Tolerance is Fascism

The new intolerance is tolerance.

Gays demand that society respects them, then they fail to respect the rights of Christians.

I wonder if a gay pub in London or Birmingham would allow traditional christians or Islamist muslims to preach on their premises if they hired a room in the venue ?

No, of course they wouldnt.

An Englishmans home is his castle, except if you are a christian.

Then your home is owned by the state, and the state demands who you must allow to enter it.

We are all equal except those who are more equal than others.

Its lawful to discriminate against heterosexual couples, but illegal to discriminate against homosexual couples.

Those who prefer to have sex with their own sex, have more rights than those who have sex with those of the other sex.

Tolerance is just another name for the marginalisation of mainstream society and the imposition of liberal fascism.






Gay couple both win £1,800 damages from Christian hotel owners who unlawfully refused them a double room

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:26 PM on 18th January 2011

* Comments (593)
* Videos
* Add to My Stories



* Hotel owner Hazelmary Bull: 'Much is said about "equality and diversity" but it seems some people are more equal than others'
* Judge: 'It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed'
* Case brought by taxpayer-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission
* Hotel owners facing financial ruin after they are ordered to pay costs

Christian hotel owners who refused a gay couple a double room were today ordered to pay them compensation after a judge ruled they acted unlawfully.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull were breaking the law when they denied Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy a room at their hotel in Cornwall in September 2008.

Judge Andrew Rutherford made the ruling in a written judgment at Bristol County Court as he awarded the couple £1,800 each in damages.

Mr and Mrs Bull, who have previously admitted they are struggling to pay debts, are facing financial ruin after being ordered to pay most of the costs of the Equality and Human Rights Commission which funded the action.

Mr Hall, 46, and Mr Preddy, 38, from Bristol, were seeking up to £5,000 damages claiming sexual orientation discrimination. After the ruling, the couple said they were extremely pleased with the outcome.

'We're really pleased that the judge has confirmed what we already know - that in these circumstances our civil partnership has the same status in law as a marriage between a man and a woman, and that, regardless of each person's religious beliefs, no-one is above the law,' they said.

Scroll down for video
Victory: Steven Preddy, left, and civil partner Martin Hall outside Bristol County Court today after a judge ruled that hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull acted unlawfully when they refused them a double room

Victory: Steven Preddy, left, and civil partner Martin Hall outside Bristol County Court today after a judge ruled that hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull acted unlawfully when they refused them a double room
Christian hotelier Hazelmary Bull

Christian hotelier Hazelmary Bull speaking outside court this morning. 'I do feel that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain,' she said. 'The same laws used against us have been used to shut down faith-based adoption agencies'

Outside court, Mrs Bull, 66, said she was disappointed by the decision and she and her husband, 70, would discuss an appeal with their legal team.

Mr Bull was unable to attend court for the judgment as he is due to undergo surgery for a triple heart bypass.

'We are obviously disappointed with the result. Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody,' she said.

'It was applied equally and consistently to unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, as the judge accepted.

'We are trying to live and work in accordance with our Christian faith. As a result we have been sued and ordered to pay £3,600.

'But many Christians have given us gifts, so thanks to them we will be able to pay the damages.'

Mrs Bull added: 'Although we are disappointed by the decision, we are encouraged by some of the things the judge said.

'He said his decision affects our religious liberty and forces us to act against our deeply and genuinely held beliefs.

'In the meantime, I do feel that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain. The same laws used against us have been used to shut down faith-based adoption agencies.

'Much is said about 'equality and diversity' but it seems some people are more equal than others.'

At a hearing last month, the Bulls denied the claim, saying they have a long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples both heterosexual and gay from sharing a bed at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance.

Mr Bull and his wife said their policy, operated since they bought the hotel in 1986, is based on their beliefs about marriage and not a hostility to sexual orientation.
JUDGE: CLEAR EXAMPLE OF HOW SOCIAL ATTITUDES HAVE CHANGED
Judge RUTHERFORD

In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said that, in the last 50 years, social attitudes in Britain had changed.

We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament,' the judge said.

'It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.

'In the last 50 years there have been many such instances - the abolition of capital punishment; the abolition of corporal punishment in schools; the decriminalisation of homosexuality and of suicide; and on a more mundane level the ban on hunting and on smoking in public places.

'All of these - and they are only examples - have offended sections of the population and in some cases cut across traditional religious beliefs.

'These laws have come into being because of changes in social attitudes. The standards and principles governing our behaviour which were unquestioningly accepted in one generation may not be so accepted in the next.

'I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants' beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold.

'It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.'

Mrs Bull told the court: 'We accept that the Bible is the holy living word of God and we endeavour to follow it as far as we are able.

