More Skirmishes at Christian-Owned Bed & Breakfasts

Small-town Christians across the world have found a new way to lash out against same-sex couples whose “lifestyles” they don’t agree with: banning them from their motels and Bed-and-breakfasts (B&Bs). It’s an issue that has come up several times in the U.S. and it’s also making headlines overseas.

A decision has been issued in a major British case determining the legality of discriminating against same-sex couples in businesses (as if it were ever up for discussion). According to Law and Religion U.K., back in March 2010, Michael Black and John Morgan made a reservation and paid a deposit for a room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham. When they arrived, the owner, Suzanne Wilkinson, said she couldn’t let them stay in a room with a double bed because of her religious beliefs.

Michael Black (left) and John Morgan (via The Times)

The couple filed a lawsuit under Britain’s Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, claiming direct or indirect discrimination based on their sexual orientation or their marital status:

The claimants contended either that they had been subjected to direct discrimination contrary to Regulation 3 (1) because, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, Mrs. Wilkinson had treated them less favourably than she would have treated others or that her policy of restricting access to double rooms to those who were “heterosexual and preferably married” was indirect discrimination contrary to Regulation 3 (3), because that criterion put homosexual people at a disadvantage by virtue of the fact that they could never be heterosexual or married.

Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that Wilkinson’s treatment of the couple amounted to both direct and indirect discrimination, according to law professor Howard Friedman‘s blog, Religion Clause, though it does give a nod to the importance of religious freedom. Christian activists seem to think the decision invites new methods of shutting out gays based on religious beliefs.

From the decision:

It is clearly established that, as a matter of general principle, (i) the right of a homosexual not to suffer discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is an important human right (article 8 and 14), and (ii) the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief under article 9(1) is also an important human right…. Neither is intrinsically more important than the other. Neither in principle trumps the other. But the weight to be accorded to each will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

The Christian Institute, the Christian charity that paid for Wilkinson’s appeal, wrote in a press release that because religious expression is “intrinsically” just as important as equal rights for LGBT people, “there is hope” for other B&B owners who want to keep discriminating against gay couples. Because the U.K. has yet to legalize marriage equality, anti-gay Christians could simply limit their services to married couples.

The Institute says:

In this particular case, the Court said Mrs, Wilkinson’s policy would not be justified because she could convert her B&B to single bed accommodation without it having a fatal economic impact on her.

That would open the door for other B&Bs to maintain a ‘married couples only’ policy for double rooms, if they can show the policy is justified. Such cases will depend on their particular facts.

Thousands of miles away, a similar conflict is bubbling in New Zealand, where the owners of the Pilgrim Planet lodge in Whangarei turned away Jane Collison and Paula Knight, a lesbian couple, even after they had made a reservation for a room with a king-size bed.

[Owner Michael] Ruskin said he had to shut down his Facebook page after it was deluged with abusive messages from around the world, and that he and his wife received two death threats by email and in a voice message, which they referred to the police.

In a written statement agreed to at mediation, they have since apologised for “humiliation and inconvenience” caused to Ms. Collison when the same-sex couple turned up at the lodge after driving to Whangarei from their home near Kaitaia.

Though Ruskin and his wife apologized to the couple, though perhaps not by choice, they also said they would continue to forbid same-sex couples from sharing rooms with one bed.

The Ruskins added in the statement that they wished to be able to live according “to our consciences and beliefs.” When asked by the Herald if Ms. Collison and her partner would be welcome back at the lodge, Mr. Ruskin initially said: “Not as a same-sex couple.”

He then said he had nothing against the couple and didn’t want the issue stirred up again. But when asked whether same-sex guests in general could stay at Pilgrim Planet, he said: “They will not get a double bed — I’m sticking to my principles.”

Nobody is asking these people to abandon their religious beliefs. Nobody is imposing new “codes of morality” on them. Nobody is asking for special treatment. If the thought of two men or two women in your hotel room is so horrific, perhaps consider another profession — one that doesn’t require you to be a decent human being. Your beliefs don’t justify discrimination.

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a twentysomething working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I know it’s stereotyping, but does that guy have British teeth or what?

    • Golfie98

      I assume you are a 25 Stone American.

      • Spuddie

        25 stone, isn’t that like 40,000 pounds. I can never get British measurements right. =)

        • The Other Weirdo

          158.757 kilograms, to be precise. Just ask the God of all Knowledge and the Fount of Trivia, Google.

          • Spuddie

            So that is freaky huge, can stand your ground with a Silverback Gorilla, is getting comped by Frito Lay, kinda big.

        • baal

          350#.

        • GubbaBumpkin

          You are so wrong. Unlike most Americans, I have never gotten stoned.

          • Spuddie

            I wish most Americans have gotten stoned. It would make them much calmer.

    • Graham Martin-Royle

      A very toothist remark! Teeth are overrated, most people have far too many. I have 7 (seven), one for each day of the week, that’s more than enough!

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Brits have better dental care than you do, and have for quite a few years now.

      • Tom

        The catch is, it’s functionalist dental care (as public health should be). Cosmetic work costs a whole lot extra. British teeth are perfectly healthy, they just don’t always look so good to people who’ve got used to seeing cosmetically enhanced ones everywhere.

  • El Bastardo

    Two things spring to mind.

    Firstly, if you’re afraid of heights don’t become a pilot. If you’re a vegetarian, don’t become a butcher. You cannot expect to force your beliefs on your employers, employees or customers.

    Second, when you try to force your beliefs on others, you don’t get to play the victim when you don’t get your way.

  • Gus Snarp

    I have shared hotel rooms with fewer beds than people many times with straight male friend, straight female friends, lesbian friends, gay male friends, the provision of fewer beds than people does not mean so much as snuggling will take place. Sometimes it’s cheaper/available. I don’t get where they even get off telling people who aren’t married they can’t have a room with one bed.

    It’s funny, the gay owners of bed and breakfasts I’ve stayed at have never been so obsessed with what my wife and I are doing in our room that they demanded we get two single beds instead of a king.

    And that’s what this really is. Their religion tells them what to do, it doesn’t tell them to go into detailed efforts to ensure that no one else has sex that isn’t approved by their minister in their hotel. They just can’t help thinking about it and find it icky.

