January 18, 2011

Good News For Gays

But not so good for Christian pensioners running a hotel.

Not good for property rights either.

First things first: what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of my business. Moreover, I just don't care. I have more to worry about than who is humping who.

In a landmark ruling, a judge has decided that Peter and Hazelmary Bull broke the law when they denied the blokes in this report a room for the night.

The judge said this:

"In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said: "We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament. It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made."

I am reasonably certain that the queen has never read the legislation. The MPs who vote it in don't bother so why should she? Besides which, if judgy had read the Parliament Act of 1911, he would know that Royal Assent is a given. The argument being that no monarch had refused Assent in centuries. (This is a lie, but we'll let that slide for now). Our laws, judgy, are made by idiots in parliament. They have no idea what they are doing and neither do we. Case in point: Caroline Flint famously said, when asked if she had read the Lisbon Treaty, "I've glanced at it". Her job at the time? Minister for Europe. Marvellous. Even I read it twice.

Moving on:

"In the last 50 years there have been many such instances - the abolition of capital punishment; the abolition of corporal punishment in schools; the decriminalisation of homosexuality and of suicide; and on a more mundane level the ban on hunting and on smoking in public places."

Millions of people firmly believe that capital punishment should be an option for the sadistic killers that roam freely amongst us, usually after a derisory gaol sentence. The abolition of corporal punishment in our schools has led to unprecedented levels of attacks on teachers by students. The decriminalisation of homosexuality is no bad thing, in my opinion. Suicide is a decision entirely for the individual and should never have had anything to do with the state but, of course, a cash-cow taking themselves out of the game isn't really on, is it?  The ban on hunting was debated for over four hundred hours and they carried on anyway. The smoking ban was debated for four hours and we rolled over, like the spineless fucks that we are, despite the fact that there was no science to support the ban, despite the fact that no-one-for three years running, when asked by ONS-wanted a full ban, and despite the fact that it criminalised and denormalised 15 million people.


"All of these - and they are only examples - have offended sections of the population and in some cases cut across traditional religious beliefs. These laws have come into being because of changes in social attitudes."

The smoking ban, fella, continues to offend me. It was childish, puerile and vindictive. I am denied somewhere warm, dry and safe to smoke tobacco, which, if you believe the propaganda (and I don't), will, at worst, harm me, and only me. That pathetic law legislated against an odour. No more and no less. And please, let's not pretend that the legislation had anything at all to do with "changing social attitude". There was an awful lot of money behind that ban. The pharmaceutical companies and freakish outfits, fake charities, like ASH, stood to gain a great deal from the change in the law. Which was a violation of property rights. Again. But FFS, don't pretend this was something the proles were concerned about. They weren't. Not in the least. We know for sure that over 7,000 previously employed, previously housed, and previously happy landlords, landladies and their families would disagree with you.

Finally, this:

"It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around."

The Bulls made a decision. It was based on their Christianity, and their own, strongly-held morals. They denied the lads a room not because they were gay, at least, not entirely, but because they firmly believe in the institution of marriage. They own their hotel. You don't. The state, and by direct extension, the courts, should have absolutely no right to say who gets to stay in their hotel.

The Bulls made a mistake. The mistake they made was to tell the lads why they couldn't have a room.

Everyone lost here: the lads didn't get their room, the Bulls paid the price for their beliefs, and the law now wields a club that every business offering hotel or B&B rooms has to be beaten with. Comply or suffer the consequences.

This directive is lifted straight from the Frankfurt School of Insanity. Divide and conquer. Split the Christians and the Muslims, the Muslims and the Jews, the straights and the GLBT's, the Christians and the gays, the halals and the koshers, the blacks and the whites, the Asians and the Europeans, and pretty soon you have more entertainment than you can handle.

They just sit back and watch us tear each other apart. And they piss themselves laughing at us. At our stupidity and our ignorance.

But mostly, they love it when we concentrate on what divides, rather than unites us. If we could only get together, put our differences aside for even a short while we could work a miracle.

We could call it Tunisia II: The Day The Brits Got Mad.


PS-The Daily Mash agrees with me (eventually) on property rights...


William said...

This is why I come to this blog daily. You have a way with words and are not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Logic and common sense are alien concepts to a corrupt state for now but as long as they are kept alive by people like you and most every other visitor to this blog I have hope for my kids.

That and the fact they already know how to tell the state to fuck off, politely of course, at least to begin with!

