Gay couple turned away from B B

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:45 am

Discuss?

A gay couple have claimed they were turned away from a bed & breakfast because the owner said it was "against her convictions" to allow them to share a bed.

Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, have reported the owner of the Swiss B&B in Cookham to police for discriminating against them.................

please read the link below.......

source - Gay couple 'turned away from B&B' - Yahoo! News UK

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:11 am

I suppose this is bound to happen from time to time, as different people have different attitudes towards 'same gender sex'. It shouldn't happen these days, but some people disregard the law, simply because they have such entrenched ideas about certain things. It is doubtful that people like this can change their attitudes, and they cannot even put a notice up to deter same gender applications for B and B, as that will be against the law. Perhaps they will have to change their B and B for something else, to bring in an income, or swallow their pride and accept the law as it now stands. I think they are a little stuck over this matter.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:33 am

Are the B & B's owners human rights being violated?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:52 am

buttercup;1298521 wrote: Are the B & B's owners human rights being violated?Which human rights are in question?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:05 am

buttercup;1298516 wrote: Discuss?

A gay couple have claimed they were turned away from a bed & breakfast because the owner said it was "against her convictions" to allow them to share a bed.

Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, have reported the owner of the Swiss B&B in Cookham to police for discriminating against them.................

please read the link below.......

source - Gay couple 'turned away from B&B' - Yahoo! News UK

We no longer have the right to choose who we want to deal with. Thank a liberal for that, then smack 'im aside the head.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:21 am

There Is a difference between a Hotel Chain and a small Bed and Breakfast.

A Bed and Breakfast Is a small Business and In most cases Is the owners home also. When you stay In one, you are spending the night In their home.

It may not be ethical In this Oh so politically correct world of nonsense but If the B&B Is their home, then they must be entitled to turn people away that they don't approve of.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:21 am

hoppy;1298533 wrote: We no longer have the right to choose who we want to deal with. Thank a liberal for that, then smack 'im aside the head.:mad:We don't have the right to choose who we sleep with. Thank a conservative for that and then smack 'im along side the head. On second thought, never mind, hes probably been smacked around enough.

I don't have a problem with this lady's reasoning, but she should have known to screen her guests better (perhaps now she does). These two people were out a night or two away which they had planned. But she lost the business income too. I think she would have been smart to offer compensation to the couple with something like pay for a dinner at a nice restaurant or something for the inconvenience the couple suffered. A good gesture such as that may have thwarted the negative publicity and other problems. Though publicity is publicity, and for all we know a large number of homophobic people may now show support by booking the place up for a period of time.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:55 am

Here in the good ole US of A, many establishments have a sign posted:

NO SHOES

NO SHIRT

NO SERVICE

It's their establishment, should they not be entitled to run it how they see fit for the majority?!

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:14 am

Its certainly a tricky one, how far do you go to screen guests?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:32 am

cars;1298541 wrote:

It's their establishment, should they not be entitled to run it how they see fit for the majority?!Sure, as long as the proprietor respects the rules of the game and plays by them. We live by rules, don't we?

For example: a baseball team cannot decide which players on the other team play against them because perhaps one player may hit a lot of home runs or a certain player plays great defense, or because another player is a fast runner or even that the opposing team has the best pitcher in the league. No they don't ask that those players be removed, they deal with it and play the game according to the rules, and if they win they celebrate their good fortune and if they lose they behave like mature people and understand losing is part of life and they adapt and move on.

Discrimination is the past. People should stop crying about it and get in the game or decide to opt out.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:38 am

buttercup;1298546 wrote: Its certainly a tricky one, how far do you go to screen guests?I don't know, I haven't given it much thought because its not my business. However, if it were my business, I would learn the laws governing it and find a way to screen guests. If no way exists for that to be done, I would make a decision whether or not this is a business I want to be in. If it isn't I do something else and if it is I adapt and play by the rules governing the game. But I do not cry and carry on about how unfair life is.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:46 am

Ahso!;1298551 wrote: I don't know, I haven't given it much thought because its not my business. However, if it were my business, I would learn the laws governing it and find a way to screen guests. If no way exists for that to be done, I would make a decision whether or not this is a business I want to be in. If it isn't I do something else and if it is I adapt and play by the rules governing the game. But I do not cry and carry on about how unfair life is.

You are whining right now because some gays got the boot.

-1

yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:02 am

hoppy;1298553 wrote: You are whining right now because some gays got the boot.

