Gay Couple Sues Christian Hotel Owners for Refusing Them Double Room

By Anne Thomas|Christian Today Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

LONDON – A Christian couple is being sued after they refused to let a homosexual couple stay together at their seaside hotel.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner, Steven Paddy, are suing Peter and Hazelmary Bull, claiming they experienced “direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation,” according to The Daily Mail.

The Bulls, both Christians, say that they have had a long-standing policy of refusing any unmarried couples the right to stay in a double room together in their hotel.

Bull, 62, noted that when her brother and his female partner stay at the hotel, they are also required to stay in separate rooms as they are not married.

The Bulls have had their “married only” policy since they acquired the hotel in 1986.

The hotel website states they have a few rules and "out of a deep regard for marriage" they "prefer to [allow] double accommodation [for] heterosexual married couples only."

In August, the couple received a letter from Stonewall, a gay rights organization that said it had received a complaint and alleged that the hotel was breaking the law.

Then in September, Hall and Paddy called the hotel to book a double room for two nights. Bull said he assumed the booking was for a man and his wife.

When the couple arrived, hotel manager Bernie Quinn said that the booking could not be honored. Hall and Paddy said the decision was illegal and reported the hotel to the police.

“I have had people clearly involved in affairs and under-age people who have tried to book in here for sex, and I have refused them the same as I refused these gentlemen because I won’t be a party to anything which is an affront to my faith under my roof," Hazelmary Bull said, according to The Daily Mail.

Tom Ellis, the Bulls' lawyer, said, “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.”

The Bulls are also being supported by the Christian Institute.

Next Story : Faith in Action Initiative Makes Significant Impact in UK

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Prophet »

Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Yeah, and he had nothing to say about the countless Scriptures in both Old and New Testament that proved that Jesus was in existence before the creation of the universe. And that if the days in Genesis One are actually eons, then that means God is still resting on the seventh day, which would mean that Christianity and the Bible is a farce (as would make Mormonism as well). And the Bible explicitly says "...and the evening and the morning were the second/third/fourth/etc day" which shows that they were literal days. He had no answers for any of those.

But I didn't know that Mormonism was so closely tied to science (especially evolution). A lot of their beliefs are based on science, instead of faith; what can be proven instead of what can be believed.
DelightntheLord »

Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Prophet,
Yeah, I saw that page and it was pretty intense. I came to know Christ while living on a horse ranch outside of SLC in a town of 2400 devoted Mormons. Needless to say, after the baskets of food left at the doorstep and Mormon missionaries coming around, they didn't much like what I had to say. Our family was ostrasized and everyone there knew I was a born-again Christian so the word was out; do not associate for fear of becoming an apostate Mormon. Their hands were pretty much tied, families would outright reject a member who doubted Mormon doctrine.

I never did get an answer for the question of 'first cause'. If God was once a man, and man can become God...what came first, man or God? I loved the Mormons but hated Mormonism, living in Utah was quite an experience!
Prophet »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Delight,

"well I wouldn't be guilty of having the last word (insert smiley-face here) to take a moment to thank you for your blessing on my family and wishing me well. God bless you and yours and we will meet again and hopefully sooner than later!"

You do have to have the last word don't you? LOL. I'm kidding.
Sorry if I seemed a bit terse earlier. Sometimes I get so engrossed in a debate that my intensity leaks over into other posts. I have been having a very deep and intense discussion with a Mormon on another post, and unfortunately I didn't keep it there.
Wilderness1 »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:52 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

DelightntheLord,

We do know that God is long-suffering not willing that any should perish. May God place his children in that same long-suffering with prayer and fasting; vessels fit for the Master's use, especially as the shadow of God's wrath looms across the world. Christians must dig deep in Christ, rooted in his truth without compromise, regardless of what society or the lukewarm church says.
DelightntheLord »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Wilderness,

I checked out the story on the website link.
Sad.

Just how far will God allow the world to turn its back on Him before He lets loose His Wrath?