    • Rev. Achron Timeless

      That’s the problem with fundamentalists. They think their religion applies to everyone, not just the people who have agreed to follow it. They wouldn’t take kindly to having to follow islamic or hindu rules, so why do they think everyone should have to follow christian rules? It’s at the very least a severe psychological disorder, and that’s being kind.

      • wombat

        Saying things like that has the potential to make the psychologically disordered quite upset, because it reflects the ugly stigma against the mentally ill. They’re pathologically stupid and ignorant, even deluded, but it’s hurtful to class people who have a choice about their beliefs as psychologically disordered.

        • Rev. Achron Timeless

          Oh great, another one of you type…

          Ya know what upsets the psychologically disordered? People like you acting like you have to be offended on our behalf. Piss off.

          • 3lemenope

            If it doesn’t offend you then nobody has any business being offended?

            • Rev. Achron Timeless

              Ok, I’ll give you the quick version because this always gets drawn out I really feel no need to defend my position.

              There have been several times when people get upset, start petitions, and generally rage because something is offensive to a certain group of people… who aren’t that group, don’t know anyone from that group, and the group is ok with it.

              What offends me is that people get offended on my behalf over things I’m ok with, and I’m far from the only one who feels that way.

              So the next time someone gets a character removed from a popular animated show that people with various disabilities loved, because it was supposedly offending them according to people without those disabilities, I’ll be sure to tell them you said they had no right to complain.

              Frankly, I’m bipolar. Part of that is I have very little patience for people wasting my time telling me what I should be feeling. So if I have somehow upset you, well you were being offensive to my condition. Let that stew in your head a bit.

              • 3lemenope

                And you know that Wombat isn’t part of that community or know anyone from that community because…?

                What offends me is that people get offended on my behalf over things I’m ok with, and I’m far from the only one who feels that way.

                You are not the yardstick by which everyone else’s feelings of offense must be measured, both in areas where you have familiarity and areas where you don’t.

                Frankly, I’m bipolar. Part of that is I have very little patience for people wasting my time telling me what I should be feeling.

                At the risk of sounding harsh, I really don’t care at all how you should be feeling. You can feel however you damn well please. I was only responding to you telling others rather obnoxiously that because you don’t feel a certain way, other people are not entitled to feel otherwise.

                Being myself part of the esteemed club of people who have serious but treatable mental illness, I will say it is obnoxious almost beyond words for you to try to hide behind your condition in order to avoid criticism of your actions. Stand by what you say, and don’t whine about having to defend it. That has nothing and less to do with being bipolar; this I can say from intimate experience.

                • Rev. Achron Timeless

                  “I was only responding to you telling others rather obnoxiously that because you don’t feel a certain way, other people are not entitled to feel otherwise.”

                  Interesting. Odd that never happened though. I’m only responsible for what I say, not what you misunderstand. Might I suggest a good proctologist for that stick?

                • 3lemenope

                  Interesting. Odd that never happened though.

                  “Ya know what upsets the psychologically disordered? People like you acting like you have to be offended on our behalf. ”

                  Hm.

                • Rev. Achron Timeless

                  That is indeed a quote. It is not a quote of what you are claiming it is though. But I’m repeating myself here…

                • wombat

                  Exactly. Saying ‘it’s part of my bipolar’ is a bad excuse.

                • Rev. Achron Timeless

                  Excuse? Yes, if it had been an excuse, it would’ve been a a bad one. Fortunately, it wasn’t an excuse. A joke, an insertion of ironic humor (which apparently went over both your heads) yes, but not an excuse.

                  Again, you both have your panties in a twist because you’re ascribing a position to me that I’ve not claimed. I chalk it up to emotions and poor reading comprehension.

              • wombat

                What on earth makes you think that I’m not part of that group? I speak in potentials because I know it will not offend all, but it does have the real potential to offend some.

                Now you are being offensive to my condition, because as a person with bipolar and PTSD, you do not speak for me, and I do have a problem with what you said.

        • basementmatt

          Even you used the word “patholgically” in your description of their behavior. I don’t think you mean they have cancer.

    • baal

      I can think of a few times in college and HS that we had field trips and the hotels couldn’t have single beds for every team member. Guess what, if you had to share a bed, you did.

    • JET

      My son just attended a convention for one of his college associations. He shared one room with two king beds where the occupants were 3 straight females, 2 straight males and 1 gay male. Good thing the hotel owners were not Christians as their heads would have exploded trying to figure out what was going on in that room.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Seriously! Two years ago I shared a hotel room at a convention with five other people, and I was the straightest one in the room. (And I’m not straight…) Most of us having wandered around until late the first day, I didn’t even meet several of them until ten minutes before going to bed. I shared a bed with a gay stranger*, and guess what! No snogging. There wasn’t even any snogging between the couple in the room. My only complaint was that the hotel sheets were too goddamn small, so in the future I’m bringing one with me.

        *However, in the morning, he did show me some awesome leather-and-steel handmade raptor-claw gauntlets he owned, and gave me back scritches with them in the elevator. I guess we got along okay. :P

    • Tom

      Conversely, these owners must be spectacularly naive if they think the provision of single beds will stop anything from taking place. It is entirely possible for two people (at least!) to share a single bed, for any activity traditionally reserved for doubles, as anyone who’s been to college for any length of time will tell you. At best they’re imposing a moderate but not insurmountable inconvenience, in an otherwise ineffective, childish and petulant gesture. Sure does make their religion look good.

  • rwlawoffice

    “Nobody is asking these people to abandon their religious beliefs. Nobody
    is imposing new “codes of morality” on them. Nobody is asking for
    special treatment. If the thought of two men or two women in your hotel
    room is so horrific, perhaps consider another profession — one that
    doesn’t require you to be a decent human being. Your beliefs don’t
    justify discrimination.”

    Yes you are asking them to abandon their religious beliefs. If they do want to run their business according to their beliefs, you are telling them they cannot or they can choose to get out of that business. This is is telling them to abandon those beliefs.

    The freedom of religion does not mean just the right to believe something, nor does it mean just the right to worship a certain way. It includes the right to run your business according to your beliefs. Just because someone wants a service from you that would violate your religious beliefs, you do not have to ignore those beliefs to accommodate that service or be forced out of business. What right do you have to demand that result? If you do than you are discriminating against that person’s religion.

    Agree with our behavior or get out of business is the mantra. Just another example of the tolerance only going one way.

    • baal

      “It includes the right to run your business according to your beliefs.”

