70 2 mins 9 yrs

The militant gay agenda advances even further with this nauseating example of our courts being deployed to PUNISH anyone who stands in its way;

A devout Christian bed and breakfast owner who refused a bed to a gay couple was today ordered to pay them more than £3000 in compensation.

Michael Black, 64, and his partner John Morgan, 59, began a legal battle soon after they were told they could not sleep together at the £75-a-night Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire in March 2010. Owner Susanne Wilkinson told a court she was serious about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed. But a judge at Reading County Court ordered her to pay £3,600 in damages for discriminating directly against the couple, who have been together for eight years.

So, GAY values trump Christian beliefs. I look forward to similar prosecutions brought against MUSLIM bed and breakfast owners. This is not about equality,as the Judge suggests, it is about triumphalism and the determination of some to crush religious values with their self indulgent zealotry.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

70 thoughts on “DREAD AND BREAKFAST…

  1. or “the largest Gay Men Only Venue in the South of England” to get their money back.

    I see that Shami Chakribarti agrees with the court. So much for property rights love. If you can’t decide who comes onto your property then you have precious little liberty. Then again, defending liberty has never been the point of her organisation, which is little more than a mouthpiece for the Guardian state of mind.

  2. Mr and Mrs Agit8ed once had a guesthouse in the Lake District. We had a couple of Gays come and stay with us. Our first and only.
    The point is that if you are running a guesthouse that is open to the public, then logically you cannot turn anyone away. (Although we did refuse some rowdy youngsters)
    So we agree with the ruling, and actually, listening to the two fellows involved giving a radio interview they came across as very reasonable and not out to make a point against the lady.

  3. The point is that if you are running a guesthouse that is open to the public, then logically you cannot turn anyone away.

    Of course you can.

    You cannot “be open” to anyone unless it’s in your power to choose that, and it’s private property rights which convey that power. Likewise, those powers convey the power of exclusivity, the power to exclude undesirables, which is essential when opening shop to customers.

  4. Pete,
    I disagree. If a couple of gays come to stay at your guesthouse, they are clean,polite and respectful; on what basis could you/should you turn them away?
    To do so simply because they are Gay is in my view wrong. If I want to discriminate about who stays at my establishment then I should make it clear from the start.
    I am anti the more extreme gay agenda, but I would not discriminate against a homosexual simply because they are homosexual.

  5. You can decide who comes onto your property if you operate your business by private invitation only or set up a ‘club membership’ list. If you advertise services publicly then the law does not allow you to discriminate on certain criteria. There are ways of sticking to your beliefs and operating within the law but the owners of the guesthouse did not take that option. There is a good argument for saying that the owners should be allowed to publicly advertise whatever restrictions they wish but it is not true to say they are ‘forced’ to accept unwanted guests.

    In this particular case I understand that the owners accepted the booking when it was first made and did not question the customer in advance and it was only when the couple physically turned up did they refuse them the double room so the couple do have a genuine case that the original contract was breached.

  6. If a couple of gays come to stay at your guesthouse, they are clean,polite and respectful; on what basis could you/should you turn them away?

    Private property rights. What do you think private property means if you cannot exclude anyone from it?

    I have no more right to raid your fridge now than I have to force you to accommodate me in your B&B.

    Exclusivity is the very essence of private property rights. It’s that power alone which prevents state goons from invading your home in the night. It is a cornerstone of our liberties. Stop pissing on yourself.

  7. Colm –

    … so the couple do have a genuine case that the original contract was breached.

    Yeah, breach of contract if the property owners didn’t cover themselves in the small print. Sorry for your wasted journey.

    What if the gay couple had turned up smelling like council toilets, with joints in their mouths and their hands all over a pair of young boys – would the owner still be obliged to let them in?

    If not, why not?

  8. Pete

    Why do you continue to claim something that is untrue – namely that these people’s property rights have been crushed.

  9. So Pete and David, you would have no problem with a guest house that openly banned blacks and jews?

  10. If you have a guesthouse open to the public, how can you then start pulling private property rights?

  11. “What if the gay couple had turned up smelling like council toilets, with joints in their mouths and their hands all over a pair of young boys – would the owner still be obliged to let them in?”
    No ‘cos smoking joints in a public place is I think, illegal.
    Hands all over a pair of young boys is child abuse/paedophilia.

  12. Peter –

    you would have no problem with a guest house that openly banned blacks and jews?

    Of course not.

  13. Agit8ed –

    A guesthouse is not open to “the public”, it’s open to contracted customers.

  14. Pete

    And as I have explained earlier it is perfectly legally possible to ensure you have only the contracted customers you prefer, yet you continue to persist in your false claim that they are ‘forced’ to let unwanted guests in.