I just don't understand how engineering social policy in this way promotes peace or good will toward men. I guess the "Equality Act" shows us some are more "equal" than others.
DelightntheLord »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Prophet,

well I wouldn't be guilty of having the last word (insert smiley-face here) to take a moment to thank you for your blessing on my family and wishing me well. God bless you and yours and we will meet again and hopefully sooner than later!
Wilderness1 »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"The new proposed European Directive is rapidly in the process of going through the various stages of the European Parliament. This Anti-Discrimination Directive creates further threats to Christian liberty and builds a wide scope for interpretation to promote the homosexual lifestyle."

http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=709
Prophet »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

God bless you and your family. I pray His continued hand upon you. Someday we will be in heaven together praising God together. And maybe we'll laugh about this. :-) Who knows. All I know is I can't wait to see you in heaven and give you a big hug. Regardless of how much we disagree, you are my brother. And I've always got your back.
DelightntheLord »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:54 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Whatever, gracious prophet.
Prophet »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:13 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I guess having the last word is what is important to you. Should I rebut back? Or practice self-control?
DelightntheLord »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:10 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Prophet, I have no intention of going back and forth on this issue. But since I wrote this post before I saw yours I will post it because I believe it addresses the situation completely.

It's okay that we disagree, this is a non essential and not a doctrinal issue. Please consider this:

There seems to be a world of difference between Jesus eating food that MAY have been purchased with ill-gotten gain (the subject of which isn't addressed in Scripture) and flat out accepting monies from a fornicator to use a leased room for fornication if it violates the owners' conscience.

One thing for Jesus (who is God) to eat with sinners and preach and teach the Word,(and that's all scripture speaks to).... quite another to enable one to commit sin while accepting monies by which a room would be provided for sin to be committed.

Have we forgotten, this sin is an abomination to God? The Bulls are in agreement with God.

It may be impractical in this sinful world for the Hotel owners to avoid being forced to do this, but how can you disparage their desire to run a business with a clear conscience before God? I think they are trying to remain blameless and maybe understand Romans 1:24-26 that homosexuals are given over to their sin by God and is not something that could be "ministered" to by going against their conscience and accomodate what God has called an abomination.
Prophet »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I guess we'll agree to disagree. We could go back and forth for weeks.
DelightntheLord »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

How about that post...it doesn't answer what you said in the earlier post.

Would you care to address how you know that Jesus would lease the room to a homosexual couple?

I usually agree with your stand on issues, that is why your words in that particular post stand out to me.

In the Bulls position how would "ministering" in conflict with their belief have made a difference?

Were they to share the Gospel, as the couple was signing in or just go against their beliefs and policy in order to show they "love" homosexuals over and above their strongly held beliefs, and quitely rent the room anyway? How is that ministering?

How does one minister in this way? please explain.
Prophet »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:54 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

How about this post?

By partaking of the food offered by the sinful publican, who no doubt paid for that food with his ill gotten money, did Jesus also condone the publican's sin?
Or did he eat, and minister.
Instead of casting pharisee shadows upon this homosexual couple, the owners would have been far more effective in ministering God's love and mercy, just as Jesus did."
DelightntheLord »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:42 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Well, I read this:

Speaking of Jesus: "He talked with them. He did not condone their actions, but he loved them anyway.

**And I know He would have allowed them a double room together."
-----------------------------------

What does this mean? Jesus would condone sin by renting a room to fornicators for homosexual activity?

And you KNOW Jesus would do this. How?

If they were willing Jesus would have healed them OR if unwilling He would have rebuked them.

I read this too:

"Well, by the sounds of it, this couple has a hard time catering to non-Christians."

Sounds rather disparaging of their stand on their belief, no?

And this:

"this couple has a business license. So they must answer to the government, and adhere to their laws."

There ARE unbelieving married people that they are willing to lease a room to.
Religion wasn't a requirement...being legally married is.

How am I not understanding the intent of your words?
Prophet »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Well, from the sound of it, you're advocating Christian acceptance of homosexuality."

From the sound of your message, you don't read mine.
DelightntheLord »

Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:27 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

I see nothing wrong with their policy of lodging only marrieds and I admire their desire to hold on to their beliefs in the face of tyrannical government dictating how small business' are run. This is not the Motel 6, the Marriott nor the only lodging within a desolate area.

Your "rights" end where mine begin and it is dubious (at best) that sexual practice should be considered a "protected civil right".