'We have a kind of routine we go through with folk. It is never our intention to offend so we try to make it as gracious and as helpful as we can.'

James Dingemans QC, representing Mr and Mrs Bull, said they had been 'vilified as objects of fun' for only allowing married couples to stay in double rooms at their hotel.

He said: 'The defendants respectfully submit that their policy is directed at sex and not to sexual orientation and is lawful.

'Without the protection of the law they will simply not be able to operate their business.'

Hotel employee Bernie Quinn hinted that Mr Preddy and Mr Hall's booking was a set-up.

'It is not beyond the realms of possibility. I have no proof other than the phone call,' he said.

Mr Preddy said he and Mr Hall had booked the hotel room over the phone and were not aware of the policy until they arrived and were told by Mr Quinn they would not be able to stay.

The semi-detached Chymorvah Private Hotel has seven rooms in total three doubles, one family room, two twins and single with the Bulls living on the ground floor.

The Bulls legal defence was supported by the Christian Institute while Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

John Wadham, from the Commission, welcomed the ruling.

'The right of an individual to practice their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay,' he said.

'The law works both ways. Hotel owners would similarly not be able to turn away people whose religious beliefs they disagreed with.

'When Mr and Mrs Bull chose to open their home as a hotel, their private home became a commercial enterprise.

'This decision means that community standards, not private ones, must be upheld.'
Court order: Peter and Hazelmary Bull will have to pay compensation to the couple for refusing them a room at their guest house in Marazion, Cornwall

Court order: Peter and Hazelmary Bull will have to pay compensation to the couple for refusing them a room at their guest house in Marazion, Cornwall

No entry: Chymorvah House in Marazion where the gay couple wanted to stay

No entry: Chymorvah House in Marazion where the gay couple wanted to stay

TODAY'S POLL

Should B&B owners be allowed to choose who stays in their rooms?
Yes
No
VOTE
Peter and Hazelmary Bull
POLL RESULTS

Close
All polls Click to view yesterday's poll results

After the ruling Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said: 'When we booked this hotel we just wanted to do something that thousands of other couples do every weekend - take a relaxing weekend break away.

'We checked that the hotel would allow us to bring our dog, but it didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 we would have to check whether we would be welcome ourselves.'

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of equality campaign group Stonewall, also welcomed the ruling.

He said: 'We're delighted with the outcome of this test case.

'You can't turn away people from a hotel because they're black or Jewish and in 2011 you shouldn't be able to demean them by turning them away because they're gay either.

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

'For the estimated £30,000 that this court case cost Mr and Mrs Bull and their supporters during the last month, Oxfam or Save the Children could have vaccinated 100,000 people against meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa.

'That would have been a more Christian way to spend their money during the festive season.'
Support: Hotel owners Mr and Mrs Bull received the backing of Christians when they appeared at Bristol County Court in December

Support: Hotel owners Mr and Mrs Bull received the backing of Christians when they appeared at Bristol County Court in December

However 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.'

Judge Rutherford rejected one of the claims made in court that the booking had been a 'set-up'.

'There was a suggestion in the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants were "set up" by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall.
SO WAS IT A STING BY ACTIVISTS?

Bernie Quinn

What began with a simple phone call to book a hotel room by Mr Preddy ended with a ground-breaking legal ruling and the start of a huge debate.

Mr Preddy decided to book the trip away with his partner Mr Hall and spoke with Mrs Bull.

Mrs Bull later admitted she forgot to ask the 'usual' questions when speaking to Mr Preddy on the phone and assumed he would arrive with Mrs Preddy.

But when the men arrived in September 2008, they were turned away by hotel employee Bernie Quinn, pictured above.

It was at this stage that the owners feared they were the victims of a sting set up to instigate the legal case.

They claimed in court that they feared the gay rights group Stonewall was behind the men staying at their hotel because they received a letter from the organisation criticising their policy a month before the couple made their booking.

Mr Quinn also hinted in court that the incident was set-up.

'It is not beyond the realms of possibility. I have no proof other than the phone call,' he said.

The gay couple immediately reported the incident to police and within months began a county court action for damages.

However, Judge Rutherford said he could see no evidence of such a sting operation and added that damages would have been greatly reduced if that was so.

He said: 'There was a suggestion in the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants were "set up" by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall.

'If this were true then, while it would not of itself defeat a discrimination claim, it would very materially affect the issue of damages.

'If this were true then, while it would not of itself defeat a discrimination claim, it would very materially affect the issue of damages.

'I can see why the defendants might have thought that this was so but I am quite satisfied on the evidence of the claimants that this is not the case and, in fairness to the defendants, let me make it clear that their counsel, James Dingemans QC, did not seek to run the case on this basis.'