  15. Colm –

    What you said, in effect, is that it’s all fine if you contrive a way around the law with some membership scheme by handing out little membership cards at checking in time. So Mr and Mrs Guesthouse are in error and did wrong, but they’d have been right if they’d have handed over a bit of laminated plastic to the gay couple.

    Well that bullshit might be fine with you, but I’m interested in morals and principles.

  16. I suggest the persecuted couple book into Chaps Hotel Blackpool

    Sounds like: I suggest the black woman sit at the back of the bus.

    The ‘good old days’ are over, Pete.

  17. Tarasov –

    They were public buses. If a black owner wants black-only buses, go for it.

    But then I’m liberal like that.

  18. Pete,
    “A guesthouse is not open to “the public”, it’s open to contracted customers.”
    A person walks into a guesthouse off the street, they are MEMBERS of the PUBLIC, and as such have a right to avail themselves of your offer of bed and breakfast. Full stop.
    You can hen only ask them to leave if they cause a nuisance or a disturbance: not because you have suddenly found out they are gay, have a wooden leg or don’t pay their tv licence.
    For crying out loud, I did the job, I know.

  19. Pete

    I am just refuting your false argument. It’s fine to express an opinion but not to claim soemthing as fact when it isn’t.

  20. Agit8ed –

    .. they are MEMBERS of the PUBLIC, and as such have a right to avail themselves of your offer of bed and breakfast.

    I don’t like the look of them, so order them to leave.

    What’s this members of the public rubbish? You’re just saying that a person is a person. So what? There’s no special class there.

  21. Pete,
    What’s this members of the public rubbish? You’re just saying that a person is a person. So what? There’s no special class there.”
    Hotels, guest houses offer food and accommodation. Anyone can therefore avail themselves of that offer, providing they can pay for it. If there are certain types of people you DON’T want to cater for , you should post a list outside your establishment, or verbalise your policy when taking bookings by phone/’email.
    You cannot have it both ways.
    In my home i can and would refuse to have even a family member who happened to be Gay share a bedroom with another Gay. No ifs or buts, I wouldn’t allow it. The family member alone, yes.
    But in a business establishment open to the public, I would accept it.

  22. A devout Christian whose motto is no room at the inn – ironic?

    As I said two years ago when this story was trumpted as the end of the world on ATW, if they want to run a business enterprise they are subject to the laws of the land, including discrimination laws that apply to any business. Be they alleged devout Christians or atheists they can’t pick and choose which laws to follow.

  23. Agit8ed –

    No ifs or buts, I wouldn’t allow it. The family member alone, yes.
    But in a business establishment open to the public, I would accept it.

    Good for you, but why insist that others be forced to do the same under the violence of law? It’s authoritarian and unBritish.

  24. You silly person!
    Because if I have a business that makes its profits by having people sleep in its rooms and eat its food, I either officially discriminate or I accept that people whose lifestyles or religion I might not approve of will nevertheless have the (lawful) right to avail themselves of my offer.
    I could tell you some really funny stories of people who stayed with us and fellow guest house owners, but none of them broke the law, even if their behaviour upset or embarrassed other guests.
    My own home is another matter entirely, and I can tell you that all my extended family know my views on homosexuality. Some snigger, some think I am a judgemental bigot, or those that like me say I’m “really really “old fashioned!”

  25. Agit8ed –

    .. but none of them broke the law, even if their behaviour upset or embarrassed other guests.

    You think the law force you to accept guests who upset other guests?! Are you mad?

    My own home is another matter entirely ..

    Most B&Bs are homes. In this case the B&B is the family home. You still haven’t justified why others should be forced by law into doing what you think they ought to do. You thinking that something is right or desirable is not the slightest justification for the use of forced coercion. It’s foreign, illiberal and not British.

  26. Pete,
    Most B&Bs are homes.”

    They are NOT!
    They are places of business in which as in our case we had a room which served as a bedroom, sitting room , dining room and office. They are not homes, they are places of business; and therefore subject to business rates and current government legislation.
    That’s a fact.
    You still haven’t justified why others should be forced by law into doing what you think they ought to do.”
    Sorry Pete,
    don’t understand this sentence.

    Re folk/guests upsetting other folk/guests I was referring to perhaps loud voices, accents, handicaps or medical conditions. None of which are as i far as I am aware grounds for refusal.

  27. Applies equally here too.

    Isn’t it weird that a lifestyle practiced by just 0.3% of the population should necessitate such special treatment. Why our society bends over backwards to accommodate the wishes of these people. In common with radical muslim trouble makers (Choudhary, Hookie etc) these people occupy a totally disporportionate amount of Government time and taxpayer money creating very specific legislation just for them. Which is then used by militant trouble making offence seekers to create trouble for the vast majority.

    Just saying thats all.