If more of us would stand up for our beliefs as the Bulls have, the government would not be able to make laws that infringe on our right to conscience and freedom to practice our beliefs, or the right to conduct a small business without heavy-handed Governmental interference.
Wilderness1 »

Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Mrs Bull said: "In 26 years we have never really had a problem with it. I have found people to be very good and understanding. They realise that they are pursuing one lifestyle while we are pursuing another.

"I suppose we knew there would be problems with the new law, but I can't change my beliefs and faith because of that" (telegraph.co.uk).
DelightntheLord »

Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:21 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Well, from the sound of it, you're advocating Christian acceptance of homosexuality.
Prophet »

Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:04 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Well, by the sounds of it, this couple has a hard time catering to non-Christians.
DelightntheLord »

Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:53 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Of course not, Prophet. They should be allowed to operate their business by their business model and be consistent as they have been in implementing their policy.

Seems we have gotten so used to government intrusion into our lives that we no longer question the dictates handed down by Government. Remember, the Govt answers to us and not the other way around. But some of us will bow to Govt over God, but that was not how it was intended by our Creator nor our founding fathers.

God gives us our rights...not government.
Prophet »

Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:47 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

So Delight, Christian business owners should cater to only Christians?
DelightntheLord »

Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:30 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"accountable to the government for your actions"

That sounds all well and "good" on the surface; obeying the government dictates over the righteousness of God and upholding morals in their own establishment and home;

GOOD THING then, that Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego didn't subscribe to this dualistic notion but put their faith in action and God delivered them.

This was a set-up typical of homosexual activists; the policy of this establishment was clearly stated by the owners...and that is why the homosexual couple decided to test it and take it to court. I pray the hotel owners prevail.
SemperFideles04 »

Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:16 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Haha... I post a paragraph calling Prophet out on his stupid theory and I get nothing. Meanwhile if I try and talk to him at all he shouts "YOU'S ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!" at me along with some other very hateful comments :P He is the Prophet of Hate and Judgment.
Prophet »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"I know...I loved visiting Denver and Colorodo Springs."

I live up north in Fort Collins. If you are ever planning on visiting the area, you have a free place to stay.
Prophet »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I'm not sure how that works. But I would assume that if you have a business license, you would held accountable to the government for your actions.

A. If that is so, I am assuming that this couple has a business license. So they must answer to the government, and adhere to their laws.

B. This took place in England, so I'm not sure how their laws work.
Daniel Paul »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"No offense, but I live in Colorado. It is illegal to smoke inside any public building."

I know...I loved visiting Denver and Colorodo Springs. Still, this was a bed and breakfast. It is not a "public building" for say. It is a private residence which houses paid guests. So, could the arguement be made that they should have to allow smoking in their bed and breakfast if it was in CO?
Daniel Paul »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:02 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"Christ associated with many 'sinners', many considered outcast, and many that even the leaders of the Jewish religion would shun."

He also taught them. Much of His teaching was to crowds made up of them. He didn't condone their sin.

Mat 9:12-13 But when Jesus heard [that], he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Jesus calls to repentance from sin.
Daniel Paul »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Let's release from fear"

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Amazingly applicable!!!
Prophet »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:22 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I guess one could also ask "Did Hitler know that what he was doing was wrong?"

Proverbs 14:12

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
SemperFideles04 »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:59 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Holy of Hol- I mean Prophet-

Yea sorry, I mean since you're a self-ordained prophet and all I keep accidentally calling you Holy of Holies ;) But hold on now. Do the homosexuals know that they're sinning? It seems natural to them. The tax-collectors and publicans KNEW that what they were doing was wrong! These people just see it as they are. So I don't think what you are saying would work.
Prophet »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I rather like the story of the Good Samaritan. A Jew, one who is amont the chosen of God, is accosted and left for dead. Even those of his own faith would not help him. The only one who would was a pagan in his eyes. A dog. A sinner. The dog helping the righteous man. How much more should we love the unrighteous.
Prophet »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

By partaking of the food offered by the sinful publican, who no doubt paid for that food with his ill gotten money, did Jesus also condone the publican's sin?
Or did he eat, and minister.
Instead of casting pharisee shadows upon this homosexual couple, the owners would have been far more effective in ministering God's love and mercy, just as Jesus did.
DelightntheLord »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Mat 11:20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent:

Luk 19:26,2-28 'For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.' "

Luk 19:28 When He had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

Sayings that scatter the sinners and wreck the party.

