Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  no vacancy

Peter + Hazelmary Bull Will Have To Close Their Homophobic Hotel If They Lose In Court

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, my favorite hotel-owning couple, claim they might have to close their hotel in the U.K. if a court forces them to let homosexual guests sleep in the same room together. Allow me to get the plywood for the windows!

Having claimed they were set up by the British advocacy group Stonewall for violating the country’s equality laws that bar sexual orientation discrimination by businesses, the Bulls insist that if Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy — who were turned away from Chymorvah Private Hotel when the owners learned they were an unmarried (although civil union’d) gay couple — succeed in their discrimination lawsuit, it’ll be the end of the seven-room hotel in Marazion.

Which is really a blow to local small businesses, isn’t it? After all, Hall and Preddy are only seeking a maximum £5,000 damages claim against the couple, and I know the Bulls wanted to use that cash to pay for new crucifixes about each bed.

By:           JD
On:           Dec 15, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 24 Comments
    • Cam
      Cam

      Sooooooo, they were set up? You mean like when a health inspector sends somebody into a restaurant to see if the food isn’t spoiled that is setting somebody up?

      They were breaking the law, and yet they have no defense against that, so they are trying to dance with the issue claiming some big evil conspiricy is all responsible for this.

      If they want to be bigots, fine, move to Saudi Arabia.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 10:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      I really don’t understand why we think its a good thing to ruin people’s lives just because they don’t agree with our stance on certain issues.

      Its not like being gay is a choice, but do we honestly believe declaring war on an elderly couple because we can’t frequent their establishment is a good thing?

      Dec 15, 2010 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scribe
      scribe

      @Daez: I’m black daez… so because some people believe that i shouldn’t be able to vote, or go to school, or be in a relationship with my white partner, I shouldn’t be able to enforce my RIGHTS????? IF THEY DON’T WANT GAYS ON THEIR PROPERTY, THEN DON’T OFFER IT FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE BUSINNESS… DAEZ.. going to pull ur gay card, if you don’t straighten up. :)

      Dec 15, 2010 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      Umm…

      The didn’t offer it as a public service business. It is a privately owned business. If the subject at hand was your right to vote, your right to go to school, or your right to be in a relationship I’d rally behind you.

      However, none of those things are being called into question. What is being called into question is a couple’s rights to determine which guests they want in their home. What is being called into question is how an elderly couple is supposed to support themselves now that they will most likely be forced to shutter their business.

      I don’t believe discrimination is right or just. I just don’t feel that forcing this couple to shut down because they don’t wish to allow gays into their business is the right thing to do.

      I don’t understand the motivation behind forcing someone to accept you into a place you won’t feel welcome at anyways. There is way to much emphasis on trying to force people to adapt their behavior instead of trying to reason with them to change it.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @Daez: said..

      “The didn’t offer it as a public service business. It is a privately owned business. If the subject at hand was your right to vote, your right to go to school, or your right to be in a relationship I’d rally behind you.”
      ____________________-

      No, it is a business providing a service to the public. They are not registered as a private club. And once again, we already had this dicussion. What if they are the only hotel in the area and they decide they aren’t going to let black people stay there?

      You can’t have the country made up of a patchwork of differing discriminatory pockets. If I moved to France, I would learn to speak French, if these people want to participate in the business world they need to abide by the rules that are in place, rules they were informed of before this happened.

      this is no different except on scale, of an ambulance stopping at a private hospital and being told. “Sorry, pack up your pateint, we don’t treat Catholics here.”

      Or a woman sitting alone at an airport because the cab company that services that airport decided that they would not pick up single women.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hyhybt
      Hyhybt

      @Daez: Nobody is ruining their lives. The only reason they would “have to” close is their lack of desire to operate their business within the law. They are quite free to follow the law and remain open.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Franky
      Franky

      @Daez:

      From my reading of the story, it’s against the law in the UK to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Also from my reading, I don’t think they would actually be forced to close down, it seemed to me like they would rather close down than let same sex couples sleep in the same room. That’s just my interpretation though.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 12:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh
      Josh

      @ Daez. So they should have the right to tell people of certain races that because of their “religious” beliefs they can refuse to serve them too?
      Quite frankly what Martyn Hall and Steve Preddy are asking in damages I think is very small. If I went to a hotel, and was told I could not stay in the same room with my husband, I would be downright furious. I definately would have sought harder damages, plus a refund, and penalties.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 12:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • EdWoody
      EdWoody

      Quite aside from all the other issues being discussed ad nauseam here, Queerty should stop referring to the guys as being unmarried. They are civil unioned (or whatever the phrase is – civilly united?) which in the UK is exactly the same as marriage. So they are married. If the US didn’t have slavery issues they would see that there is no difference.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sid
      Sid

      Saying they should be allowed to keep gays out of their home is a misdirection. It is not their home; it is a place of public accommodation. They can legally discriminate in the former but not the latter.