  28. Dogis,

    “Why our society bends over backwards to accommodate the wishes of these people. In common with radical muslim trouble makers (Choudhary, Hookie etc) these people occupy a totally disporportionate amount of Government time and taxpayer money creating very specific legislation just for them.
    If you accept evolutionary theory, then it happens for the same reason that vast herds of buffalo, deer and zebras get terrified by a small group of large pussy cats.
    In other words because the majority just want to be left alone no matter what, and a very small group want to impose their will no matter what. 🙂

  29. Your cops apparently spend a huge amount of their time monitoring internet speech.

    Not to research actual crime, as normal police do in the modern era, but to ensnare those guilty of Thought Crime.

    This will not end well.

  30. Agiit8ed

    Indeed the tyranny of the minority.

    How about the other 98.5% do they demand special treatment? As Stonewall adverts say in big letters on the side of busses.

    ‘some people are gay..get over it’.

    To which I would hope we 98.5% can retort…

    Stonewall…the vast majority of people are NOT gay…YOU get over it.

  31. Griffin gave the address of the couple and suggested a fascist mob go to their house. There should be consequences for this.

  32. OH and Phantom.. didn’t you say a guy who wore an anti-police tshirt should be locked up?!?

  33. Petra,
    There will be consequences.
    What Nick Griffin did is inexcusable. He really is an odious , Nazi-ish person, and he needs to be kicked out of public life.

  34. The t shirt inciting the murder of cops?

    Of course incitement is dealt with, and always has been in civilized lands.

  35. I agree, Old Agit.

    Phanny — As if anyone was gonna go kill cops because he wore that tshirt. You are in favour of some people being punished for their speech and give others a pass.

  36. Petr @ 11.42.

    Not true! – he did not give the address, – he mentioned the town but not the address. The tweet was shown on tv this a.m.

  37. This couple also didn’t allow non-married hetrosexual couples to stay at their B & B, so how did they discriminate? They treat both hetro/homosexuals the same, don’t they?

  38. Petra,
    If you are going to agree with me a degree of civility and respect is required. I am 66, but I don’t feel like 66 nor do I want to be with old people.
    You can call me
    Old Boy
    Agit
    Grumpy
    and in return I will address you as Petr.
    In terms of commitment to an ideal we probably have a lot in common, but my short term memory is not so brilliant, my aerobic ability definitely isn’t,
    BUT if you fancy a quick five minutes of fisticuffs I think I can guarantee you will be introducing yourself to the floor more times than I will 🙂

  39. Londonderry Unionist,
    Forgive me but are you LU??
    Anyway the point is if you are in the hospitality business you have to abide by the laws of the land. If you don’t like the laws of the land, then contact your MP and your friends and bring pressure to bear.

  40. Agit8ed,

    There are those who think it’s fine to make ageist remarks but who would have conniptions if anyone were to make even an innocous racist remark.

    We call them hypocrites, – petr is one of them.

  41. Yeah Ernest — I’m just railing against the ‘PC brigade’; I’m sure you approve! 🙂
    Funny how you get your knickers in such a knot when an ‘old’ joke is made but racism and homophobia are A-OK.

    Aigt — I was just joking, and reacting to you calling me Petra (which, in truth, I find funny). No offence meant; I actually appreciate your eccentricities – naked ironing etc. 🙂

  42. Ernest,
    We all come to it. There is no escape. I have recently made contact with friends of 30-40 years ago.
    I look at the photos, so full of vitality and expectancy. A part of me feels so sad remembering what once was..

    But this is life, and Mrs Agit8ed hates it when I talk about preparing for the Big Sleep!
    But in truth no matter how near or far away it seems, we all have to put on our jimmie jams and get into that bed of Eternity.

    Albert Einstein believed that at the back of it all is a Supreme Intelligence. I have made my peace with God and one day will die an imperfect, illogical old wallie.
    But ’til that happens, I cling to my belief that Jesus died for me and that He will have a little corner for me somewhere in His Creation..
    So Petra will have to sort himself and his pyjamas out at some point in time 🙂

  43. Right Petr,
    Let’s kick kiss (masculine kiss of course!) and make up.
    We will endeavour not to make cheap jibes at each other.
    We will try and respect each other’s point of view, and not communicate in soundbites.
    Pax??

  44. Petr,
    There is no shame in respect or Pax.
    I enjoy banter and baiting, but I prefer to do that with friends.

  45. petr,

    Rarely am I the butt of racist or homophobic jibes, but then I am neither coloured nor queer, I am however, to put it bluntly, – old.

    As the crime of the jibes we mention all have one thing in common, that we can do nothing about being old, being coloured or being queer. To select just one or two as being ‘oh so bad’, while the other is ‘just fine’, is just blatant hypocrisy.

