A while back when this shameful case came up in England I scribbled down a few points, fully intending to comment on it. The business was never done. Yet for some reason – probably the haughtiness of the perpetrators – the issue never entirely slipped over the hills and far away. Now, with more time than I care for on my hands, the little matter of discrimination can be taken off hold.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull, good Christian folk, brimming over with the love of the lord for their fellow human beings, in 2008 refused a double room at their Cornwall Hotel to a gay couple. This was so because the Bulls hold religious opinions which they sought to punish the spurned guests for not holding. As a result of the discrimination practiced by the Bulls, Martyn Hall and his civil partner, Steven Preddy, were awarded damages totalling £3,600 by a British court. British justice might appear rare but it does happen.
The Bulls who claimed to have been ‘vilified as objects of fun’ – reassuring to know that none of the funsters were jailed for blasphemy – because of their stance, argued that they had, in place since 1986, a ban on all unmarried couples sharing beds. Because of their religious opinion they wanted to be able to take to task in a material way others who do not share it – a ‘believe what we believe or we will black list you’ type approach. Backed by the Christian Institute, they fought their case on the grounds outlined by their solicitor, Tom Ellis:
Our argument is that the regulations impinge on the Bulls' human rights. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, people are able to hold a religious belief and manifest it in the way they act.
Providing they don’t inflict it on anyone else and force others to act in accordance with a belief they don’t hold. Imagine a situation where Mrs Bull was told she could only spend a night at a hotel if she were a burka. Why should she? She does not believe in wearing a burka. Or if Hall and Preddy were hoteliers and banned the Bulls because they weren’t gay. There would be a justifiable outcry. Bishops would be having a bawl.
Despite the Bulls’ insistence on allowing only married couples to share beds Hall and Preddy pointed out:
The judge has confirmed what we already know – 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.
One Bull backer claimed that the brace of bigots could ‘argue with some justification that homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of the bible.’ And what? Nobody is bound by the bible. There are many things that are undoubtedly contrary to the Beano, Dandy, Thor, Zeus, the rulebook of some golf club but that hardly has any bearing on people’s rights. The bible is a collection of myths not a rights charter.
Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, which funded the Bulls' defence, claimed that the ruling ‘is further evidence that equality laws are being used as a sword rather than a shield. Christians are being sidelined.’
Not how the rights activists Peter Tatchell saw it. In his eyes it was a ‘victory for equality and a defeat for discrimination … People of faith should not be permitted to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people.'
This clash of perspectives is what it boils down to: the right to discriminate because of religion or the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. Far from Christians being sidelined they are merely having their prejudices pushed back.
AM-
ReplyDeleteStrange what some see as their red flags to get them mad or pretend cross-
If a couple of clergy booked a double bed would they be allowed a room in the bull's inn
Its a wonder the bull's did not ask
the judge in their case if he/ she was married or gay or both- anyone
can hate, sometimes its easy to hate- but to hate love- thats inhuman-
Mackers,
ReplyDeleteI would say the Bull's behaviour despicable as it was, is very reflective of a widely held view.
I know people, who I have always assumed would know better make snide and crass remarks about gay people.
Homosexuality is still severely stigmatized, many believe it is unnatural others believe it to be unlawful.
People will wave the anti-discrimination flag, however, as michaelhenry rightly said more often than not the flag is red.
AM,
ReplyDeleteThis case is far from over. The liklehood is that the Bulls will win should they appeal.
You cannot force people to change their long-held views because a minority of activists insist on it.
They have every right to restrict their rooms to married couples only and the Judge's statement that civil partnerships are the equivalent of marrriage directly contradicts what its legislators stated when pushing it through.
If they have no right to dictate who sleeps in their house, why should a hotel not be forced into holding an Orange Order dinner?
Why penalise an old couple who will probably be forced out of business, if they don't or can't appeal? The kinder thing would be to go elswhere. Big deal! The most likely thing of course it that this was set up by in a 'sting' operation.