      No, it fucking does not. If you’re making a legal point with this sentence, please call some case law to my attention.

      What if your religion says that the races may not intermarry? The only way for the US, the UK or anywhere else to be a free society is to have public accommodations held open to the public regardless of their race, gender, sex, politics, family status, etc.

      • Billy Bob

        Ever notice this “You’re taking our beliefs away” complaints only happen when gay people are the ones being targeted by those beliefs?

        People would be calling for your head on a stick if your beliefs said blacks are inferior and thus, you won’t give them service.

        • kaydenpat

          Rwlawoffice refuses to answer any questions about a religious B&B refusing to serve Blacks based on their religious beliefs. There are some Christians who believe that Blacks are racially inferior, after all. I’d love him to hear his opinion on B&B practicing racism because of religion.

      • rwlawoffice

        Look at the First amendment to the Constitution. Every one of these public accommodation laws must pass the test to determine if they unconstitutionally infringe on protected religious liberties.

        I notice from your list of classes of people you do not mention religion. People cannot be discriminated against based upon religion either. That is where these interests collide.

        • baal

          When a B&B denies evangelicals a room on the basis of their faith, start complaining how your religion isn’t getting the same respect under the constitution. You don’t get to conflate both sides of a public commercial transaction. They are not equally situated.

        • baal

          Oh, please see also the 14th amendment. It was passed after the 1st amendment and the rights accorded under the 14th (or 13th and 15th for that matter) superseded or modify the 1st amendment grant of rights. Otherwise, the framers of the 14th would have written in a religious exemption. They did not.

          • rwlawoffice

            Actually you are wrong. The 14th amendment applies the first amendment to the states. It says the states must follow the 1st amendment otherwise it would only apply to the Federal goverment

            • baal

              Actually you are being intentionally misleading. The 5th and 14th Amendments carry the bill of rights further but the 14th amendment on its own power grants equal protection under the laws. Civil rights (of which gay rights is a part) have progressed in the US largely under the 14th Amendment.

        • RobMcCune

          Just curious, but where in the bible does Jesus say not to feed, clothe or give shelter to gay people?

          • rwlawoffice

            Since this is not the issue here the question is really not relevant. But to answer it, Jesus would want to a Christian to provide food. shelter and clothing to anyone who needs it. But it doesn’t mean he would say it is okay to condone homosexual behavior.

            • smrnda

              Seriously, do business owners get to interrogate all customers because the customer *might* use the purchase to do something the business owner finds morally questionable? If I buy paper, do they get to say “now tell me, what are you going to be writing on that paper? I can’t sell paper to be used to write or draw sinful things as that would be a violation of my religious liberties.” Do they get to ask me what I’m going to be making if I buy a hammer so they don’t accidentally *enable the construction* of say, a pagan temple?

              If you sell me paper and I draw a cartoon mocking your religion, have you now *condoned the mockery of your religion?* You want to use the first amendment to vet people who buy paper for fear they might draw images offensive to a religion? Sounds like something out of fucking Iran.

              It seems like the only time when Christian business owners have to editorialize about customers is when it’s about sex. I’m sure no Christian bookseller refuses to sell Bibles to someone since they *might potentially* wipe their ass with its pages, or a Christian gunseller who refuses to sell guns since someone might commit murder.

              That’s a good one. Guns can be used in murders. Why should any Christian sell a gun? Murder has to be a bigger deal than gay sex. How can they morally justify that when they can’t rent a room to a same sex couple?

            • 3lemenope

              But it doesn’t mean he would say it is okay to condone homosexual behavior.

              Actually, I’m pretty sure he said mind your own business. “Condoning”, in this context, is not a functional category because people who stay in your B&B are not seeking your approval, nor is the renting-a-room transaction predicated on whether you personally like where they stick their junk.

        • Edmond

          Billy Bob is right. It’s always with the gays. The Gays are trying to make us do this and that! The Gays are taking away our rights (to close them out of the social loop)!
          Where is the Christian Indignation at being “forced” to accomodate the divorced? The remarried? The adulterous? The masturbatory? Buddhists? Shintoists? Satanists? The touchers of pork, the eaters of shellfish?
          Nowhere to be found, that’s where. These hypocrites will service every “sinner” you can name, and then some. Bakers will make cakes for divorces, clones, even stem-cell celebrations. NONE of them are consistent with their beliefs. They’re hatred ONLY comes out when they can direct it at The Gays.
          This isn’t “religious liberty”, it’s xenophobia, plain and simple.

        • Spuddie

          Bullshit. Free Exercise of religion has always been subject to limitations based on either mundane secular legal ideas or where it attacks others. If you went to law school, (or a real law school) you would have been familiar with such things.

          Your religiously inspired alleged right to discriminate is on par with the right to commit human sacrifice. You are using a religious reason to attack another in a physical and tangible way, in violation of the law.

          • Rwlawoffice

            I do know what I am talking about and I am correct, but Spud why don’t you enlighten us on your legal knowledge.

        • baal

          “Look at the First amendment t”

          I’m aware of the Constitution. I want case law.

        • Kodie

          Keep in mind that it’s also illegal, if a gay couple were to own and operate a B&B, to keep evangelical Christians on the other side of the door and refuse your business to them. I guess you never thought about it that way.

        • Kodie

          That is where these interests collide.

          Interests actually collide when religious beliefs interfere with the law. You don’t have the freedom of religion to break any laws.

          • Rwlawoffice

            See the case of Hosanna Tabor. Granted this is in the context of ministers, but the court specifically held that the church did not have to follow the discrimination laws in its hiring. They did not have to follow the ADA in this case.

            • Kodie

              The context is important. Why do you think the context of a church applies to general commerce?

              • 3lemenope

                Yeah, in this case Hosanna Tabor is almost hilariously off-point. The Ministerial exception is very narrowly drawn, and no plausible analogy can be made between that situation and that of a commercial transaction.

                Well, one for two ain’t bad. He’s right about the first amendment being incorporated through the fourteenth (piecemeal through case law).

          • keddaw

            Seems to me Catholic priests are exempt from testifying what was said in confession solely based on religion. And religions are exempt from all kinds of taxes. And they fuck children.

        • Tom

          I don’t agree with the idea that religious beliefs should have blanket immunity from discrimination; specifically, in cases where that religion itself demands that its adherents themselves be discriminatory in a way that would otherwise be disallowed.