Anonymous said...

I heard the fags being interviewd on the radio. They denied they deliberately picked that particular hotel because of its policy. They sounded plausible, but I don't believe it for a minute.
Paris Claims

Anonymous said...

Frankfurt School that would be the one. It's the manual that all of our governments are following right across Europe and beyond.

It will end in tears I have no doubt.

Captain Ranty said...


At work I am known as The Diplomat.

It's nice to be able to think and write freely here.

Not that it always works. I do fuck up on occasion...:)


I am Stan said...

I`m too shallow and greedy for cash to have refused them gay lords their dirty weekend,in fact I`d have offered pink bedding and the number of the local rent boy, for an extra charge of course!


I get your point though Capitan, giz a kiss big fella ** :0

Captain Ranty said...


It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they had been used by some group or other.

I didn't find any evidence of that so I left it out of the piece.


Captain Ranty said...


I think it is much worse. I think people have already died during this social engineering experiment.

Pawns are there to be sacrificed though, right? A life here or there, in amongst nearly seven billion, who gives a fuck?

Certainly not the politicians.


Captain Ranty said...


Business is business. But I wonder how many homophobes, (married ones, of course), will now flock to their hotel as a result?

No such thing as bad publicity, remember?


I am Stan said...

CR said, "No such thing as bad publicity, remember?"

Oh yeah, tell that to Garry Glitter...;)

Captain Ranty said...

"Oh yeah, tell that to Garry Glitter...;)"

I don't know. I imagine sales of "Do you wanna be in my gang" probably rocketed in the Paedo community....

There seem to be enough child rapists around to put him back at No 1 in the Hit Parade*.


*Showing my age there. Damn!

will said...

The one and only natural law, the ultimate first principle that can be deduced by rational objectivity is self ownership. From this principle can be derived the non aggression axiom and property rights. Everything after that is completely made up and entirely dependent on consent. Rules can only be agreed upon mutually and adhered to voluntarily.
Rights do not exist. Whether you call them human rights or natural rights they are a fiction. If they were objective truth then how come they change with geography and history? Did you know according to the UN its a 'human right' to have a holiday?
If we're going to continue with a coercive monopoly legal system influenced by a not even perfect form of mob rule, itself open to influence by the very lawmakers themselves, then we had better get used to this crap.
Now let me say that I do not care which of the sky pixies you believe in or who you want to kiss and cuddle. Both seem to make some people happy and so long as noone is being coerced what's the problem?
And therein lies the rub. Irrational as their belief in oppressive rules from the sky may be these individuals cannot be forced to accept anyone into their property.
This is difficult for me as an extreme defender of property rights and the private individual as it puts me on the 'side' of those whose beliefs originally prohibitted two sovereign individuals doing whatever they Damn well like with each other.
There is no need to coerce these god botherers into welcoming people they don't like in order to 'reflect changing social attitudes'. You don't force an industry to reflect the desires of its customers - it happens naturally.

Captain Ranty said...


Good comment and spot on.

If you allow the owner to decide, you instantly remove all the other arguments.

The owner doesn't (and shouldn't) care what "society" thinks. It has nothing to do with "society".

My house, my rules, is all that need apply.

The discrimination tag can be avoided as long as the owners do not state their preferences.

Once they do, (as in this case), a whole new can of worms is opened.


Rob said...

CR - good post - I happen to be gay and agree totally with what you say. Their property, their rules - simples. Also,it would be far more convenient (& less embarassing all round) for them to be honest up front than to turn up on the doorstep and then find out & have to find somewhere else to stay.

Keep up the good work,


Anonymous said...

I hear that a Stonewall spokesgay has said "We're delighted with the outcome of this test case". I bet they are, bless 'em. That bunch of heterophobic bullies are never happier than when they're riding roughshod (sic) over the majority of people who aren't LGBT.

Some people AREN'T gay ... get the fuck over it!

Captain Ranty said...


That is the problem though, is it not? How does the owner communicate his/her likes and dislikes?

If the Bulls had a sign that said "No Irish, No Gays, No Dogs, No Jehovahs" that would have been discriminatory. And that is not on.

It's a delicate issue and it is not without embarrassment for both sides.

Although I am banging the drum for property rights it doesn't sound very libertarian, does it?

This is a two pipe problem.


Oldrightie said...

Will they now be required to place a board in large letters saying Sodomites welcome? Just asking.