      The solutions are both quite simple. Close the hotel and discriminate freely at their newly-private home, or keep a public hotel but lose the right to discriminate. This is the compromise we make to get along.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 5:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kyle M.
      Kyle M.

      As others have noted, Daez is an imposter posing as “one of us” but his ideology and stance on every single gay topic is being against the gay side. There is always a right and a wrong in every argument, and by in large, the cases highlighted on this site show the wrongs put upon gay individuals for being gay. Daez will tell you how he understands lack of equality in any given story is wrong, BUT ….enter a laundry list of why it should exist. Sheriff fired in Mississippi? According to Daez, it’s fine. Why would you want to work somewhere you’re not welcomed. Not allowed in a business establishment? According to Daez, it’s fine. Why would you want to go to a business that doesn’t like gays. California school teaching of Harvey Milk? According to Daez there is no reason for children to be exposed to a homosexual “congressmen” who had a gay agenda and did not do anything except for the contribution of 10% of the population. Not to mention, as pointed out, he is also against gay adoption, feels DADT should not be a priority for gays because “why would we want to serve in a military that doesn’t accept us”…see that’s the flawed thinking behind his narrow viewpoints. His strategy is to just stop partaking in any event that does not fully accept gay folks. Instead of reversing it, and combating it, Daez suggests just moving on. When probed, he than insists “No..no, I didn’t mean to infer we shouldn’t challenge minds. I say we educate them, not force it upon them” yet he detests “activism”, detests educating of the presence of homosexuals in history to high schoolers, detests the efforts of brave inidviduals like Dan Choi who will not be silenced. Essentially, silence and tyranny of the majority is what this Daez troll seeks. For us to bite the bullet, keep our presence low key, and have tea with red velvet cake with every known anti gay offender with the hopes they come around, and if they don’t? isolate yourself in your corner of the world, with your gay friendly businesses, communities and live life with out demanding change, not begging for it like a timid flower.
      His ideology is stemmed from pushing the gay cause back, and we as the gay community need to silence detractors who try to divert our attention like Daez.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 8:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tallskin
      Tallskin

      Maybe Daez works for some right wing christian organisation (isn’t it strange how the words “right wing” and “christian” go so well together?)

      and “he” is a team of eager young christians taking it in turns to write the rubbish “he” writes.

      They’ve decided that being outright abusive, or being direct with their nauseous agenda is counter-productive because we instantly know. Whereas if they’re subtle about it, spreading a message of despair , of inaction, of acceptance, then maybe they can insidiously get inside our heads.

      This is, of course, all idle speculation

      He could just be a solo wanker.

      Dec 15, 2010 at 9:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Dobson
      Paul Dobson

      There is a difference between accepting someone who is black or someone who is gay. Being gay, particularly in this instance, involves a level of choice – I could be straight and not choose to live out a heterosexual partnership during my weekend at this hotel.

      If an old spinster opened a B&B to make ends meet, but only wanted to allow other women to stay there, would men rally around and sue her? Live and let live. See the bigger picture here – perhaps this couple have ethics from a bygone age, but suing them isn’t a tolerant, accepting thing to do. There’s no point forcing the issue.

      Jan 18, 2011 at 7:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Paul Dobson,

      You totally misunderstand the meaning of gay. Gay means same-sex orientation. Same-sex orientation is no more a choice than being black. It’s innate and automatic. I agree that behavior can be chosen but I don’t see why a gay person should have to modify his/her behavior any more than a straight-oriented person.

      As for Peter and Hazelmary Bull, bull by name, bullshit by nature. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. They’re the perpetrators, not the victims. They can’t go around advertising an accommodation and then making choices as to whom can be accommodated based simply on what one looks like or with whom one shares a bed.

      Screw them.