          In more general terms, religions are not involuntary, and I’ve always held that the fundamental basis of anti-discrimination was that it’s immoral to discriminate against something people can’t help being or doing. If they *can* help it, that changes the game, which is why bigots twist themselves in knots trying, and failing, to scientifically prove that homosexuality is a choice.

    • The Other Weirdo

      What if your religious beliefs forbid you from serving Jews? Or Muslims? Or blacks? Or women? Or men?

    • Spuddie

      Do you just work in a law office or are you an actual lawyer?

      If you were an actual lawyer, you would have learned of a few cases in Con Law classes way back predating the Civil Rights Act which would have told you otherwise. (Unless you went to Liberty U?)

      Unless you are a private members only club, a business open to the public is subject to the civil rights/anti-discrimination laws of the given state/community.

      • rwlawoffice

        I am very aware of the civil rights laws and how they pertain to religious freedoms. I am also aware the laws on public accommodation. I am also very much aware of the limits that the state can go to when it comes to infringing upon a person’s constitutionally protected religious freedoms. The mere fact that there is a discrimination law in place does not mean that it can infringe upon religious liberties. If it does in such away that violates the constitution, the discrimination law will be struck down. Ultimately these cases will be decided upon the issue of whether the discrimination laws are unconstitutional for infringing upon these religious rights. I believe that they are and that they will be struck down. Similar to what is happening in the HHS mandate cases.

        • baal

          “If it does in such away that violates the constitution, the discrimination law will be struck down.” … ” I believe that they are and that they will be struck down.”

          Thanks for the admission that you’re in christian wishful thinking land and not established law here.

          More practicality for you, what happens when your favorite religion isn’t the top dog and some other religion uses that new pro-theocratic law to squish your religion?

        • Spuddie

          Obviously not, because you would know that religious freedoms end where it does harm to others or breaks various mundane laws. For example, the 1st Amendment religious freedom does not apply to human sacrifice, sacramental ganja or polygamy.

          It certainly does not give you a pass to ignore the Civil Rights Act or state versions thereof. If you were a lawyer, you would have learned that in the Con Law class in any law school in the nation. The one involving lodging discrimination is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 US 241 (1964). It is taught in every law school in the nation. (except for Liberty U?)

          Just because you say your bigotry is religious based, it doesn’t mean you get a pass according to our anti-discrimination laws.

          Nobody has to take notions of “Christian privilege” seriously. Decades of precedence and legislation versus a phony sense of entitlement, malice and deliberately ignoring of how our Constitution is interpreted.

          • Rwlawoffice

            Heart of Atlanta was not a case based upon religious liberty, but it will obviously be used in the arguments on this issue. I will point you to Hosanna Tabor for a case that does protect religious liberty over discrimination laws. Granted this was in the context of minister hiring, but it is applicable and outlines the dispute when government tries to use discrimination laws that infringe upon religious liberty.

            • Spuddie

              Heart of Atlanta was discrimination in lodging and how it relates to the Civil Rights Act. Completely on point here. One can’t discriminate against when it comes to lodging to those covered by the Civil Rights Act.

              Hosanna Tabor is completely off the mark. The fact that it was the context of minister hiring is the ONLY reason why it went the way it did. It certainly has no relation to situations where religious freedom is used as an excuse to violate laws.

              Nobody has ever held that religious liberty allowed one to skirt laws with a mundane and secular purpose. Anti-discrimination laws are such.

              There is a long precedent of limiting free exercise of religion
              http://billofrightsinstitute.org/religious-liberty-free-exercise-clause/

        • RobMcCune

          Sorry, just because it’s part of your religion doesn’t make it a freedom. Speaking of which, where does your religion explicitly forbid providing goods and services to gay people? Without a good explanation all you’re doing is using your religion as a smokescreen to justify bigotry. If conscientious objectors have prove their religion forbids war, then discriminating christians should be required to show their religion does not allow public accommodation.

          • Kodie

            Additionally, taking money for goods or services is the plan here. You don’t get to boycott your customers on superficial bases. You are not giving them anything, you are getting paid because you stupidly went into business and using an excuse not to obey laws. I bet you would find something in the bible that says you don’t have to hire gay people either, or that you want to pay people less than min. wage because it says in the bible that people should just help you for free. And if you don’t want to provide a safe work environment, you can probably find some justification in Jesus not to adhere to the laws about that.

            Referring to that other thread about the closing of abortion clinics on account of some bullshit hyped-up safety regulations and how many would not be fit, according to the new laws, I just BET you would be a giant hypocrite about how that’s great they had to shut down if they can’t obey the law.

            Edit: by the end, I forgot that I had been responding to someone else re: the topic and not rawslawofficer directly.

          • Rwlawoffice

            The question is different than you word it. The religion must not forbid public accommodation, but the act that they are being asked to engage in, such as participating in a same sex marriage ceremony. I agree that the burden to show their religious beliefs will be on the one asserting them.

            • Kodie

              They’re not participating in a same sex marriage ceremony unless they are officiating. Even then, I think only clergy may object, while the state (if it is legal in said state) officiant may not object on personal grounds. Flowers, cake, music, doves, dresses, tux rentals, buntings, tablecloths, aisle-length carpet rental, catering, serving hors oeuvres, driving a limousine, tent rental is NOT PART OF A CEREMONY.

              The ceremony itself is not even a ceremony. The officiality of marriage is a piece of paper signed by the parties marrying, an officiant, and two witnesses (in the State of NY – your state’s law may differ) and filed with the state. If you want the religious part, that’s the religious officiant, granted power by the state to officiate, and the building which may be a church or other house of worship. That is all. A public place like a hotel ballroom or a park is out of the bounds of religious freedom to keep people they want out.

              • rwlawoffice

                That is really the most ridiculous post i have seen you make. The next time I plan a wedding i will try to remember that the flowers, cake, music, etc. are not part of the wedding ceremony. It will make the planning a lot easier and cheaper.

                Clearly those that want to demand that everyone participate in their same sex ceremony will see it the way you do.

                • Kodie

                  You can’t be a lawyer if you can’t read.

                • smrnda

                  The only thing that actually makes a wedding ceremony what it is is a piece of paper.

                  Your reasoning seems to be that, on the basis of your religions beliefs, you must refuse to do business with anyone where your products or services may end up being used for purposes that go against your religion.

