A Christian couple hope to test equality laws in Strasbourg, reports the Sunday Telegraph.
Jeff and Sue Green own the 13 bedroom Highland Moors Hotel and Conference Centre in Llandrindod Wells, midWales. They had advertised that only married couples were allowed to take double rooms.
But at the end of last year they received a letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s “legal enforcement team” informing them they could be guilty of discriminating against gay couples.
Jeff and Sue have now changed their policy to offer twin rooms only throughout the hotel, and have slanted their business towards catering for groups who are attending local events or hiring the conference centre. Jeff Green told Christian Voice that they had not actually turned anyone away, or had any actual enquiries from homosexuals wanting to book double rooms.
However, following the refusal of British courts to uphold the religious rights of other Christian B&B owners, they now plan to launch a legal case at the European Court of Human Rights.
Oddly enough, despite a report in Pink News four years ago that ‘gay-only’ hotels were to be investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, hotels proclaiming that they only cater for homosexuals openly tout for business in the ‘gay-friendly’ resorts of Brighton, Bournemouth and Blackpool to this day.
Perhaps some Christians ought to try to book rooms in some of them …
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem here. As the provider of a service, you can’t turn people away because they’re not married or because they’re gay. This doesn’t just affect Christian-owned businesses; Muslims have faced legal action for refusing to serve blind people with guide dogs.
You are right that the British Government, in thrall to Stonewall, has passed a law making it illegal to refuse to serve or house homosexuals. But you can still legally turn people away for not wearing the right clothes.
The problem, obviously, is one of freedom of religious expression, and even of conviction. Honest people on the ‘gay’ side will admit that they have passed a law trampling on people’s religious beliefs, but they will say something like:
(a) that is acceptable as a way of getting Christians back for ‘centuries of repression’ or
(b) it is irrational to discriminate against homosexuals, or
(c) the law should force people to go against their conscience, or
(d) that homosexuals are born like it so for that reason they should be accepted (no geneticist would agree with that, but, hey, this is politics).
The answer is simple: Do not confuse the person with the behaviour.
There should be no discrimination against homosexuals, and there is none in these cases. Homosexuals are welcome to stay in these hotels on the same basis as heterosexuals; tthat is, they must not engage in homosexual or other non-marital behaviour.
It’s no different from saying, I do not want people drinking alcohol in my hotel. That is not discrimination against anybody – just a restriction on behaviour.
Stephen I believe this a fantastic example of how fundamentalist logic is entirely circular. You are trying to insist on special treatment whilst insisting that nobody should have it. Your comment geneticists not believing anyone is ‘not born Like it’ is also staggering to me. To use a term deployed by Robin to great affect: please illustrate that point with arguementation. Please note this should not be a link or reference to a past CV study conducted by a biased group.
Perhaps a course in logic would come in useful, Paris. I have made an assertion of a negative. It is solely up to you, or anyone else who disagrees with it, to come up with a quote from one, just one, recognised genetecist who also disagrees with my assertion. You will find that very difficult.
Paris, I think that Stephen just revels in being a victim. Isn’t it lucky that gay couples will be able to marry soon, so restrictions on only housing married couples shouldn’t be so much of a problem.
Wrong there, Jane, it’s those Christians on the front line in local government or in the hospitality industry who are the victims of the equality craze. And calling the unholy union of two men or two women a ‘marriage’ doesn’t make it one.
Stephen, I am sure you are familiar with the considerable eminence of Doctor Michael Bailey of Chicago ? Please familiarise yourself with his recent comments. Though not unequivocal (and I’m sure you’ll find endless get-outs) , it must surely qualify you to modify your previous statements.
If you have a quote from this man, please bring it to us, with the link.