Forgot to mention that Peter Tatchell would probably condone old men and young boys too:
ReplyDelete‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311193/PETER-HITCHENS-Question-Who-said-Not-sex-involving-children-unwanted-abusive-Answer-The-Popes-biggest-British-critic.html#ixzz1RB8UN8g2
So thats the orogin of "bullshit".thank f##k its not spreading,the first thing I do when I,m in a hotel is to chuck the bible out the window,
ReplyDeleteI remember this case... and reading bout it here again reminded me of a gay friend who joined a Christian church in the 1980's. I warned him NOT to but never expected the outcome to be as dramatic as it was. When they found out he was homosexual (he gave his testimony up the front of the church why he believed in God) they literally chased him out of the church with one church member continuing to shout insults and scriptures at him at him as he scuttled down the road! When he come over my place we laughed our guts out about it BUT underneath our laughter I glimpsed REAL PAIN in his eyes.
ReplyDeleteThe Bulls are aptly named for sure and remind of those type of church members my friend experienced. This self righteous dictatorial approach to anyone with differing lifestyles, non belief or beliefs is just horrendous. It does not reflect Jesus nor His teachings - it just shows what religosity madness is all about.
Why the hell did the Bulls open a hotel for public use and think they could impose their prejudices on clientele?
RE: ...People of faith should not be permitted to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people."
Yes that be the guts of it.
@ Michaelhenry I am sure clergy types from all different christian religon identity have booked double rooms in hotels!! A young male sex worker told me how common it was for religous ones to use prostitution services. A seasoned female sex worker told me of Muslims saying prayers post having sex with her - the kaffir infidel. It was her fault they fell into sexual sin of course and a few prayers post doing whatever their lusts dictated absolved them of wrongdoing... Get the picture ... Hypocrisies and mind games - all those lovely pustular outworkings of septic understandings of spirituality & God. In the end it does not matter if it a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever belief. These antics occur worldwide.
I think the Bulls wanted to create an unrealistic Pure to them little vortex to operate out of but it blew up their face. I am a fundie Christian btw yep i believe the scriptures literally but I will NEVER stand for blatant discrimination/hate against someone for their sexual choices/orientation or lifestyle. Why? because it ain't right Period.
No matter what one believes personally or spiritually NEVER gives one the right to discriminate, torment & attempt to destroy another human being on that basis. It is a 'sin' in itself to do so.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteI failed to understand your comment. Wasn't really sure what you were saying.
Nuala,
the people discriminated against here were entitled to pursue the course of action that they did. Was it a red flag? I have no proof that it was? as it a sting? No proof of that either. Was it a principle that was worth testing? Very much so.
I think it is only over time that the prejudice will be forced back.
John McGirr,
I don't think the case will go anywhere other than where it is now. It would be bucking recent trends where religious types tried practicing their religion on others and were overruled. The Bulls can hold their long held views just as racists can hold on to theirs. They should not be allowed to subject others to them. Practice your religion on yourself not on me. They can dictate who sleeps in their house but where the house becomes a utility for public use they cannot take their prejudice out on others. Peter Tatchell's views seem to worry you more than Cardinal Brady's actions.
The grounds on which an Orange Order dinner would be banned would decide the case.
AM,
ReplyDelete'Peter Tatchell's views seem to worry you more than Cardinal Brady's actions.'
They BOTH worry me. BOTH Peter Tatchell's perverse views, (which no doubt in twenty years could involve people not allowing paedophiles to rent out B&Bs to be prosecuted) AND Cardinal Brady's inactions.
What also bothers me is why don't BOTH bother you? You refer to an apologist for paedophilia as a 'rights activist'. What about the rights of the young children he wishes were able to have sex with old men?