                  You also seem to have a bizarre definition of ‘participating.’ If I make a cake, someone buys it, and takes it to a birthday parting, I have not participated in the birthday party. I’ve just sold a cake for someone else’s birthday. Have I participated in a company meeting because I sold someone markers to write on a whiteboard? Do I get to interrogate marker purchasers to make sure they aren’t having a meeting I don’t like?

                  By your logic, every gun seller who ever sold a gun to someone who committed a crime is complicit in a shooting since they’re participation is in no way different than selling flowers for a gay wedding.

                  Clearly you’d dismiss the rest as ridiculous, but as soon as gay people are involved, cue the hissy fit.

        • Kodie

          The mere fact that there is a discrimination law in place does not mean that it can infringe upon religious liberties.

          It is a sincerely held Muslim belief that people can be murdered for breaking any of several religious laws. Are you going to say we can’t convict a Muslim of murder because that infringes on their religious liberties? Yes, you do have to obey the law.

      • Stev84

        He is very likely lying about being a lawyer. If he is one, he probably works for one of those fundamentalist Christian legal groups, which amounts to the same thing.

        • baal

          I half suspect RW isn’t really trying to convince anyone here of anything since his arguments are usually shot down with convincing arguments and facts. His purpose here may be more for him to practice arguing or to get data (a preview) of how normal people view his arguments so he can have “squirrel* killers” ready. *a squirrel is a debate term for arguments you weren’t expecting. A squirrel killer is an argument that you hold on the side and don’t make until the squirrel pops up.

          • Kodie

            Thank you for explaining all about the squirrel killers. I think he is not practicing anything, especially law.

    • Gus Snarp

      I’m just curious when your beliefs got extended to determining what you decide to imagine two adults might be doing in a closed room you rented to them.

      • smrnda

        If they could, then renters would effectively be wards of their landlords. Not a good thing..

        • Gus Snarp

          This is a point that’s never occurred to me. If you extend this logic, then private landlords get to determine behavior of their tenants in long term housing… I see huge problems there indeed.

    • RobMcCune

      So christian beliefs mandate that homosexuals deserve no kindness or services whatsoever? Interesting since christians say following their religious beliefs isn’t bigoted discrimination, yet they claim their religious beliefs demand exactly that when it’s convenient.

    • Amor DeCosmos

      I’m going to open a bed a breakfast and exclude Chinese, Christians, and fat chicks because I believe they are icky. You think I should have the right to run my business this way because of my bigoted beliefs? Or do you think there should be a law that forces me to treat all people equally, regardless of my racist, religionist, and fattist beliefs?

      You’re a lawyer, isn’t the idea is that all people are equal under the law? Or do you believe that Christians should get special rights to discriminate against people, and gay people should legally have less rights than other people? If so, you’re a shit lawyer.

      • Kevin

        You mention equality before the law. Do you think these private businesses are somehow extensions of the government?

        • baal

          Please read up on google, the meaning of “public accomodation”. B&B’s have to follow the same rules as hotels usually. Do you think private businesses should have to follow building codes and health and safety law (washing the sheets)? Or would that make them somehow extensions of the government?

        • Hat Stealer

          So if I open up a Murder King (“billions served”) it’s okay as long as it’s a private business? Are private businesses somehow exempt from the law now? Like, for example, laws against discrimination and murder?

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Or do you believe that Christians should get special rights to
        discriminate against people, and gay people should legally have less
        rights than other people? If so, you’re a shit lawyer.

        He believes exactly this thing, which is why he claims it’s ethical for the BSA to discriminate against gay or atheist children… a position on law which inescapably forces him to support as ethical businesses that discriminate against blacks, no matter how many times he’s whined that that somehow magically isn’t true.

      • Anat

        Amor, I think you first need to start a religion that holds as an article of faith that Chines, Christians and fat women are icky. Then you would be free to discriminate against them, according to the Poe of the Day.

        • Stev84

          He isn’t a Poe of the Day. He has trolled with BS like this for a long time. Always the same nonsense with him.

      • Rwlawoffice

        I believe that the First Amendment to the constitution protects a person’s right to practice their religion without undue infringement. I also do not believe that homosexuals have a special privilege to overturn that first amendment protection.

        • Amor DeCosmos

          So in that case, you must believe that Sharia law should override all other human rights laws… I mean, if you’re putting religious practices before human rights, you gotta be consistent, right?

          Oh no, you’re THAT rwlawoffice who believes in protecting “a person’s right to practice their religion without undue infringement” only if that religion is Christianity.

          • Rwlawoffice

            The same legal analysis for Christianity would apply to Muslims. Just as it would Buddhism, Hindu, etc..

            • Amor DeCosmos

              Ahhh right… human sacrifice, ganja sacrement, mandatory covering of women, immolation of widows, cutting off of the clitoris of young girls… all of these should be allowed and even enforced by the government if they are sincerely held religious beliefs- WTF? You really don’t think your arguments all the way through, do you?

        • baal

          “have a special privilege to overturn that first amendment protection”
          Equal protection under the laws is not a special privilege.

    • Makoto

      Why is it that I, as an atheist, can do work for those who believe in religion, but someone who believes in religion can’t return the favor? I mean, flower arranging and running a B&B isn’t exactly religious work, any more than computer programming or street cleaning is.

      Tolerance going one way is very true.. just not in the way you seem to believe.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      It’s bizarre that you can be so stupid as to repeatedly, over the course of many months, despite having it explained over and over again, be unfamiliar with the Civil Rights movement, all the history leading up to it, and all the resulting legislation.

      Actually, it’s isn’t bizarre; it’s impossible. You lie all day at work for a living, and when you take a break or come home, you can’t stop lying. You’re too much of a pile of deluded trash to even realize that your lies necessitate you to support racism in violation of U.S. law. You haven’t the courage to look at a single thing you write or say and ask if it’s right; rather, to cling to your ledge of narcissism, you have to assume that something is right because you think it and proceed from there.

      Your arguments require you to justify businesses denying services to people because they’re black, no matter how much you scream otherwise. Enjoy the pit of slime and filth you’ve built in your mind to thrash around in. The world progresses despite your impotent libel.