Precious context!
Gnosticgirl »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Matthew 11:19 and Luke 19:5-7.
Gnosticgirl »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Daniel - Hate crimes period are horrible - no matter who is committing them. No one, in this country, should be harmed because of their religion, their identity, their race, their orientation, their creed...etc. There are much better ways to solve differences. Violence is not one of them. Here is the website for the 2006 statistics that just came out, in case anyone is interested. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/index.html
DelightntheLord »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Jesus Christ preached the Gospel to sinners. He did not party with sinners.
After He spoke the Truth, only those who loved the truth remained.
Gnosticgirl »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Christ associated with many 'sinners', many considered outcast, and many that even the leaders of the Jewish religion would shun.
believer »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

chin, they don't live in an unreal world they live in a sinful world and that's why they established that guideline in the first place!
DelightntheLord »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Let's release from fear"

Code words for: let go of the Truth of God.

What is the spirit behind that, Church?
SemperFideles04 »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

First, it is the businessman's establishment. He has the right to turn people away, no questions asked!

Second, it was the couple's personal choice to be gay. It was his personal choice to not accept gays. The Neo-Nazi youth groups are not prosecuted for their rallies against jews. This man is not liable.

Third, why the heck would they be suing for money? What did he cost them?! What emotional damage did he deal to them?! They are just being crybabies.
DelightntheLord »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:58 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

I did not just read this from Prophet?!

"Since these owners would refuse a homosexual couple from sharing a room, I am fairly certain that they feel that separating themselves from sinners is the way to holiness. But Jesus ran to the sinner. He dined with them. He talked with them. He did not condone their actions, but he loved them anyway. And I know He would have allowed them a double room together."

'And I know He would have allowed them a double room together.

We can know NO such thing!

"I am fairly certain that they feel that separating themselves from sinners is the way to holiness."

What does it mean to be Sanctified?

What does it mean to be Holy?

These two words share the same definition. We are called to be both.

Your assertion that Jesus hung out with sinners and that He would condone sin by renting this double room so fornication could take place, leans toward blasphemy.

When Jesus did dine with them, He shared the Truth and did not seek fellowship with sinners as many Christians do...to their error.
Gnosticgirl »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Prophet - I like some of the questions you are posing. Good thinking questions. Thank you.
ChinYinYun »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

The christian couple live in unreal world(cause by their misconcepts of gay ). I couldn' find one verse in scriptures to support that they're right.Many mature gays hope to work as team with straights to decrease the "evil things" even economy-crisis problems.Don't worry! Let's release from fear.
ecpinzon »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:46 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Peter and Hazelmary Bull stand firm in your beliefs. Honor God with your righteous lives, family and business. My best wishes to you and May God continue to strenghten you,give you wisdom and Bless you and your loved ones. Sincerely, hide
Prophet »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:01 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Sorry. I didn't realize this situation took place in Britain. The hate crime laws are more strict there. Unlike ours, they include sexual orientation, and are as vague as to say anyone speaking against homosexuality is breaking the law.
Prophet »

Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:54 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Didn't they do that to blacks in the pre-60's era? Tell them where they could and couldn't go to school? Tell them where they could and couldn't sit on a bus? I thought we got through all that.
Prophet »

Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I wonder what the outcry would be if a caucasian man was married to an African-American woman came into a motel, and was denied the right to sleep in the same room?
Prophet »

Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"It's not illegal to smoke."

No offense, but I live in Colorado. It is illegal to smoke inside any public building.

But let me ask you this. If a homosexual owned a motel, and a Christian heterosexual couple wanted a room together, and the homosexual denied them that, what would be the outcry from that?
Daniel Paul »

Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"But being a for-profit business, they are under the law of the government to accomodate anyone who is not doing anything illegal."

It's not illegal to smoke, still they could restrict it. It's not illegal to drink, still they could restrict it.
The European Convention on Human Rights gives them the right to restrict how the rooms are rented. They didn't refuse them lodging. They restricted how the guys could use the facilities. They were more than willing to provide accomodations within the confines of their own legal rights. The law is on their side. They could have freely stayed in two different rooms.

I went to their website. They have 7 rooms for rent. Now the question will be if the gays misrepresented themselves to avoid the clear and legal hotel policy.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story