Captain Ranty said...


Now THERE is an issue I should have a crack at.

Just how paranoid they (Stonewall) are about it all.

If I were gay (I'm not saying I'm not, because I believe that means I am just in denial, I think) I reckon I would really just like to be left alone to live my life as normally as I could, without making a big fuss. Pretty much the way I do now, as an allegedly straight man.

It's tricky trying to walk a mile in gay shoes. Maybe Rob can tell us. If he wants to. No pressure.


Captain Ranty said...


Surely not.

That would be discriminating against the straights.


Woman on a Raft said...

It is also the case that they did not allow unmarried guests to share a room. As they made it clear, you could stay in the hotel but only as two individuals, not as a couple sharing.

It would be interesting if they ran the hotel on the basis that all guests had to stay in single rooms, since that would not entail any discrimination.

It's a bit of a nuisance re-arranging a hotel to reflect this, but I bet there's a market for it. Apparently I snore, so I can think of a pair of customers immediately. As it happens I want to go to Cornwall.

Captain Ranty said...


Yes, I spotted that.

I always end up alone in hotels as I travel a lot in my work. I think I am discriminated against as a singleton because I have to pay more for my room.

Can I sue someone?


PS-I snore too. Allegedly. Never heard myself snoring, actually, so it could be a scurrilous lie.

subrosa said...

CR you say there's no evidence to say the gay couple weren't involved with some group or other. Yet they decided to sue the couple and received £1800. That's a lot of money for a small business to pay. Surely no normal couple would want to sue a place for this amount?

I could understand if it had been a few hundred.

If I don't want anyone to enter my home I say no, but they were too open and gave the reasons. Didn't they offer them a twin-bedded room?

They should have considered themselves lucky to find somewhere these days that takes dogs. There's certainly no where around here these days.

And as for religion, that's a choice. This will affect Christians too of course, because all their beliefs have been ridiculed.

The social engineering is nearly complete.

Captain Ranty said...


I agree that they could have been used but I just couldn't find any hard evidence to chuck into the mix. It would not surprise me in the least.

FWIW, I think the social engineering is already complete. It's just that some folks (like us) refuse to accept it.

They have probably allowed for some dissent though.

See you in the gulag.


Anonymous said...

The law now requires that if a couple of fags want to stay you must abet and encourage it.

But if a couple wants to stay who has fags, then it is morally imperative to discriminate against them as smoking must be banned.

The state has displaced religion, God is dead and a fag is no longer a fag.

Such a topsy-turvy brave new world order.

Captain Ranty said...


Think of it as a contest of wills.

They push as hard as they can and when we bite back, they know they have crossed a line.

(I think that's a record! Three mixed metaphors in the same sentence!)

Then, of course, the skin the cat differently.

We end up losing. Always.

The game is (so far) rigged in their favour.

This will not last.


will said...

just to clarify what ive said because there is plenty of room for misunderstanding on such an issue.

for the record i believe the libertarian ideal/ethos/principle has its logical conclusion in anarchy and that is no bad thing. that is to say i take the principles as immutable and avoid compromise even if ideas appear a little extreme.
i dont like adjectival libertarians. by which i mean conservatives (small c) hiding their regressive, reactionary intolerance and privilege behind a handy defence. of course i am not suggesting there are any here but you know the type.
i do not subscribe to libertarianism because it offers an end to enforced tolerance but neither do i believe that the idea necessitates intolerance as leftist critics seem to think as they confuse libertarianism for neo-conservatism.

i accept that being on the low side of 30 my attitudes may well have been formed by the social engineering.

a consistent application of libertarian principles does therefore leave me personally a little uncomfortable on this issue but i understand that what appears to be an oppressive position to some does not compromise individual liberty - in fact it strengthens it.
put as simply as i can - libertarianism would not force the hoteliers to do anything against their will. likewise libertarianism would never have prohibited homosexuality in the first place. ironically this illiberality was enacted by the Christian state and can still be seen in such insupportable puritanism as the minimum pricing bollocks for alcohol. i dont buy the idea put forth by some 'libertarians' that back in the good old days when we ran everything according to christian values the world was a more liberal place. such regressive attitudes would only permit liberty for some.

