Christian who refused to let gay couple stay at B&B ordered to pay damages

[makavelli1988]

The Christian owner of a bed and breakfast has been ordered to pay damages after a court found her refusal to let a gay couple stay in one of her double rooms amounted to direct discrimination and a breach of equality law.

Michael Black and John Morgan brought a civil case against Susanne Wilkinson, who owns the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire, after they were refused accommodation at the premises in March 2010 despite having made a reservation and paid a deposit.

In a verdict delivered on Thursday by recorder Claire Moulder at Reading county court, Wilkinson was ordered to pay £3,600 in damages to the couple, who said they were shocked and embarrassed and felt "like lepers" after being told they were not welcome at the B&B because their same-sex relationship was against the owner's convictions.

The verdict found that Black and Morgan, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, suffered direct discrimination by being turned away from the guesthouse because they were gay. Moulder said that by refusing the couple access, Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".

In a statement, Wilkinson – whose legal defence was paid for by the Christian Institute, a national charity – said she was giving "serious consideration" to an appeal against the ruling.

"Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration. We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."

But the decision prompted relief among equality campaigners. James Welch, the legal director of Liberty, said: "Liberty defends the rights of religious groups to manifest their beliefs, even when we disagree with them. But it is simply unacceptable for people running a business to refuse to provide a service because of someone's sexual orientation. Hopefully today's ruling signals the death knell of such 'no gays' policies – policies that would never be tolerated if they referred to a person's race, gender or religion."

Lawyers for Wilkinson had argued that she was entitled to refuse double rooms not only to gay couples but also to couples who were not married or in a civil partnership. Black and Morgan are not in a civil partnership.

But the judge found that although the refusal of a room could be seen as a manifestation of the owner's religious beliefs, her right to manifest those beliefs was not unfairly limited by the Equality Act of 2010, which requires that service providers do not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

Wilkinson and her husband say they have received two years of abuse for the decision, which enraged gay rights campaigners but gave succour to some Christians' claims of persecution.

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ed-pay-damages

Apparently this is persecution of Christians. It's a little hilarious how some Christians believe this is something akin to the persecutions conducted by the Church at it's peak. If they read their history, they would understand what persecution really is and the horrors committed in the name of dogma.

[NYbrah]

normal people are denied entries in gay bars all the time

[MCrow]

This is a violation of their religious freedom and their liberties in relation to their property.

[metroins]

This is a violation of their religious freedom and their liberties in relation to their property.

She was operating a business.

[NYbrah]

She was operating a business.

the rule of the guest house was that not married couples cannot share a double room and they had already refused double rooms in the past to not married normal couples.

[makavelli1988]

the rule of the guest house was that not married couples cannot share a double room and they had already refused double rooms in the past to not married normal couples.

How would you feel if my religious beliefs tell me to bar blacks or hispanics?

[anonymousceleb]

normal people are denied entries in gay bars all the time

Are you serious? How do they check? What NY are you from?

[MCrow]

She was operating a business.

Shouldn't matter, it's their property, their business and you should be allowed to operate a business you own on your property any way you like as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. IMO, not allowing a Gay couple to rent a room from you isn't infringing on their rights as much as forcing the owners to rent to something that violates their religious beliefs does. A gay couple can find another establishment to stay in, people should be required to do something against their beliefs.

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

"The church?"

Oh, so now there's only one Christian denomination?

Thanks for clearing that up for me OP. I thought I had it all wrong this whole time.

[MCrow]

How would you feel if my religious beliefs tell me to bar blacks or hispanics?

I don't know of any religion where that is currently the case so it's not a valid point.

[metroins]

Shouldn't matter, it's their property, their business and you should be allowed to operate a business you own on your property any way you like as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. IMO, not allowing a Gay couple to rent a room from you isn't infringing on their rights as much as forcing the owners to rent to something that violates their religious beliefs does. A gay couple can find another establishment to stay in, people should be required to do something against their beliefs.

When you operate a business, you lose individual beliefs for that business and must operate in a non-discriminatory fashion. Especially when it comes to housing standards.

the rule of the guest house was that not married couples cannot share a double room and they had already refused double rooms in the past to not married normal couples.

This also infringes on rights....

[VAPlowhorse]

Would not get into the hotel business personally due the weird laws that go with it. If I remember correctly from other cases involving race, owners do not entirely have the right to refuse service.

Anyway, it was handled in civil court as it should be. Right or wrong, that woman must have an immunity to irony.

[Travis99]

Once you open a business you have to operate it by the law. Or you could just open a business that kills people.

Somepeopleskids

[chlaxman]

I just find it ironic that she's claiming to be persecuted because she wants to persecute others...

[makavelli1988]

I don't know of any religion where that is currently the case so it's not a valid point.

You've missed the point entirely. Homosexuality in your view is clearly not a civil rights issue, it is why when Black or Hispanic is replaced, you understand how discriminatory it is.

If I create a business selling drinks and refuse to serve any Christians because as a Muslim I believe they are condemned to hell and idolaters, should i still be allowed?

[ClaptonDeCheeks]

isn't a bed and breakfast a home first and a motel second? After all of the guests leave, the owners stay there, no? If they're Christian and they don't want gays in their home, why should they be forced to welcome gays into their home?

