Christian hotel owners who turned away gay couple face business ruin after torment by hate callers



The Christian owners of a guesthouse who refused a room to a gay couple face being driven out of business by a hate campaign.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who were ordered by a judge to pay £3,600 to Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, have received several abusive and menacing telephone calls.

Several homosexual men have also attempted to book double rooms at their hotel in Marazion, Cornwall and warned the couple that they would be acting illegally if they refuse.

Struggling: Peter and Hazelmary Bull, pictured last month, have received abusive calls and legal warnings from homosexual couples attempting to book rooms

Mrs Bull, 66, said she has to answer the phone because her 71-year-old husband is recovering from heart surgery in hospital, where he has also received nuisance calls.

Ward staff there have now introduced a password system for friends and family inquiring about Mr Bull’s health.

‘I’m not a prude, but I’ve been shocked and hurt by the language used,’ Mrs Bull told the Daily Telegraph.

‘One told me I was an abomination and would go straight to hell. These people know nothing about my lifestyle, and I’ve been astounded by their cruelty.’

Yesterday supporters said the couple will appeal against last week’s landmark ruling in which Judge Andrew Rutherford said the Bulls acted unlawfully under sexual orientation regulations.

Judge Rutherford said the couple were breaking the law when they denied civil partners Mr Hall and Mr Preddy a double room. They were ordered pay the couple £1,800 each in damages.



Victory: Civil partners Steven Preddy (left) and Martin Hall have been awarded £3,600 after a judge ruled it was illegal to turn them away over their sexuality

However, in making the ruling at Bristol County Court, near where the gay couple live, the judge also granted the Bulls leave to appeal.

The Christian Institute, which funded their defence and has reportedly paid £45,000 so far, said it would stick by the guesthouse owners.

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, told ITV's West Country Tonight: ‘Obviously there are some finally balanced legal issues in this case and I think it is important our higher courts have the opportunity to look at this issue.

‘A lot of Christians are looking at this case with great concern and they do believe their beliefs have been squeezed from public life.’

It is expected that the appeal will be heard at the Court of Appeal later this year.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were seeking up to £5,000 damages claiming sexual orientation discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

The inn that said no: The Bulls' Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion Cornwall

The Bulls denied the claim saying they have a long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples both heterosexual and gay from sharing a bed at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance.

Mr Bull, 70, and his wife, 66, said their policy, operated since they bought the hotel in 1986, is based on their beliefs about marriage and not a hostility to sexual orientation.

Mrs Bull told the court: ‘We accept that the Bible is the holy living word of God and we endeavour to follow it as far as we are able.

Shattered: Mrs Bull, outside Bristol County Court last week, said her husband has received abusive calls while in hospital

‘We have a kind of routine we go through with folk. It is never our intention to offend so we try to make it as gracious and as helpful as we can.’

Mr Preddy, 38, said he and Mr Hall, 46, had booked the hotel room over the phone and were not aware of the policy until they arrived in August 2008 and were told by Mr Quinn they would not be able to stay.

In his ruling Judge Rutherford said that in the last 50 years social attitudes in Britain had changed.

‘We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament,’ the judge said.

‘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 quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants' beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold.

‘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.’

Judge Rutherford added: ‘It seems to me that a correct analysis of the position of the defendants is that they discriminate on the basis of marital status.’