allowed to disciminate? Should a company say that they won’t hire black people?, Christians,? Women? etc….

      Oh, and lastly, just in case you’re STIL going to make your short sighted argument. Please remember, the business also uses public services such as sewer and water. So perhaps if they want their policy and don’t want the govt. to dictate they need to move to a place where they aren’t using govt. services.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @AladinSane: If only I was on the same level of Karl Rove and Glenn Beck.

      The “altered reality” I’m “trapped” in is called reality.

      I just tend to realize that FORCING anyone to do anything isn’t the best possible way to get any desired result.

      In short, if these homophobic religious zealots want to own the anti-gay B&B that probably has 4-5 rooms and not let gays fuck in it, forcing them to allow gays to be there isn’t going to make it fun for anyone involved.

      Do you honestly want to go where you are not wanted simply because you have the “right” to be there?

      Dec 14, 2010 at 12:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lizcivious
      lizcivious

      Why do people like that even go into the hospitality business when they know not every patron is going to conform to their high and mighty morals?

      Dec 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Cam: In the USA we pay for our government “services” in this thing called a water/sewer/trash utility bill. Perhaps, it is different there.

      My argument still stands. Do you honestly think very many black people would live in a town where there is only one gas station owned by religious zealot jack off?

      Would there life really be worthwhile for them to live somewhere where everyone hates them but they still have the “right” to live.

      Seriously, if I know a company hates me for who I am, I don’t want to use their services even though I have the “right” to.

      In the end, you can not control someone’s behavior. Simply forcing this company to allow gays and lesbians isn’t going to make the situation any better.

      Its the same reasoning I give for why I’m out in the job interview and why I don’t mind if people know I’m gay during the hiring practice. If a company wants to discriminate against me because I’m gay, I’d much rather have them say no gays allowed than to bring me and give me shitty service and plenty of attitude while doing so.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Latebrosus
      Latebrosus

      “the Bulls say their religious beliefs prohibit them from letting two men lie down next to each other at their Chymorvah Private Hotel — or even one man and one woman who are unmarried.”

      And they check the latter how?

      Dec 14, 2010 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tallskin
      Tallskin

      I think people are not understanding the issue here

      The issue is that a gay couple booked a room in a B&B to stay in on their holiday. They arrived tired, footsore, ready for a shower and were told “We don’t like your sort around here, now go away.”

      This is against the law in the UK because it is discrimination.

      The B&B is being sued under equality legislation.

      Simple.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Daez: said..

      “@Cam: In the USA we pay for our government “services” in this thing called a water/sewer/trash utility bill. Perhaps, it is different there.

      My argument still stands. Do you honestly think very many black people would live in a town where there is only one gas station owned by religious zealot jack off?

      Would there life really be worthwhile for them to live somewhere where everyone hates them but they still have the “right” to live.”
      _________________________________

      But it’s irrelevent whether or not they WANT to live there, and I don’t mean this in a bitchy way, that comment is the comment of somebody used to having options int heir life. What if that is the only place they can get a job, what if they grew up there and have a little family business and don’t want to have to leave? You cannot have businesses that just decide to discriminate. Your not wanting to work in a business where you didn’t think they wanted you is irrelevent if you have a wife and two kids that you need to feed, you will go work wherever you can get a job. And guess what, since they cannot legally discrminiate you wouldn’t be the only minority there.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @Tallskin: Nicely said.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 6 · kokobean wrote, “I do not think they are wrong. Before you tear my eyes out..listen to me. Its their home. They have every right to say what can happen there or not. This is a b & b not a hotel chain. Its a private business.”

      The law applies to what is called in California a “public accommodation” and is the same for a corporation, a limited partnership, and LLC, a sole proprietorship, etc.

      If you don’t want to abide by the laws that apply to all such businesses, don’t turn your home into a business.

      Dec 14, 2010 at 10:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michelle
      Michelle

      DO NOT engage this Daez poster. This is a homophobic, conservative, religious troll. They pretend to be gay, but are a self hating God freak who always sleep in bed with the enemy. They twist and turn every story to justify discrimination toward gays. DO NOT engage them. They are to be ignored and are only seeking attention with their postings.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 12:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SteveAtlanta
      SteveAtlanta

      @Daez: You really are not of a healthy mind. The premise behind all your arguments is to accept the fact that gays can be denied service at virtually any establishment they go to simply do to being gay, and instead of addressing that clear cut discrimination and combating it….we should accept it and move on. I highly doubt you believe any of the words coming out of your keyboard and am more inclined to believe the poster who suggested you like to argue for arguments sake and play devils’ advocate, because you are basically no different than a small minded person advocating discrimination. Period.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 12:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kyle M.
      Kyle M.

      @Michelle: I’m joining the do not engage Daez campaign. I wrote this on another thread but I’ve taken notice of Daez and his outlandish comments before and I knew right off the bat he plays for the other team, especially considering he always mentions how he is gay “but” and he wrote on another thread some words that made me really believe that. like life style, force feeding, Christ, stop taunting Christians, this, the post where he suggested no gay historic figures should be taught in school because he made a link between sex ed essentially and teaching of someone like Harvey Milk. This is a Grade A troll. Glad they are finally shown.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 7:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      The court got it right. The legal theory is called “public accommodation”. When a good or service, such as use of a facility, is offered to the public for a price, the purveyor must sell it to any person whatever. The courts reason that where there is only one inn, the nearest other being many miles away, the innkeeper should not refuse shelter during a winter storm.

      In the US, the nondiscrimination requirement is explicit in the Civil Rights act of 1964, but only for certain protected groups. The American With Disabilities act of 1990 extended the list of protected groups, and various states and localities also protect other groups.

      In the UK, the Equality Act of 2006/2007 comes to mind. Under the equality act, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is specifically prohibited.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 8:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Daez, this is NOT a private business. This couple had to apply for a business license from the government, so your statemet is flawed. As such, they are in violation of the UK’s discrimination laws. If they had not opened their home as a public guest house, then they could arguably get away with it, but they didn’t do that. Under the UK discrimination law, businesses are prohibited to discriminate against anyone involving the delivery of goods and services based on ethnicity and sexual orientation. This is clearly what this couple did. Their religious beliefs have no part in it and they’ll lose and rightly so. If anything, they may have to shut down as a business if they persist doing what they’re doing and return their home to private use for themselves where they can wallow in their religious bigotry unabated.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 9:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Daez, this is NOT a private business. This couple had to apply for a business license from the government, so your statement is flawed. As such, they are in violation of the UK’s discrimination laws. If they had not opened their home as a public guest house, then they could arguably get away with it, but they didn’t do that. Under the UK discrimination law, businesses are prohibited to discriminate against anyone involving the delivery of goods and services based on ethnicity and sexual orientation. This is clearly what this couple did. Their religious beliefs have no part in it and they’ll lose and rightly so. If anything, they may have to shut down as a business if they persist doing what they’re doing and return their home to private use for themselves where they can wallow in their religious bigotry unabated.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 9:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GeriHew
      GeriHew

      Does Gabrielles Hotel in Blackpool welcome mixed-gender “straight” couples I wonder? Or even same-sex male couples?

      http://www.gabrielleshotel.co.uk/index.html

      Jan 23, 2011 at 8:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.