      • Rwlawoffice

        Let me tell you a secret, you telling me I am wrong does not make it so. Your so called arguments are actually wrong but you may not understand enough about the law to know that. That is my fault for trying to have a discussion with someone who actually doesn’t know what they are talking about,

        • 3lemenope

          His “so-called” arguments are mostly right. You’re trying to squeeze through the hole made by the fact that he (and most of your discussion partners on this issue) make a few persistent minor errors. In the broad strokes, it is in fact the case (and law) that you can’t use the excuse that you’re religious to deny accommodations offered to the public generally. Whether that’s wise or right or good is another conversation entirely. Leaning on Hosanna Tabor does your argument no favors because the case (tied up as it is in employment law and obvious free expression issues) is easily distinguished from public accommodation situations.

          If you were even slightly more scrupulous about segregating your descriptive legal points (which are usually correct, regardless of how much folks don’t like them) from your normative ones (which…eh, are a bit far out, and are not likely to gain a sympathetic ear here, and for good reason), it would be easier to defend you on the factual stuff.

          • rwlawoffice

            I thank you for that explanation. Most of what i get here is push back regardless of whether i am right or wrong on the law. I also realize that in the effort to be brief, sometimes legal analysis is shorter that would otherwise be. That being said, I think that the use of public accommodation laws for sexual orientation and gender identity issues is new and has a direct effect on people’s religious beliefs on homosexuality. How these two sides of the issues will have to play out in the courts and we will ultimately get an answer. What I am arguing is the side i would take in that discussion and how i believe it will be determined. I of course could be proven right or wrong depending upon how the court rules. But to say that this issue is settled as is proposed here by those that are on the opposite side of this discussion is clearly mistaken.

        • kaydenpat

          How do you know that some of those responding to your arguments aren’t lawyers? Just because you choose to disagree with opposing arguments doesn’t make them false. Try opening up an establishment and then discriminating against segments of the population and get back to us on how things worked out.

      • 3lemenope

        Actually, at the risk of re-litigating all this (incredibly tiresome recurrent argument) all over again, he’s not *quite* as wrong as people here would have him, and folks generally are not *quite* as right as to the justifications and solidity of their positions regarding public accommodations. He is mostly wrong, but there is quite a bit of overreach going on.

        The history of the civil rights movement actually makes a direct equivalence between laws preventing racism and laws preventing prejudice against GLBT folks in public accommodation problematic at best. Given those differences, it is not a closed question whether it is appropriate to use the same legal tools (given what they cost in terms of integrity to the system of laws). There is a tendency to treat them similarly as a matter of law today because the logic of the civil rights movement was extended to cover other groups, but that descriptive point is quite far from the question of whether it should and whether other rights are properly balanced when they intersect in these newer areas.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          If only he understood his position a tenth as well as you do…

          He’s still stuck in the ethical pit he’s dug for himself. To make excuses for discriminating against one group based on birth, he has to support the proposition that other birth circumstances are at least ethically, if not necessarily legally, justifiable grounds for discrimination. When challenged on that, his single best… I’ll call it an “argument” for simplicity… was to try to change the subject and claim it was about “faith”.

          • 3lemenope

            Mm, quite so. Whether something is legal or not has little bearing on whether it’s a good or nice thing to do. A person who discriminates by refusing a publicly available accommodation, even if the law has their back, is still engaging in a deeply immoral (and jerkasstastic) behavior of the sort that from what we little we know about the possibly fictional Jesus, would not have approved (and probably would have made a pithy comment embarrassing the person making the argument).

    • Mario Strada

      “It includes the right to run your business according to your beliefs.”

      To a point yes. But not when you impose those values on some people and not others. That’s discrimination and the example of race is indeed very appropriate because back in the day many enforced their “religious Beliefs” upon blacks and other races by turning them away from their business. And they were able to find plenty of scriptural justification to their bigotry. In fact, I don’t think it would be too hard to find news reports where restaurant and hotel owners used religious freedom or something along those line to justify their bigotry.

      In addition, in this case there is a presumption on the part of the B&B owner that the gay couple is going to engage in sex acts if they are given a single bed. As if people could only have sex on wide beds.

      I don’t think I have to illustrate how silly that notion is for ethero or homosexuial couples.
      On the other hand, if the gay couple is not going to engage in sex, as far as the B&B owner there is no violation of his “religious” whatever.

      Ultimately, this is more about the B&B owner own fantasy than it is about reality.

      One more thing: if the B&B owner also prevented divorced or unmarried couples, those wearing mixed fabrics or with a predilection for shellfish or even prevented non Christians from staying at the B&B I would at least give to him the benefit of doubt due to consistency.

      But instead it’s only the sex crazed gays they object to. At the very least prevent all sinners from staying there or that’s the definition of discrimination.

    • Matthew Whittington

      Your whole thesis is flawed. Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice your religion, it is not the freedom to force your beliefs on others, and certainly not on your customers. In the two examples given in the article the LGBT couples did not try to make the religious owners gay, they simply wanted to stay the night and be treated with dignity.

      Tolerance is not going “one way”, as you put it, freedom means that you have to be tolerant of others beliefs. I don’t know how a lawyer could read freedom and translate it to discrimination. Freedom doesn’t mean much when it is not reciprocal.

      I think Jesus would be disgusted with the way people claiming to be Christians are acting.

    • Ibis3

      Apart from your being wrong because of public accommodation laws, not only in the US but clearly in the UK, and New Zealand, you’re also wrong because forcing other people to follow your religious rules does not qualify as following your own religious beliefs. Running a business does not put one in the position of dictating other people’s religious or secular practices. If one wants to provide a service to the public, one has to be prepared to serve all of the public in the same way (i.e. making exceptions for legitimate reasons e.g. a disruptive or abusive customer only). These B&B owners should no more concern themselves with whether their patrons are gay than if they’ve been to church recently or ever been divorced or whether they’re baptised “properly”.

    • smrnda

      The law is clear on this issue. If you are a place of public accommodation, you must accommodate the public, no discrimination allowed. Period. End of story.

      Sometimes tolerance should only go one way. We don’t tolerate businesses that want to discriminate based on race. They might want to, but we, as a society have decided that the privilege to run a for-profit businesses comes with the responsibility to follow some rules.

      If your religious beliefs conflict with this, nobody made you go into business. If you can’t allow unmarried couples to share a bed, skip running a hotel, bed and breakfast and don’t get into the mattress selling business.

      Basically, the law says the same thing as the Bible. You can pick to serve your god or Mammon. If you’ve chosen to serve Mammon and be a for profit money grubbing businesses, then you have to follow the rules.