The judge said he found that the Bulls did hold 'perfectly orthodox Christian beliefs'.

'I should say at this point that I have no doubt - and the point was not seriously pursued by the claimants - that the defendants genuinely hold a perfectly orthodox Christian belief in the sanctity of marriage and the sinfulness of homosexuality,' he said.

'Such a belief, in my view, reaches the threshold set out in R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and therefore does fall within Article 9 of the European Convention."

Judge Rutherford added: 'I have found this a very difficult case, not least because the application of these regulations is an area of the law with which I have not previously had to grapple.

'I am also acutely aware of the importance of this case to both sides and the deeply held views on both sides.

'Both can legitimately claim the right under Article 8 to have their private and family life - and in the case of the defendants their home - respected.

'The claimants are a family in the eyes of the law just as much as are the married defendants.

'Both are entitled not to be discriminated against under Article 14 and the defendants have the right under Article 9 to manifest their religion or beliefs.

'At one point in the case I queried whether the running of an hotel along Christian principles could be described as manifesting one's religion but I have come to the conclusion that it can so be regarded.

'And it is clearly, in my view, the case that each side hold perfectly honourable and respectable, albeit wholly contrary, views.'

Judge Rutherford said that under the Bulls rules, two friends of the same sex who are backpacking around Cornwall could not have a double room at their hotel.

'How many students over the years must have shared a double room in such circumstances?,' the judge asked.

'Conversely two persons of the same sex, whether male or female, who are in a sexual relationship and who have come to Cornwall intent on a sexually fulfilling weekend may enjoy that weekend to the full in a twin bedded room.

'Putting it bluntly the hotel policy allows them so to do albeit in the confines of a smaller bed.

'It seems to me that a correct analysis of the position of the defendants is that they discriminate on the basis of marital status.

'I have reached the clear conclusion that on a proper analysis of the defendants' position on the facts of this particular case the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow them to occupy the double room which they had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that prima facie they fall within the provisions of Regulation 3(1) and that this is direct discrimination.'

Judge Rutherford said Regulations 3(1) and 4 were not incompatible with the European Convention.

'The defendants' right to have their private and family life and their home respected is inevitably circumscribed by their decision to use their home in part as an hotel.

'The regulations do not require them to take into their home - that is the private part of the hotel which they occupy - persons such as the claimants and arguably therefore do not affect the article 8 rights of the defendants.'

Judge Rutherford granted the Bulls leave to appeal his ruling, saying 'there is little or no direct authority on the issues I have had to decide', meaning the case could go to the High Court and Europe.
CHRISTIAN PSYCHOTHERAPIST WHO 'CONVERTS' GAY MEN FACING BAN

A psychotherapist who attempts to ‘convert’ gay men could be struck off this week after she was taped carrying out her Christian-influenced treatment.

In the latest example of Christian views clashing with gay people, Lesley Pilkington, 60, will appear before a professional conduct panel and faces losing her accreditation with the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

She agreed to help Patrick Strudwick become heterosexual without realising he was an undercover journalist and gay rights campaigner who had a tape recorder strapped to his stomach.
Facing being struck off: Lesley Pilkington agreed to help convert a gay man who wanted to be straight

Facing being struck off: Lesley Pilkington agreed to help convert a gay man who wanted to be straight, but turned out to be an undercover journalist

Mrs Pilkington, a devout Christian who says she ‘understands the issues’ because her son is gay, has treated around ten patients using the controversial Sexual Orientation Change Efforts programme over the past decade.

In tapes of her sessions with Mr Strudwick he asks her if she views homosexuality as ‘a mental illness, an addiction or an anti-religious phenomenon’.

At her practice in Chorleywood, Hertfordshire, she replies: ‘It is all of that.’

He complained to the BACP and it launched disciplinary proceedings against her, accusing her of ‘praying to God to heal him [Mr Strudwick] of his homosexuality’ and having an ‘agenda that homosexuality is wrong’.

Mrs Pilkington, who is fighting the case, accuses him of entrapment. Her defence is funded by the Christian Legal Centre.

She said she wanted to help ­others who were in a ‘similar place’ to her 29-year-old son who, she insisted, was ‘heterosexual. He just has a homosexual problem’.

‘I am not in this because I am judging people,’ she said. ‘I am in it because I understand what the issues are.

‘I have been able to help my son. We have gone through a process.

‘[My son] is still gay... we are developing a relationship that was quite difficult for many years but is now coming back in a very nice way. I am confident he will come through this and he will resolve his issues and that he will change.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Gay-couple-win-1-800-Christian-hotel-owners-refused-double-room.html#ixzz1BPTeTLck