-1

yh_rotfl
Nice One :yh_rotfl

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:18 am

buttercup;1298516 wrote: Discuss?

A gay couple have claimed they were turned away from a bed & breakfast because the owner said it was "against her convictions" to allow them to share a bed.

Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, have reported the owner of the Swiss B&B in Cookham to police for discriminating against them.................

please read the link below.......

source - Gay couple 'turned away from B&B' - Yahoo! News UK

That's discrimination, it doesn't matter whether its a hotel or a B&B in someone's home, its a business and they all should be run the same way

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:19 am

Ahso!;1298549 wrote: Sure, as long as the proprietor respects the rules of the game and plays by them. We live by rules, don't we?

For example: a baseball team cannot decide which players on the other team play against them because perhaps one player may hit a lot of home runs or a certain player plays great defense, or because another player is a fast runner or even that the opposing team has the best pitcher in the league. No they don't ask that those players be removed, they deal with it and play the game according to the rules, and if they win they celebrate their good fortune and if they lose they behave like mature people and understand losing is part of life and they adapt and move on.

Discrimination is the past. People should stop crying about it and get in the game or decide to opt out.
Yes, & the proprietor sets the rules for their establishment, those who don't like those rules don't have to go there!

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:23 am

cars;1298565 wrote: Yes, & the proprietor sets the rules for their establishment, those who don't like those rules don't have to go there!

Then the proprietor should be posting their rules.

MUST WEAR SHOES

NO BATHING SUITS ALLOWED IN LOBBY

NO GAYS/LESBIANS

doesn't that seem just a bit weird?:yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:31 am

cars;1298565 wrote: Yes, & the proprietor sets the rules for their establishment, those who don't like those rules don't have to go there! If they want to play in the league they have to abide by certain rules. Wearing a uniform that meets the criteria of the league standards is a rule that can't be gotten around as so many others in any game.

She can do what she wants to market her business and adorn it as she chooses, but when she puts herself in the competitive marketplace, she must play by the rules governing the system like everyone else.

Would you defend the right of whites to deny service and goods to blacks in the south prior to the civil rights act, or do you think the civil rights act is bad law?

Money has no gender or bias. People are in business to make money, not discriminate against others. People with criminal records are a different story of course.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:34 am

Odie;1298566 wrote: Then the proprietor should be posting their rules.

MUST WEAR SHOES

NO BATHING SUITS ALLOWED IN LOBBY

NO GAYS/LESBIANS

doesn't that seem just a bit weird?:yh_rotflI doubt that could be done. The first two address attire while the third address's people based on sexual orientation or preference.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:39 am

Odie;1298564 wrote: That's discrimination, it doesn't matter whether its a hotel or a B&B in someone's home, its a business and they all should be run the same way

What if it were your home Odie and your guests turned up with their faces heavily tattoo'd, would you let them in or be scared and refuse?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:41 am

cars;1298565 wrote: Yes, & the proprietor sets the rules for their establishment, those who don't like those rules don't have to go there! By the way, I agree with the essence of this statement, but how does she do that within the law? Thats the question.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:42 am

buttercup;1298571 wrote: What if it were your home Odie and your guests turned up with their faces heavily tattoo'd, would you let them in or be scared and refuse?Should have considered all these things before opening a bed and breakfast.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:45 am

Ahso!;1298574 wrote: Should have considered all these things before opening a bed and breakfast.

Someone may come into my salon that i don't want in there, should i stop being a hairdresser?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:56 am

buttercup;1298577 wrote: Someone may come into my salon that i don't want in there, should i stop being a hairdresser?I have attempted to get a hair cut from all black barber shops and what I usually hear from them is: "it will be a very long wait," "I'm booked" or "I'm closing for a few hours after this customer, and I'm not sure when I'll be returning." Take your pick!

Of course a B&B is different because reservations are frequently made over the phone and internet. So how can this lady work around this? Perhaps a strategic use of the word 'traditional'!

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:00 am

buttercup;1298577 wrote: Someone may come into my salon that i don't want in there, should i stop being a hairdresser?

Depends on how they come in.

Waddle in= fat lady.

Slink in=sexy gal.

Strut in=fancy lady.

prance in=gay.

stagger in=drunk.

Stalk or stomp in= get 'im outa there.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:01 am

Ahso!;1298583 wrote: I have attempted to get a hair cut from all black barber shops and what I usually hear from them is: "it will be a very long wait," "I'm booked" or "I'm closing for a few hours after this customer, and I'm not sure when I'll be returning." Take your pick!

