Monday, February 14, 2011

Judge Says Judeo-Christian Values Are Obsolete

The owners of a Christian "bed and breakfast" hotel in Cornwall, England have been convicted of violating the U.K. sexuality orientation law and ordered to pay £3,600 to two men, so-called civil partners, whom they refused a double bed.

For background, read Homosexual Couple Sue to Deny Christian Liberty

UPDATE 10/20/12: U.K. Judge fines another "bed and breakfast" owner nearly $6,000

-- From "Christian Innkeepers Found Guilty For Turning Away Gay Couple" by Al Webb, Religion News Service (Huffington Post) 1/19/11

The hoteliers had argued they were trying "to live and work in accordance with our Christian faith" when they refused to let the two men share a bed.

"Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody," Hazelmary Bull told the court. She insisted the policy "was applied equally and consistently to unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples."

But Judge Andrew Rutherford said the Bulls' views were outdated and violated Britain's Equality Act of 2007.

"It is inevitable that laws will, from time to time, cut across the deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society, so they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time they are made," the judge said in his 12-page ruling.

"Not so very long ago," he added, "these beliefs would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "UK Judge Says Judeo-Christian Values Are Obsolete" posted at (Philadelphia Church of God) 1/20/11

English law is based on the changing values of the populace, rather than the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Bible, Judge Andrew Rutherford declared in a ruling on January 18.

“Those Judeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted. Things have radically changed since the days of Queen Victoria or even, for that matter, since the days of her grandson King George v.”

He is right. Popular morality has completely rejected these ancient values, and the government has followed suit. Even English common law, the law that the judge said was based on Judeo-Christian principles, “has been largely superseded” by “the enormous growth of statutory legislation,” he said.

“In our parliamentary democracy it is for parliament to frame laws which reflect these changes in attitude or which give a lead to such changes,” he said. “Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judeo-Christian position.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Christian hotelier found guilty of gay bias looks set to lose her home and asks: So who's really being persecuted?" by Helen Weathers, UK Daily Mail 1/21/11

Their lives are now in turmoil. Hazelmary is adamant that she and Peter will not compromise their religious beliefs, despite the court ruling. As a result, they have two options - face prosecution again by refusing to book double rooms to gay civil partners, or close the business.

Chymorvah is a small, loss-making hotel, which charges £43 per person per night. Yet the Bulls did not go into this business to make a fortune, but to offer Christian hospitality.

‘This is a head-on collision between two lifestyles which are both equally protected under the human rights charter, but it seems our rights are now less equal.

'There are many people in Britain, Christian or not, who are very worried about being told what to believe in their own homes.' Hazelmary says: ‘We are not homophobic. Had Mr Hall and Mr Preddy booked into twin rooms or for a cream tea, we would have more than welcomed them. For us, it’s a case of loving the sinner, but not the sin.’

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Telegraph interviewer insults and ridicules believers. Is it a warning?" by Hilary White, 2/8/11

Did anyone else notice something odd about that article in the Telegraph? The one about the goings on in Cornwall, at a guesthouse owned by the beleaguered Peter and Hazelmary Bull . . .

Was it me, or did the interviewer, Judith Woods, spend half her column space, over 1,500 words, insulting and ridiculing her subject? And between the sneering and nudge-nudge-wink-winking, was there just the faintest hint of a threat behind it all?

Miss Woods shares her impressions: “[I]t’s hard to escape the uncomfortable feeling that this elderly couple – narrow-minded, eccentric, singularly lacking in business nous in their batty rejection of modern mores, gay and straight – have been miscast as both persecuted and persecutors and will come off badly whatever happens.”

It is intimated that the Bulls simply should have known better. One does not challenge the New Order of Things: “Despite being fully aware of new anti-discriminatory legislation, they have continued to enforce their bizarre Fifties house rules, because the Lord is on their side even if, as now transpires, the law isn’t.”

At this point, I had to stop and go back and check whether this was classified under “Comment,” or maybe “Culture” or “Lifestyle” where one might be more disposed to grant some editorial latitude. No, it’s firmly labeled “News.”

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christian hoteliers appeal against ban on gay couple" posted at BBC News 1/25/11

The Christian Institute is reportedly funding the appeal.

At the time of the judgement the couple said they were "obviously disappointed with the result".

Mrs Bull said: "Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody."

The appeal will be heard later in the year.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.