    • Tom

      Very good. Perfectly applicable to people who merely *want* a service. But what if people *need* your service, thereby resulting in a moral obligation and power differential?

    • kaydenpat

      Why do people have to tolerate bigotry?

      If you offer a service to the public, you offer it to all the groups/peoples who make up the public.

  • Brad

    So…I wonder if I have grounds to sue based on discrimination because myself and my life-ling, opposite sex partner have no desire to get married on our “religious” views. Since we can’t share a room. I feel like my religious right are being tred on by their religious rights…

    Just saying…

  • Rationalist1

    I know this is legally impossible, but I would rather have places like this state their prejudices up front so 1) couples like this would not make a reservation only to be turned away when they arrive and 2) the rest of us can boycott them and run them out of business. The majority of people wouldn’t want to have anything to do with them.

    Since that can’t be done, when this happens review their site online and state what happens. They won’t get my business.

    • wombat

      But would it mean that they got more business from other bigots? The US seems to sport a fairly decent chunk of them, and New Zealand a fair number. Would it be enough to keep their business afloat? It’s quite possible.

      • Hat Stealer

        I agree. It seems like it would be unfair to all the gay people living in those areas.

      • Rationalist1

        Possibly in the US although maybe only in the South. Here in urban Canada, they’d be toast.

    • NewDawn2006

      I agree. If you are going to discriminate, at least put the sign on the door “No homosexuals will be given lodging”. Then the rest of us who think that is bullshit can also not stay there.

  • Loic

    Meh, I imagine a Christian B & B would have lots of dusty Precious Moments figurines, cross-stitch prayers and “I Heart Jesus” teddy bears all over your room, so you’re better off figuring that out ahead of time.

    • Spuddie

      But you have to pay extra for the exorcisms.

      • The Other Weirdo

        No, those are free. They have to be to exorcise the demons of self-righteousness.

        • Hat Stealer

          Not only are they free, they’re mandatory.

    • Drew M.

      I like Precious Moments. :(

  • Paula M Smolik

    From what I read, the owners just want them to have a room with two beds. ?? If it’s the same price, get two beds, and then what will they do? I know, you want to snuggle. ;)

  • Junction_Boy

    Because two people of the same sex sleeping in one bed is forbidden where in that stupid book?

  • Crystal Bandy Thomas

    Seriously, Suzanne Wilkinson, state your religious stipulations in your B & B policy, then no one is embarrassed…oh, except you…bigot..

  • Kevin

    If someone asks to stay at my house for a couple of days, I can deny them based on any criteria I choose. I can do so if they are black and I’m a skinhead. I could do so if I’m homophobic and they are a lesbian couple.

    Please, someone explain to me why my right to decide what to do with my property disappears when I offer that room as part of a business. What is the distinction here?

    • The Other Weirdo

      The distinction here is public accommodation. If businesses were free to discriminate, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus and mixed-race married couples wouldn’t be able to get a hotel room. Technically, I am not even sure you could discriminate against a skinhead if you’re running a hotel, so long as that person isn’t disruptive.

      • Kevin

        Blacks sat in the back of the bus because of local ordinances, passed by local governments in clear violation of the constitution.

        And while I hate to see any discrimination, I think society is harmed even more by the erosion of property rights. Almost all businesses exist to make money, and they will gladly take money from anyone, regardless of any personal bigotry on the part of the owners. That system of free enterprise will make those businesses successful at the expense of the few that discriminate.

        • The Other Weirdo

          That is a popular perception of the way businesses work, but in practice it doesn’t work out like that. Else we wouldn’t be seeing these sorts of articles about B&B, florists refusing to provide flowers for gay weddings, venue halls cancelling at the last moment when they notice that an atheist convention would be taking place. For many, as we often see here, their religion trumps everything else. Sometimes even basic humanity.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          That Libertarian view of the issue has been disproven. It is very easy for horrible people to monopolize industries.

        • baal

          “Almost all businesses exist to make money, and they will gladly take
          money from anyone, regardless of any personal bigotry on the part of the
          owners”

          Simply not true as a factual matter. What happens in real life is that the bigots use other power to get the non-bigots to comply with their bigoted wishes. This can be overt like threats of violence or it can be more subtle like denial of zoning permits via city hall.

          • Stev84

            There is also the simple matter that in some cases there are no reasonable alternatives.

            There was a similar case in Hawaii. The couple wanted to visit a friend who just a baby. Then the baby got sick and they couldn’t stay there anymore. There was only one B&B in walking distance (or one that was free). Due to the unexpected expenditure of even having to rent, they couldn’t afford a car as well. Their friend had to care for the baby, so she couldn’t drive them around. So being refused messed up the whole point of the trip.

            Or imagine being on the road in some rural area and the only motel within 20 miles turns you down. Which happened a lot to blacks back in the Jim Crow era.

        • Mario Strada

          I would love for all the libertarians to make a grand experiment and resettle in a country of their own. While we are at it, I’d make it border with a country comprised of anarchists.

          I’d love to see the outcome, but smaller experiments so far don’t bode well for either experiment.

        • smrnda

          Sorry, but if you think ‘freedom’ is the right of a privileged property owner to discriminate on the basis of race and its ‘oppression’ to force a racist property owner to accept minority customers, then I think that your ‘freedom’ is a crock of shit.

          I am completely unconcerned about the chicken little freak-out over the erosion of sacred property rights, which are only asserted in order for people with $$ and property to discriminate against minority groups.

          The danger presented by the government regulating places of public accommodation is a lot smaller than the danger of a conspiracy of private property owners to piss and shit on oppressed minorities.

        • The Other Weirdo

          Damn you Disqus, you ate my wonderful reply.

        • Tom

          In order to maximise income, where no other legal constraints are applied, businesses will *not* always take money from everyone. Catering to minorities in a strongly bigoted area, for example, will repel custom from the majority (at the very least, to say nothing of the risk of getting vandalized or burned down and the resultant capital loss in property), resulting in a net loss.

          • baal

            It’s cold somewhere today. I upvoted you RW :).

        • TheBlackCat13

          An empirically false statement. This simply did not happen. Business did and still do discriminate on a massive scale. Heck, the article you are replying to disproves your assertion.

        • Bdole

          That system of free enterprise will make those businesses successful at the expense of the few that discriminate.

