The Christian owners of a Cornwall hotel who unlawfully refused to allow a gay couple a double room have appealed.If they lose their appeal, I wonder if the gay couple might return for another visit, and if so, how might it play out ...
Peter Bull: May I say how pleased we are to have some homosexuals here now that we are all bound by the European Convention on Human Rights? I didn’t vote for it myself, quite honestly, but now that we’re in, I’m determined to make it work, so I’d like to welcome you all to Cornwall.
Steven Preddy: May we have two onion bhajis, please?
Peter Bull: Certainly! Why not, why not indeed? We are all friends now, eh? All in the double bedroom together, old sexual discriminations forgotten, and no need at all to mention sodomy. SORRY! Sorry. What was it again?
Martyn Hall: A prawn cocktail.
Peter Bull: Oh, prawn! That was it! When you said "prawn", I thought you said "bum sex". Oh, y— Oh, bugger! Oh, yes, completely slipped my mind! Yes, I'd forgotten all about it. Barrowman, Winton, and all that lot... Oh, yes, completely forgotten it, just like that. (He looks around for a moment in confusion.) Sorry. What was it again?
Martyn Hall: A prawn cocktail!
Peter Bull: Oh, yes, Derren Prawn. Yes, of course. And McKellen too, he's another one I can hardly remember them all.
Steven Preddy: And a Steak Pie!
Peter Bull: Stephen Fry, yes, yes, and, uh, Matt Lucas that was another one.
6 comments:
I'm buggered if I know where they find these people ..!
They wrote the Manuel!
Never understood why the Bulls lost their case. They always maintained it was because the guys were not married and it was unmarried couples they didn't like.
Their defence would have to submit their guest book and show that every couple who had every stayed there was married. There would be photocopies of marriage certificates or photographs of wedding days to back it all up.
How could they have possibly lost?
@The Heff,
I’m sure that the Bulls sincerely believe in the evils of rumpy pumpy without a permission slip signed by a priest or registrar. It would be consistent with the dogmas associated with their religion. It would however be very interesting indeed to see if it has always been enforced with the same blind zeal as it clearly was for gay couples. I do however see that claiming that they are discriminating on the grounds of marital status rather than homophobia would sound like a more reasonable defence to use.
They did use that defence, but "no unmarried couples (ps. civil partnerships don't count)" was seen to be indirect discrimination, since it basically stops gay people staying there. Marital status is not on the list of protected things, against which one may not discriminate.
That means... well, for example, when the BNP said "no darkies", that was direct racial discrimination. When they changed it to "anyone can join as long as you hate the darkies" that was indirect racial discrimination because by far the majority of white supremacists are white.
The Bulls' intentions by the policy were questioned by the judge but did not form part of the basis for the decision.
If there is an justice in the Universe (yeah I know, there isn't, but if there was) then this will become the no.1 gay hotel in Cornwall and every guest from now till eternity will be openly gay.
Post a Comment