Why do minority groups think they have a right to demand that others accept what have been regarded as perversions for thousands of years? Even, for the sake of argument, if we grant that sodomy should be accepted, do you really think the best way to do it is to resort to the ruin of those who are only sticking with what was commonly accepted until recently and don't want it publically flaunted?
I am off to McDonald's to demand a pizza, and then on to the Ford dealer and demand they fix my Vauxhall. Then I'll fing the local Orange Hall and see what time I can get Mass arranged.
John,
ReplyDeleteDo you feel the law should protect you from being discriminated against? What if you were on holiday in Antrim and some bigoted hotelier refused to let you and your family stay because he suspected you were Catholics? Anthony is right; the Bulls are perfectly entitled to refuse a couple from staying in their private home, but once they make their home a public utility, then they cannot discriminate.
'What if you were on holiday in Antrim and some bigoted hotelier refused to let you and your family stay because he suspected you were Catholics?'
ReplyDeleteI guess I would be careful where I tried to stay. It is well known that discrimination is rampant everywhere. If I thought that the only way I could stay in such a hotel was by force of law and that in reality I was not wanted there, I wouln't be to comfortable staying there. It seems like forcing someone to love you, you just can't do it.
Do you think that, take for example Britain, a hotel should be compelled to allow the BNP or some such group to use its facillities? If it is true that society has done a total about face on this issue, it is not reasonable to expect everyone to fall into line. The more reasonable approach would be to ensure all new hoteliers would sign up to the new ways, and leave the old folk alone. As it is there is hardly any occupation that a practicing Catholic can now take up in good conscience. Thank God for the dole!
John,
ReplyDeleteAll my life I have been very dubious about bible thumpers.
More often than not I have found they rarely practice what they preach.
Would they have refused two priests a room, two bishops, two nuns?
Nuala,
ReplyDeletethey might well have refused given that they seem sincere about their beliefs. They would have no right to refuse two gay priests or nuns. I think that it is less about their hypocrisy and more about their prejudice.
Mackers,
ReplyDeleteI think when it comes to religion prejudice is often tinged with hypocrisy.
The Bull's would have probably presumed, the two gay priests would have spent their time reading a bible, especially since they now have had one each seeing how Marty chucked his out the window.
Seriously though, you are absolutely right of course it is blantant prejudice.
John,
ReplyDelete"Do you think that, take for example Britain, a hotel should be compelled to allow the BNP or some such group to use its facillities?"
In principle, yes. In practice, though, it depends on whether the hotel accomodates other such groups or political parties. I mean, if the hotel caters specifically for ordinary guests and not for conferences of any kind, it would obviously be wrong to force it to accomodate the BNP. But if the hotel has a conference centre and is also entertaining the Tories every year, then why not the BNP? Just because we loathe the fuckers doesn't mean we should abandon our commitment to free speech.
SMH,
ReplyDeleteYour gay friend’s experience when he joined a Christian church underlines the gap between Christ and Christianity.
‘It does not reflect Jesus nor His teachings.’
‘Why the hell did the Bulls open a hotel for public use and think they could impose their prejudices on clientele?’
Because they think their religious opinion can override people’s rights. That’s what many religious types do. They are not happy to practice their religion on themselves but want others to take it out on. Imagine me discriminating against someone simply because they do not support the same soccer team that I do.
I don’t see how you could believe the scriptures literally. More importantly you don’t wan to inflict your belief in them onto others.
‘No matter what one believes personally or spiritually NEVER gives one the right to discriminate, torment & attempt to destroy another human being on that basis. It is a 'sin' in itself to do so.’
Setting aside the ‘sin’ aspect you are right to a fault. But religion is such a welcome home for hate filled people that it is no surprise that this type of thing happens.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteDo they still shove them in to hotels? They should be cleared out and the rooms made a neutral zone. People want a book, bring it themselves. They have as much right to put a soft pornographic magazine in your room as they have to put a bible. I dislike the way they still hand them to you in a courtroom if you are giving evidence. The last time I was handed one I looked at it as if it was hot and steaming and simply refused it. The right to affirm should be what is offered to people. If they choose the bible or Robert Ludlum after that it is up to them. No more reason to take a word sworn on the bible than a word sworn on an Irish flag or a Liverpool scarf or Playboy.