          That reasoning doesn’t work when it comes to small minorities, which is why we didn’t let the free market solve our civil rights problems 50 years ago. You can discriminate against blacks (~12%) or gays (~10%) or Outer Mongolians(0.001%) and still run a successful business. The only result is that those minorities are relegated to 2nd class citizens, inconvenienced, and/or humiliated when turned away after travelling hundreds of miles.

        • kaydenpat

          Nonsensical argument belied by history. If what you are arguing was true, segregation would have disappeared from the American South as soon as Blacks had $$$ to pay for services.

    • baal

      Hi Kevin,

      You aren’t this clueless so I don’t view this question as honest but I’ll answer anyway. If you open up a shop to the public, you must sell your wares to anyone who shows up and pays the asking price (and otherwise complies with the law). Your way was tried in the past and it lead to bizarre, hateful and harmful outcomes. In specific, black folks could hardly travel in the US without carefully planning stops at private homes. That alone (as if there aren’t other problems to trying to travel while black in the US) was treatment of a group of people as second class citizens. We should not be free to treat people as second class citizens. It denies them their humanity and makes you look like a bigot or monster.

      Let’s say I suddenly am gifted all of the money from bill gates and warren buffet. I then use that pile of cash to buy every B&B and hotel in the US. Now, I let it be known that every christian, but especially you Kevin as a poster here but making bigoted points, are not allowed to rent rooms at my hotels (all of them). Would you think that is fair and part of my rights as a business owner?

      • Tom

        Nice example of economic coercion. Better hope you’re not arguing with a Randian or arch-libertarian free-market fundamentalist; they will not, indeed, cannot allow themselves to recognise that economic coercion is a possibility, because it torpedoes their entire moral and socioeconomic foundation, which is supposed to be built on eliminating coercion.

        • smrnda

          Well said. According to libertarians, if one person owned all the potable water in the world, and refused to sell us any, that’s no coercion. Funny definition…

    • Ibis3

      Let me guess, Kevin. You’re not a member of an easily identifiable class that’s in danger of being discriminated against. Easy to be so cavalier and obnoxious when you’re not gay or brown or female or disabled. Just try and put yourself in the place of someone who can’t rent an apartment because you’re trans or who can’t buy a sandwich because you happen to be black or can’t get a doctor to treat you because you’re Jewish. And not just once, but at every place you try. That’s called segregation or apartheid, and we’ve decided that’s evil.

      You want to keep the [insert appropriate slur] out of your home? Go right ahead. You want to sell goods or services to the public, that means all the public. You don’t get to choose.

      • smrnda

        Excellent point. Plus, the idea that the market magically provides affluent non-bigoted capitalists who want the money of minority groups (who, because of lots of discrimination, are often not that wealthy to begin with) is laughable.

    • Tom

      The distinction is exactly what you stated: you make it part of a business. Businesses are legally regulated in ways that private citizens are not (which is exactly why we should all be deeply alarmed by, and resisting, the ongoing corporate push to have businesses legally recognised as people)

      • smrnda

        Especially when businesses get the perks of being people without any of the drawbacks. We don’t lock corporations in jail or anything.

    • kaydenpat

      Because you’re offering a service to the public. The public includes Blacks, homosexuals, straights, Asians, Latinos, Christians, atheists, etc.

  • the moother

    “It is clearly established that, as a matter of general principle, (i) the right of a homosexual not to suffer discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is an important human right (article 8 and 14),”

    Should read:

    “It is clearly established that, as a matter of general principle, (i) the right of a person not to suffer discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is an important human right (article 8 and 14),”

  • Anna

    I know I should be more outraged, but I just find it funny that they seem to assume that forcing people into different beds will ensure that no sex takes place.

    • Tom

      That’s because you’re thinking like a sensible person. Think fundamentalist: practicality means nothing, it’s all about vague gestures and symbolism; the more overblown, overly dramatic and flouncy, the better.

    • TheBlackCat13

      Or forcing them both into one smaller bed.

  • http://www.dougberger.net Doug B.

    Not that people should have to hide who they are I wonder if the couples had not indicated they were a couple if they would have been served. I’m guessing they are making the assumption that two men or two women asking for a single bed are gay so it didn’t matter if the couples said they were a couple.

    • smrnda

      If it were permitted to discriminate against gay people, bigots could discriminate against anyone they *thought* was gay based on whatever stereotype they wanted to deploy.

      Yeah, lots of assumptions get made by people like this. If they were permitted to discriminate based on their biases, very few people would be safe.

      • http://www.dougberger.net Doug B.

        I remember back in the 70′s and earlier that if a man and woman tried to book a hotel room they had to be married. I’m sure there are some places who still won’t rent to non-married couples but it is based on bias too.

        • smrnda

          Some friends of mine were lied to by a store clerk in the south when the inquired about buying condoms. The clerk said ‘we don’t have any.’ It might have been that not just they didn’t have rings on, but were interracial as well.

  • AxeGrrl

    All the more money for gay-friendly establishments…..wheeeeeeee!

  • Tom

    What just leaps out at me from cases like these is that the perpetrators always blather about how they’re just trying to live according to their own principles, which sounds like the most reasonable thing in the world. Except they’re not. They’re trying to make other people live according to their principles, and that’s a whole different ball game.

  • Guest

    The Christian Institute is very badly advised if it imagines B&B owners will get away with a “marrieds only” rule. This would prevent gays (who cannot currently marry) from benefitting and thus constitutes indirect discrimination under the law in GB.

    • Ibis3

      Not to mention that it wouldn’t allow them to discriminate against tourists from places where there is marriage equality (or even Brits who have travelled elsewhere to marry–Canada for example).

  • Guest

    The Christian Institute is very badly advised if it imagines B&B owners will get away with a “marrieds only” rule. This would prevent gays (who can’t currently marry) from benefitting and thus constitutes indirect discrimination under the law in GB.

  • Ryan Hite

    My thoughts would be: Who cares? They paid for a room! In this economy, I wouldn’t be discriminating, especially since hoteliers are in the business to provide a good customer experience, not here, and to make money, actually they would be losing a heck of a lot now that a suit has been filed.

  • Lisa

    I’ve actually stayed at Pilgrim Planet before and recommended it to quite a few people (which I will no longer be doing). Strangely enough, when I stayed there I was with my two children who were born out of wedlock and their father, who I wasn’t married to at the time. You’ve got to love biblical cherry-picking.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X