Of course a B&B is different because reservations are frequently made over the phone and internet. So how can this lady work around this? Perhaps a strategic use of the word 'traditional'!
If the B&B Is also her home and she sleeps In It, then she has every right to turn them away. Maybe your laws are different to ours?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:04 am

hoppy;1298585 wrote: Depends on how they come in.

Waddle in= fat lady.

Slink in=sexy gal.

Strut in=fancy lady.

prance in=gay.

stagger in=drunk.

Stalk or stomp in= get 'im outa there.

Shouldn't that be 'Mince In'... Gay.

Waddle In.... lady with very short legs.

Slink In.... A British Politician.

Strut In... A British politician

Prance In.... A British Politician

Stagger In.... A British Politician

Stalk or stomp In... A British politician

Mince In.... A Conservative British Politician

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:11 am

hoppy;1298585 wrote: Depends on how they come in.

Waddle in= fat lady.

Slink in=sexy gal.

Strut in=fancy lady.

prance in=gay.

stagger in=drunk.

Stalk or stomp in= get 'im outa there.

I'll define further:

Waddle In.... Female Labour British Politician

Slink In..... Leader Of the British Conservative Party

Strut In..... Male Labour british politician

Prance In.... Male Liberal Democrat British Politician

Stagger In... Charles Kennedy.... Liberal Democrats

Stalk or stomp In.... The far Right BNP Politican

Mince In..... Still a Male Conservative British Politicain.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:12 am

Ahso!;1298583 wrote: I have attempted to get a hair cut from all black barber shops and what I usually hear from them is: "it will be a very long wait," "I'm booked" or "I'm closing for a few hours after this customer, and I'm not sure when I'll be returning." Take your pick!

Of course a B&B is different because reservations are frequently made over the phone and internet. So how can this lady work around this? Perhaps a strategic use of the word 'traditional'!

I take bookings over the phone for haircuts, i could put 'traditional hairdresser' outside my salon but how would that let gay people know i don't want to cut their hair?

As it stands i have no problem cutting gay people's hair and have yet to have a serious problem on my hands in all my years of cutting hair but there's always a first time and i'd like to think if i had a good reason to refuse service i'd not be facing legal proceedings.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:25 am

buttercup;1298589 wrote: I take bookings over the phone for haircuts, i could put 'traditional hairdresser' outside my salon but how would that let gay people know i don't want to cut their hair?

As it stands i have no problem cutting gay people's hair and have yet to have a serious problem on my hands in all my years of cutting hair but there's always a first time and i'd like to think if i had a good reason to refuse service i'd not be facing legal proceedings.What I'm talking about is a marketing campaign based around traditional couples. There is probably no legal way to prevent gays from using her establishment but she can devise a marketing strategy targeting 'traditional' couples and reducing the likelihood of gay people booking her place. If she can't find a legal way to deny them business, she'll have to adapt, its that simple. She will have to get over her homophobia. But this publicity is not the way to do it because she will most likely attract more gays this way. What the gay community can do is book the place solid weekend after weekend and be turned away when they arrive, basically preventing the place from making any money at all.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:36 am

Ahso!;1298590 wrote: , she'll have to adapt, its that simple. She will have to get over her homophobia. .

Who says she Is Homophobic?

Maybe her B&B is her home and she has young children living there that she does not want exposed to. You can put family first without being a Homophobe you know.

I happen to Object strongly to Two men kissing In public In full view of young children. Doesn't make me homophobic. It's called having Standards Dear.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:43 am

In the UK, certainly refreshment establishments are permitted to 'refuse to serve any member of the public, and may not need to give any reason for such refusal'

This could well include hotels, B & Bs, public houses, cafes etc.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:07 am

Ahso!;1298570 wrote: I doubt that could be done. The first two address attire while the third address's people based on sexual orientation or preference.

exactly, its called discrimination.

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:12 am

G#Gill;1298593 wrote: In the UK, certainly refreshment establishments are permitted to 'refuse to serve any member of the public, and may not need to give any reason for such refusal'

This could well include hotels, B & Bs, public houses, cafes etc.

Not according to the Equality Act 2006.

Equality Act 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B & B's are operated within the city and state laws. They have to meet all licensing requirements and carry commercial insurance. They also get inspected for cleanliness, safety and hospitality.