      Jan 18, 2011 at 7:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam

      @Paul Dobson: Foolishness. You are suggesting that gay couples or individuals should and could “hide” themselves to avoid discrimination. Why should gays have to do that? There is no level of choice in something that you are born into, and one shouldn’t have to hide who they are in order to be treated equally under the law.

      Suing their establishment isn’t supposed to be a “tolerant and accepting” thing to do, it’s supposed to impose anti-discrimination laws that the couple’s business is refusing to follow. If THEY were being “tolerant and accepting,” they wouldn’t have had a lawsuit brought against them in the first place.

      This isn’t about changing their minds, it’s about them (and other business owners) understanding that they cannot force their own beliefs onto others through denial of a public service/business.

      Jan 18, 2011 at 7:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Dobson
      Paul Dobson

      @Jason and @Adam.

      No, I get it. I’m not saying you can choose to not be gay in terms of orientation. For a lot of people it’s who they are. Fine. I’m saying that this doesn’t say “no gay people can stay here.” It’s based on an action and I think that’s the difference. It’s similar to saying “I’ve got no problem with you being religious, but this practice of your religion I don’t want happening in my hotel.”

      The bigger point, though, is that society isn’t going to change it’s opinions because an elderly couple lose a court case. We might all like the rest of people in the world to have basically the same beliefs as us, but it’s never going to happen. And prosecuting this couple just looks spiteful. They’re not the Savoy in London. Jog on.

      Jan 18, 2011 at 7:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Paul Dobson,

      Well, if they don’t want to be prosecuted, they shouldn’t discriminate. The law applies equally to everybody. Just because you’re Ma and Pa Kettle out in the sticks, it doesn’t entitle you to avoid prosecution.

      The simple fact is they advertised an accommodation without condition. They have no right to turn someone away without good cause (such as drunken or disorderly).

      Jan 18, 2011 at 7:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bill
      bill

      Thank goodness I live in a country where sodomy is illegal.

      Jan 18, 2011 at 8:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert Geake
      Robert Geake

      I will start with the fact that I am not gay although, given the aggro I have had with females over the last 10 years I kinda wish I was!

      What this couple did was wrong in one way but right in another…

      Yes, we can all agree it is wrong to discriminate against people, I teach my kids that every daym but where do we draw the line? A prospective employer can choose an Asian, Black or Female candidate over me just because they are Asian, Black or Female but can’t choose me over them because they are Asian, Black or Female…!

      This couple exercised their right to refuse to partake in something they did not agree with! Would you agree with allowing a dog to be tortured in Iran simply because it is legal there??? I doubt it…

      This subject is like soooo many others these days, the really is no right or wrong, there is only the middle ground. I would not want gay people to share a room in my hotel any more than you would want a dog or cat tortured in your hotel simply because it is legal….

      Anyway….

      Jan 19, 2011 at 4:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      How on earth is animal torture comparable to two gay guys sleeping in the same room? Besides, it’s none of Ma and Pa Kettle’s business. Some of the things that breeders get up to are ten times more disgusting.

      If they think they can discriminate on an ad hoc basis, they’ve got another thing coming. There are laws that deal with discrimination of this nature, and those laws will be used against them.

      Jan 19, 2011 at 7:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Insanity
      Insanity

      Gays aren’t an ethic group or a race. It’s a behavior. They should have a right to refuse service to people they don’t agree with on a behavioral/religious level. Example, they have cutures where cannibalism is practiced(on the naturally deceased not murder) I wouldn’t want people like that in my establishment and i should have that right.

      Jan 20, 2011 at 12:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      @Insanity: That’s a good argument .. for discriminating against heterosexual behavior.

      Jan 20, 2011 at 12:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Jason: Never thought I’d say this to you, but i agree with you on this. What you said makes sense.
      — — —

      Perhaps the Bulls should’ve opened up a religious retreat instead of a hotel? Imagine if a hotelier had a “No Christians” policy — the Bulls would be the first to demand their rights.

      Jan 20, 2011 at 12:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Helen Donovan
      Helen Donovan

      Well I hope all the exclusively gay hotels and B&Bs are prepared for some of the same treatment, after all it’s only fair…….how do they get away with advertising themselves as exclusively gay anyway? Can you imagine what would happen if a B&B was advertised as exclusively heterosexual or Christian???!

      Mar 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm · @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.