Nuala,
‘I think when it comes to religion prejudice is often tinged with hypocrisy.’
No doubt but I just thought in this case it may have been a different issue. Perhaps I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I just don’t see religion being about love or goodness, just a means to interfere in the lives of other people. If it was really about god they would address god and stay out of other people’s lives.
Mackers,
ReplyDeleteAlbert is away to Tralee with his mate for a few days, hope the owners of the B&B do not have the Bull mindset.
Would be funny if they did though.
John McGirr
ReplyDeleteBOTH Peter Tatchell's perverse views, (which no doubt in twenty years could involve people not allowing paedophiles to rent out B&Bs to be prosecuted) AND Cardinal Brady's inactions.
They could always get a bed in the monastery or convent for the night.
Brady’s actions, not inactions, are much worse than Tatchell who only expressed an opinion even if we don’t approve that opinion. But people are free to believe what they want. Tatchell as far as I can see has asked no one to violate the rights of children nor has he offered shelter from the law to those who violated such rights. He has made suggestions, as is his right, about changing the age of consent. I disagree with him but that is neither here nor there. It is a subject that can be discussed. How would the age of consent ever be raised or lowered if not preceded by discussion? Ridiculous Catholics, who virtually nobody listens to including the bulk of Catholics, insist there can be no consent at all, no matter what age, outside of marriage.
Minority groups have a right to argue to be free from persecution. People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years. No reason for them to be able to inflict that view on the rest of us who do not believe it. ‘You can’t get into our hotel for the night if you do not believe the earth is flat.’ Minority groups are not arguing that others have to share their beliefs, merely that they do not persecute minorities for holding them. And it ill becomes you to speak out against minorities demanding equality when you seem to think minorities have a right to inflict whatever they want on those who disagree with them whether on republican or religious grounds.
‘Even, for the sake of argument, if we grant that sodomy should be accepted, do you really think the best way to do it is to resort to the ruin of those who are only sticking with what was commonly accepted until recently and don't want it publicly flaunted?’
Sort of don’t ruin the slave owners who have only thought for centuries that black people were put on this earth by the good lord to be slaves and something can be found in the bible to support that view.
‘I am off to McDonald's to demand a pizza, and then on to the Ford dealer and demand they fix my Vauxhall. Then I'll ring the local Orange Hall and see what time I can get Mass arranged.’ And then off to the Christian Brothers to book a boy for the night! (Not you personally)
John McGirr
ReplyDelete‘If I thought that the only way I could stay in such a hotel was by force of law and that in reality I was not wanted there, I wouldn’t be to comfortable staying there. It seems like forcing someone to love you, you just can't do it.’
So you would just let them carry on with their bigotry and allow them go unchallenged?
‘The more reasonable approach would be to ensure all new hoteliers would sign up to the new ways, and leave the old folk alone.’
So if you are an old racist it is alright to carry on as you were and your victims will just have to wait until all old racists die out.
‘As it is there is hardly any occupation that a practicing Catholic can now take up in good conscience.’
Not if they want to practice on others. Can they not just practice on themselves? Perhaps the tolerance you want shown to bigoted hotel owners should be applied to those who don’t want your religion practiced on them. I can sing Liverpool songs all I want but I can’t insist on bringing noise pollution into the lives of others because of my sporting opinion. People have the same right to be free from religious pollution. You might like it but as is the case with good music, keep it out of other people’s space.
‘Thank God for the dole!’
Catholics in the dole office might want the right not to pay it out to gay people.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteIt would be funny indeed if the Bulls have taken over Tralee! Albert would get some ribbing back in the West!