Once a person opens their private home up as a B & B, they are then considered a public business. They cannot discriminate against a persons sexual orientation.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:13 am

Odie;1298597 wrote: exactly, its called discrimination.
No it's not... Not In this case.

Read the article In full. She stated that It was a private house and her home... She had every right to refuse them. If she had another vacant room she was willing to offer It to them.

I don't care what Gay people do In the privacy of their own home the same as any other couple but It does not give them the right to force their sexuality on others.

There could have been small children In her house.

Thank God there are still people In England with Standards.

Another point that you seem to have missed Is that In the article she says It Is against her religous beliefs. She has as much right to uphold those In this country as The Cathlics here have the right to not employ a Christian religious teacher In a catholic School.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:15 am

Mustang;1298599 wrote: Not according to the Equality Act 2006.

Equality Act 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B & B's are operated within the city and state laws. They have to meet all licensing requirements and carry commercial insurance. They also get inspected for cleanliness, safety and hospitality.

Once a person opens their private home up as a B & B, they are then considered a public business. They cannot discriminate against a persons sexual orientation.

What part of this did you miss?

Taken from your Wikki link:

At this stage, only â€˜religion or beliefâ€™ was included in the anti-discrimination clauses. The Labour Party specifically did not wish to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:21 am

Mustang;1298599 wrote: Not according to the Equality Act 2006.

Equality Act 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B & B's are operated within the city and state laws. They have to meet all licensing requirements and carry commercial insurance. They also get inspected for cleanliness, safety and hospitality.

Once a person opens their private home up as a B & B, they are then considered a public business. They cannot discriminate against a persons sexual orientation.

Thank you Mustang, just what I have been trying to say.:rolleyes:

I love wikipedia, nothing beats it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:26 am

Odie;1298604 wrote: Thank you Mustang, just what I have been trying to say.:rolleyes:

I love wikipedia, nothing beats it.

What part of the section that says the Labour Party did not Include Religious and sexual Orientation did you not understand?

Wikki Is as reliable as a chocolate teapot.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:48 am

No matter how they dress it up it may be their home but it is also a business and liable to prosecution.

http://www.swissbedandbreakfast.co.uk/

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:52 am

abbey;1298640 wrote: No matter how they dress it up it may be their home but it is also a business and liable to prosecution.

Bed and breakfast accommodation in Cookham, Maidenhead
Looks like a private home to me besides, If the discrimination act does not Include discrimination on religious grounds then she may be perfectly entitiled to use her religion for not letting them share a bed. She did not just turn them away because they were gay. If she had another room available, she said she would have offered It to them.

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:56 am

oscar;1298601 wrote: What part of this did you miss?

Taken from your Wikki link:

At this stage, only ‘religion or belief’ was included in the anti-discrimination clauses. The Labour Party specifically did not wish to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

From the link provided in the OP, it clearly states:

A spokesman for Stonewall, the gay rights campaign group, said turning a couple away because of their sexual orientation was illegal. Derek Munn, director of public affairs, said: "Stonewall was delighted when the law changed in 2007 so that lesbian and gay couples could go on their holidays like anyone else. In open-and-shut cases of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation the law's quite clear - it's illegal for businesses to turn away gay customers or discriminate against them when providing goods or services, and this can't be overridden by personal prejudice."

Gay couple 'turned away from B&B' - Yahoo! News UK

If this B & B owner feels so strongly about not permitting gay couples to patronize her business, then she should clearly find another line of work to get into.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:03 pm

Mustang;1298643 wrote: From the link provided in the OP, it clearly states:

Gay couple 'turned away from B&B' - Yahoo! News UK

If this B & B owner feels so strongly about not permitting gay couples to patronize her business, then she should clearly find another line of work to get into.

Why should she? How about Gays sleep together In the privacy of their own home and not expect to ram their sexuality down the throats of others?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:05 pm

Mustang;1298599 wrote: Not according to the Equality Act 2006.

Equality Act 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B & B's are operated within the city and state laws. They have to meet all licensing requirements and carry commercial insurance. They also get inspected for cleanliness, safety and hospitality.

Once a person opens their private home up as a B & B, they are then considered a public business. They cannot discriminate against a persons sexual orientation.

I stand corrected, as regards the B & B's but people can still be refused service in pubs, cafes etc and are not obliged to be given a reason.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:11 pm

G#Gill;1298646 wrote: I stand corrected, as regards the B & B's but people can still be refused service in pubs, cafes etc and are not obliged to be given a reason. If the Wikki Is correct, then the discrimination act does not include on religious grounds. There-fore, she must be entitled to claim her religious beliefs for not allowing them to sleep together.