    I might add, as so much of most of the Politically Correct ethos is.

    Believe me, it is bad enough knowing time is running out, without being reminded of the fact by complete strangers, in a pathetic attempt at familiarity.

    You can well imagine that if Agit8ed gets peeved over age references at a mere 66, how, and even though I am far better tempered than him, I, as an octagerian, also get peeved at the lack of respect.

  46. Whatcha going there for?
    I am sooo jealous.

    Hey Tovarich!
    You can always contact me through Mr Vance..
    I love travelling, especially in the Arab world..

    (But Israel is better!)

  47. Let’s not get into that just now!

    Going to a conference and visiting some friends.

    Over and out for now.

  48. Ernest,
    You deserve respect from all of us. I for one, wish you health and happiness for the longest possible time.
    You are I believe the GrandDaddy Commentator of ATW, and whether we agree or not with your views, we can afford you recognition and gratitude for cogently and succinctly airing your views…

  49. Phantom,
    well you weren’t that far away when you visited Haifa.
    Darn it,
    is there away to upload photos without giving away the source??
    I wanted to send a photo to Phantom..

  50. Actually Phantom,
    we could, if enough ATWers could drop their sectarian differences for long enough to find the best deal and book the tickets..

  51. Ahem, about the topic… you know: all that scarcely concealed fundie homophobia.

    News reaches me that Nick Griffin, that cuddly venomous racist turd fine upstanding gentleman, published the gay couple’s home address on Twitter.

    Not only that, but he urged any saddoes lacking a life to protest outside their home:

    Shortly after hearing that a gay couple had won their discrimination case for being turned away from a B&B based on their sexuality, Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, tweeted the couple’s home address and encouraged a demo outside their home to ‘say no to heterophobia’.

    Change.org have asked me to sign their petition to Twitter, calling for Griffin’s account to be suspended because he broke the rules (which is putting it mildly).

    Publicising the couple’s address, clearly breaks Twitter’s Rules of Service as outlined below and we call on Twitter to ban @nickgriffinmep from the platform.

    Twitter’s Rules of Service:

    Privacy: You may not publish or post other people’s private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express authorization and permission.

    Violence and Threats: You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others.

    I have no doubt that all right-thinking people at ATW will join me in signing the petition.

  52. Richard,

    As I mentioned ealier, he did not mention their address, just the town. One of the news channels had a copy of the tweet on screen earlier. Of course things may changed since then,

    As they say – ‘I would hate to see fools rush in where angels feared to tread’ – even if only to make mountains out of molehills!

  53. I find it interesting that Twitter can ban the publication of someone’s address and the police can visit the person who posts such information, but the BBC can show the address and contact number of the B&B concerned at regular intervals on their news channels! By doing so in the past the BBC has enabled abuse in the form of 2 1/2 years of hate mail to be sent to the owners’ home, as well as a hand-written note put through their letter box threating to burn down their property.

  54. Mark51,
    true, but the fellows concerned bore no ill will towards the lady, and ( I like to think) she bore them no personal ill will either. Anyway I think the gay guys were right and the lady was wrong. The BBC of course as representatives ov der peeple, has its own agenda.

  55. Agit8ed,

    But don’t you think that, in spite of the pretence of not really being bothered, the pair are really making quite a mountain of a molehill?

    Of course the interference of Griffin has played right into the hands of the likes of Tatchell, Clinton et al, in helping to elevate such trivia to ‘a national disaster’ level.

    While I don’t fully agree with your opinion as to who was right or wrong, I do think the B&B owners might have handled the situation with rather more tact than it appears they did.

    As you and I both know, ‘guests’ are not always what they seem to be at first sight, and can leave their sleeping quarters in quite a horrendous state. Perhaps they were acting on past experience of entertaining similar guests, certainly a possible valid reason for refusal.

    Whatever, as with any retail business, it is surely the proprietors ultimate right, law or no law, to refuse service.

  56. Ernest,

    Looks as though Twitter has suspended Griffin’s account and the police are investigating his actions. Good. We have enough rabble-rousers to contend with.

    “As you and I both know, ‘guests’ are not always what they seem to be at first sight, and can leave their sleeping quarters in quite a horrendous state. Perhaps they were acting on past experience of entertaining similar guests, certainly a possible valid reason for refusal.”

    Hmm, I don’t think that’s the reason. Right from the get-go the Wilkinsons claimed to be basing their actions on their fundie beliefs.

    In her statement, Susanne Wilkinson said: “People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack, and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs. I am a Christian, not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life – as Jesus expects from his followers.

    “That’s all I was trying to do and I think it’s quite wrong to punish me for that, especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats. We find this a strange justice in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant.”

    Er … right. So Susanne believes that her intolerance should be met with tolerance?

Comments are closed.