as an aside to CR on the subject of discrimination - i believe the hoteliers should be able to erect just such a sign as you describe. maximum liberty limited only by the non aggression axiom would permit discrimination and i would argue that this is a good thing. discrimination seems to be pretty tightly tied to liberty. to limit one may well limit the other. think of some other 'discriminations' that might get banned - hierarchical exam results, levels of pay, even prices. theyre all forms of discrimination so taken for granted that most wouldnt even consider them to be discriminatory. but without them we would be under full totalitarian communist authority. the difference between these (currently) 'non-discriminations' and the 'bad-discriminations' is perhaps that some are rationally justifiable.
merely leaving individuals free to behave even 'badly' such as by engaging in irrational discrimination does not mean that everyone suddenly will. this negative view of human nature is properly fabian.
the freedom to discriminate and even signal the fact would benefit, in this case, unmarried couples in that they could avoid the irrational prejudice and stay somewhere they would feel more welcome. i imagine the majority of businesses would choose to maximise their earning potential by welcoming one and all.

yes i am disrespectful of religion as i dont find it rational or convincing in any other way. i wouldnt prevent anyone from believing or practicing whatever they liked so long as they left me alone too. religion as i said has been the root of iliberality far too often in history. im free to be disrespectful as you are free to be even more disrespectful to me. maybe that makes me a fabian drone and part of the attack on traditional liberal values, maybe not.

richard said...

I agree with Rob the Gay. You are a guest in an hotel. There would be no problem with anyone with a shred of decency taking 2 single rooms - unless they deliberately targeted the establishment in the hope of a payout which seems likely since the house rules were on the website.

Anonymous said...

The defence for the Bulls turns on their Christian beliefs.

Jesus - the Christ - believed that nobody should be judgemental of another and should welcome all and forgive their transgressions: even those who condemned, tortured and executed him. He made a point of associating with religious and social outcasts.

Whatever the Bull's beliefs, they had nothing to do with Christ, they are then just bigotry.

The issue of property rights turns on whether the property in question was private or public.

An hotel is in fact a public place offered to and open to the public.

They are entitled to their beliefs and opinions in private, but when they take them into a public place and try to apply them to or impose them on the public, the matter then becomes public, a matter for the law, custom and common decency.

Anonymous said...

CR & Rosie

I does seem convenient that Stonewall had complained to this couple in August 2008.


Only a month later the telephone booking occurred.

ellie12022 said...

I have an old book (possibly about 100 years old) - which states that in English law if you run a hotel you cannot discriminate against who you have in. If it's a private guesthouse you can. Something like that anyway if I remember right !

Rob said...

CR, I don't find it tricky "walking in gay shoes". My sexuality is a small part of my identity and not one that I find particularly relevant outside my bedroom.

I run my own business and tend not to start meetings by announcing my sexual preferences in the same way that I don't specify my musical or culinary likes - just not relevant to the situation.

My partner & I have stayed in a variety of hotels without any issues over the years, but then I have also shared rooms with male colleagues to save money on business trips (ok, twin rather than double rooms, but hey).

The Bulls made their policy clear on the their website. Yes, I think they are a couple of biggoted twits who will probably loose money in the long-term as a result of their chosen position - I mean, they are also rejecting straight unmarried couples who make up a pretty large % of their potential client base. However, it is their home, so their rules should prevail. I would feel different about a large hotel taking this attitude, although not in say Saudi or Quatar (neither of which I have any interest in visiting btw).

As for Stonewall, they come from a good place - being gay in the UK even 30 years ago could be pretty tough & Stonewall and the like have played a big part in bringing about positive change - but I think that there is a real danger of turning off the great British public by overdoing things - in my experience, the vast majority are pretty tolerant - either that, or chose to hide their feelings as a courtesy which I appreciate.

Hope that clarified, any other questions, just ask!


Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Rob.

I have never felt the need to announce my sexuality either. But given the bigotry that exists in the world I would be less inclined to shout about it if I was gay.

It seems that only the "militant" people (in any organisation) want to jump up and down about it, but I do agree that there was more need 30 years ago to highlight the gay viewpoint.

You are right though, in some ways the more minority groups shout, the less we hear. And I doubt that too many bigotted minds are changed, the opposite, in fact, I think the bigots just dig their heels in.

Thanks again for a thoughtful comment. The more we know the less we need to hate and fear, right?


Anonymous said...

Most of you sound like liberals, any thing goes (Frankfurt school)

Captain Ranty said...

Libertarians, maybe.

No Frankfurt School alumni here though.