I'm not religious btw.

[ProLibertas]

This also infringes on rights....

I don't see how you have a right to force other people to associate with you.

[Mr Beer]

Yeah unfortunately rules on running a hotel are by law, not by her wacked-out prejudices. Pay up!

Also LOL @ persecution, FFS.

EDIT

"We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."

Is this bitch fukking retarded? Does she not understand that when she hawks out rooms in her 'home' it becomes a business and gets governed by the appropriate legislation? BRB I sell hot dogs from my kitchen window but it's OK if I spit in the food because IT'S MY HOME GOVERNMENT LEAVE ME ALONE!

[No7]

on the one hand i think they should be allowed to do whatever the fuk they want in their own home and on the other hand i think theyre batsh*t retarded for being christians and then on the foot im fukin outraged that theyre calling it persecution

them not wanting unmarried couples to stay in the rooms is different to them not wanting *******s to stay in the rooms but either way its fukin stupid

[metroins]

isn't a bed and breakfast a home first and a motel second? After all of the guests leave, the owners stay there, no? If they're Christian and they don't want gays in their home, why should they be forced to welcome gays into their home?

I'm not religious btw.

The people were not refused from the home portion; they were not "just visiting". They were refused from the business establishment portion of the home that they paid for goods and services, that payment which was accepted on a non-discriminatory basis. When the business owner discovered the sexual and marital preferences of the guests, the guests were then discriminated against and refused entry based on an issue not related to the safety or well-being of the business. Not only that, it was clearly against the law.

I don't see how you have a right to force other people to associate with you.

The law and equal standards. Feel free to discriminate in personal matters but when it becomes a business you lose those rights and must operate based on equality. If the owner was smart she would have set it up as an association affiliation or fraternal type of establishment which could discriminate.

[Spartacus777]

normal people are denied entries in gay bars all the time

truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Mr Beer]

truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Not true, at least I've never been denied entry to a gay bar. That said I was younger, slimmer and better looking last time I went to one, so maybe they just don't let ugly straight people in?

[ProLibertas]

The law and equal standards. Feel free to discriminate in personal matters but when it becomes a business you lose those rights and must operate based on equality. If the owner was smart she would have set it up as an association affiliation or fraternal type of establishment which could discriminate.

Again where do you get the right to force others to associate with you?
When I own something I don't really own it?

So who when I enter into agreements or associate with others it's not a personal matter?

[Spartacus777]

Owners should have the right to refuse service to people, as it's THEIR property and without THEIR property and labor said service wouldn't even exist in the first place. The couple could have found an alternate place to stay instead of demanding to stay on someones private property. That being said they already paid a sum to stay at said home, which makes it murkier. If the owners could pay them back that money on the spot then my previous stance is still valid, if not then yes the owners have to suck it up.

[metroins]

Again where do you get the right to force others to associate with you?
When I own something I don't really own it?

So who when I enter into agreements or associate with others it's not a personal matter?

What are you not understanding? It's a business. The business becomes it's own entity which does NOT get to choose who to associate using unfair discriminatory standards against the public. Are you not from a modern country or something where you do not understand how businesses operate and must abide by equal rights laws? srs question; I don't think you are from a modernized country.

Owners should have the right to refuse service to people, as it's THEIR property and without THEIR property and labor said service wouldn't even exist in the first place. The couple could have found an alternate place to stay instead of demanding to stay on someones private property. That being said they already paid a sum to stay at said home, which makes it murkier. If the owners could pay them back that money on the spot then my previous stance is still valid, if not then yes the owners have to suck it up.

Again, it's not "THEIR" property when they are operating as a business. It's the business property, not private property. When you accept goods it becomes a business endeavor not a private personal matter. If they were not accepting currency for services and were just letting people stay there for free they can discriminate, but not acting in a business fashion you cannot.

[Spartacus777]

Not true, at least I've never been denied entry to a gay bar. That said I was younger, slimmer and better looking last time I went to one, so maybe they just don't let ugly straight people in?

Anecdotal evidence.

And yes people are denied to bars and clubs all the time for all kinds of reasons. In fact I could use the logic in the OP to say that fat girls who are denied as fashion models are discriminated against for being ugly and fat, and deserve equality in the modeling industry.

It's fukking madness. There is no clear line to draw. It's simply because in this case it's a gay couple so everyone flips a shiat.

[MCrow]

When you operate a business, you lose individual beliefs for that business and must operate in a non-discriminatory fashion. Especially when it comes to housing standards.

Actually, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as far as I know, doesn't apply legally to homosexuals.

[metroins]

Actually, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as far as I know, doesn't apply legally to homosexuals.

Did you read the article? This was in the UK and Equality Act of 2010 stated it does in the UK.

[Mr Beer]

Anecdotal evidence.

Anecodotal evidence trumps zero evidence at all, as provided by yourself and NYBrah.

[MCrow]

Did you read the article? This was in the UK and Equality Act of 2010 stated it does in the UK.

Well, in the UK, I have no idea what the law is but here you could legally deny gays from renting a room if you want.