How about the pair have the brains to phone ahead and ask if there was any rules on two men sleeping In the same bed before they booked? Could have saved them alot of trouble.

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:30 pm

oscar;1298645 wrote: Why should she? How about Gays sleep together In the privacy of their own home and not expect to ram their sexuality down the throats of others?

Because the owner, Susanne Wilkinson advertised (in the link Abbey provided):,

A warm & friendly welcome awaits all guests/offers first class hospitality

She is running a business Oscar. I believe that is the point of the article.

Buttercup asked:

Are the B & B's owners human rights being violated?

Buttercup also asked for discussion on this.

It is my opinion that no, the owner's rights aren't being violated, the gay couples rights are.

The only cramming I see is the owner's personal view point on the subject of gays.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:56 pm

oscar;1298645 wrote: Why should she? How about Gays sleep together In the privacy of their own home and not expect to ram their sexuality down the throats of others?

This is what I dont understand !

How is two men asking for a room in a B & B "ramming homosexuality down our throats" ? Why assume they are going to have sex at all. Your prejudice is showing slightly more than you realise. Standards my arse

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:13 pm

Nice places. Surely these people knew better and may have even had this happen in the past, but got called on it this time.

After seeing the pictures of the facilities, I think the gay couple should sue the owners. Not because they are successful, but because they should have known better. People like this need to be taught the lesson to either move into the 21st century or live in Utah.

Whats the difference?

Attached files

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:26 pm

I'm reminded of two of my army mates being charged with homosexuality back in the mid 70's. They went out on the p!ss and ended up asleep on the same bed. There used to be some regulation regarding the fact that if two men occupied the space on the same bed, their feet had to be on the floor. The rest of the troop protested strongly to our troop commander - a reasonable man - and the charges were quickly dropped.

Its about time we moved on. "I'm not homophobic, some of my best friends are gay". "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black". Has a familiar ring to it doesnt it. I'm sick and tired of hearing "I dont care what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom...." Strangely enough, I dont care what heterosexuals do in their own bedroom either, so why bang on about it. Most of us, gay or straight, restrict our sexual activities to the bedroom so why is it an issue ??

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:54 pm

Snowfire;1298662 wrote: This is what I dont understand !

How is two men asking for a room in a B & B "ramming homosexuality down our throats" ? Why assume they are going to have sex at all. Your prejudice is showing slightly more than you realise. Standards my arse The lady was a Christian. Do you really think for a moment that this would have got as far as the Police If the owner of the B&B were Muslim?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:06 pm

oscar;1298683 wrote: The lady was a Christian. Do you really think for a moment that this would have got as far as the Police If the owner of the B&B were Muslim?

You may well be right but thats a different issue. People use religion to justify there prejudices. Christian, Muslim or otherwise. Not content with accepting that two men might have a LOVING relationship, this woman had to asume they would have sex on her establishment. You know, just like those many,many straight people who might indulge in anal sex, that probably crossed her threshold over the years. Maybe she should have cross examined all mixed sex couples

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:16 pm

oscar;1298601 wrote: What part of this did you miss?

Taken from your Wikki link:

At this stage, only â€˜religion or beliefâ€™ was included in the anti-discrimination clauses. The Labour Party specifically did not wish to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation

How's about including the relevant data instead of this outragious selective quoting?

The piece you quote continues :-

There were suggestions this policy decision was made to appease homophobic religious voters in the run-up to the election.[1]

After the Bill was reintroduced, further lobbying by openly-gay Peer the Lord Alli succeeded in forcing the government to add homophobic discrimination to the Bill.

However, the lateness of this concession meant the extra provisions could not be included substantively in the primary legislation. Instead, legislators agreed to delegate the drafting of regulations to the Government. After a public consultation[2][3] and a protracted debate within the Cabinet,[4][5] these were eventually laid before Parliament as the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

Which makes it clear that sexual orientation is part of the legal framework.

As for it being her home, the minute she opened for trade as a B&B it became a place of business and covered by the law. As has been said earlier, if she chooses to run a B&B then she must work within the laws governing how they are run - this applies just as much to the discrimination act as it does to the health and hygiene act.

To all those of you who are decrying the fact that she cannot refuse people entry purely on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Do you see this as any different to refusing them entry on the grounds of their colour? If so why? If not then do you think it should be lawful to Blacks as well as Gays?