Several people have come to the blog in the past couple of days due to searching for Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, the homosexual pair who were refused a double bed in a Christian-run B&B, and who won £3,600 in court.
I wondered what the dynamic duo had been up to now to revive an interest in them.
It seems that they believed that the Cornwall B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull were let off lightly and had called for their £3,600 damages to be increased.
Taxpayer-funded lawyers for the gay couple then submitted documents to the Court of Appeal claiming the religious beliefs of Mr and Mrs Bull should have been disregarded, calling for the damages to be increased.
But today the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is representing Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said the cross appeal was an ‘error of judgment’ by its legal team and was being withdrawn.
I wonder when this error of judgment was noticed. After the negative publicity of the first case, no doubt.
Practically all of the 900 comments under the Mail’s article are scathing of the greedy Stonewall members. Jon from Torquay writes,
Amazing how a gentle and sincere Christian couple are able to be bullied by a couple of PC spiteful intolerant thugs who are using the law as a weapon. And……. for financial gain…. how spiteful and hateful.
It’s no longer amazing. Tragically.
I was wondering what B&B owners – all B&B owners – would do if this person asked for a room. Would a man who looks like a decomposing corpse – a walking Iron Maiden cover – be a welcome sight at breakfast? Could he sue for being turned away? Would he bother? He must have a thick skin to go around looking like that.
This bizarre story turned up yesterday: Squabbling gay lovers ‘sparked Heathrow terror alert with hoax bomb call’
Two squabbling gay lovers sparked a terror alert in Heathrow Airport’s Terminal Five when one of them rang police and said the other was going to ‘blow something up’, it was revealed today.
Officers swooped on the 72-year-old man as he walked into the building – before realising the call was a hoax.
Today a man in his 30s was being questioned by Thames Valley Police officers on suspicion of dialling 999 yesterday and saying the pensioner was equipped with explosives. The pair are believed to be in a civil partnership.
It doesn’t sound like a very civil partnership to me (boom, boom!).
I wonder if the punishment will be anything like that handed to Paul Chambers, who last winter tweeted a blatantly obvious (attempted) joke: “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your sh** together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”
He was fined £3,000 in total.
How should this young “gay lover” be punished, considering that,
Officers had rushed to Oxford railway station as they launched a massive security operation to trace the ‘bomber’.
Officers from Thames Valley first responded to a 999 call saying the older man was on his way to Oxford railway station armed with a bomb.
Passengers and staff were evacuated from a section of the building and the terminal was closed for more than an hour at about 1pm yesterday while police searched the man’s bags.
The man was arrested before he had gone through security at Terminal 5 but some planes were delayed by the scare.
Heathrow luggage shop worker Sanju Ghale said stores were ordered to close and staff told to leave the building.
She added: ‘We didn’t know what was going on. We were so worried.’
If Paul Chambers’ joke was worth £3,000, what should this crazy charade cost the perpetrator?
Officers said the younger man faces prosecution for wasting police time and making false claims about a bomb.
Yes, a lot of police time and a lot of passengers’ time and producing fear in a lot of people, including the poor old sod he is in an uncivil partnership with.
Surely a spell in jail is the only option, as he is unlikely ever to be able to pay back the money that his nastiness cost.
I await the case with interest.
Eunice and Owen Johns, the experienced foster parents from Derby, who had applied to the local council to offer respite care for children aged five to eight, were turned down because they refused to compromise their beliefs that homosexual behaviour is sinful.
Last week’s Question Time was from Derby and the question of the Johns was raised. I have imbedded the video below, as the discussion is quite interesting.
Margaret Beckett admits that the couple has done a lot of good for a lot of people in the past, BUT their attitude towards homosexual relationships should rule them out in the future. And like the experienced politician she is, compares apple and oranges by stating that racists shouldn’t be foster parents either.
So basically, Mrs Beckett thinks that Christians are as bad as racists. I guess that’s standard Labour issue. Next up is the homosexual historian David Starkey, who perhaps surprisingly says that,
Penalising Christians for their beliefs about homosexual behaviour is intolerant, oppressive and tyrannical.
He also mentions the Cornish B&B, suggesting that they should be allowed to put up “what seems to me a quite proper notice… that says, ‘We are Christians and this is what we believe’.”
Being a historian, he no doubt knows very well where such tyranny inevitably leads if it is not nipped in the bud.
A young lady in the audience is given her chance to opine. She says that “there are far worse parents out there than just Christians who don’t believe there should be gay people.” She also agrees with Mr Dimbleby that some parents hold the same views as the Johns, so why shouldn’t foster parents?
Of course, the more control that the State succeeds in taking from us, the likelier it will be that a couple won’t be permitted to take their own baby away from the maternity ward unless they sign an agreement promising to be politically correct in front of the child at all times.
Iain Duncan Smith is next to speak. He is a conservative who cares about family values. Or does he? He claims that foster parents should not be allowed to push their views on children in their care.
Everyone has “views”. Children will be exposed to all sorts of “views” whoever they are placed with. Perhaps the Johns should have promised not to utter a word and let the children get their morals from the telly instead. I’m sure that would have been an acceptable arrangement.
And another thing, a great many youngsters have homosexual feelings at some time – but they are not homosexual!
The Johns were expected to nurture these hormonal imbalances, or whatever causes temporary same-sex attraction, to become a full-time, full-blown homosexual lifestyle.
Now that is the real child abuse.
And the children they applied to foster were five to eight years old. I hope that even the biggest stickler for political correctness can see the sickness in this.
Liam Halligan of the Daily Telegraph, said the Johns should be the kind of people we are celebrating and giving MBEs and OBEs to. He added
I’m a tolerant guy, but sometimes if you absolutely push tolerant people they become intolerant because you go past the point of no return.
And this is a situation where the absolute letter of the law, which may have been drafted with good intentions, has completely blown away any proportion of common sense.
The final panellist to speak was Lord Malloch Brown, former UN Deputy Secretary General, who hummed and hawed a bit before coming down on the side of Messrs Starkey and Halligan. He said,
We just have to be so careful to not let the state become the decider of morality and choice and freedoms.
The only two panellists who thought the council’s decision was the right one just happen to be the two members of parliament – ostensibly from different parties, but they follow the same agenda. It doesn’t seem to matter to Duncan Smith that this decision will increase the number of children who stay in care homes which “ultimately don’t do them any good at all,” because following this totalitarian PC agenda is more important to him.
When I read this headline: Cameron wades into Christian foster row, I thought, thank goodness; he is going to show there is still some sanity among politicians. What a fool I was to credit him with the measliest morsel of sense. He came out with:
Christians should be “tolerant, welcoming and broadminded”.
The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge responded:
The Prime Minister has waded in on one side of a deeply controversial case, and suggested that Christians who share the Johns’ beliefs are automatically intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded.
It would seem that many parents these days are far too tolerant and broadminded which has had the direct result of making the lives of young folk more problematic.
We can get an idea why it’s happening with this slip up.
The taxpayer-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission had warned that children could be “infected” by the moral views of Christian foster parents who oppose homosexual behaviour.
Black is the new white.
These people want us to move Beyond Tolerance. I expect that they realise that some of us will never renounce our faith and beliefs for thirty pieces of politically correct legislation or 3,000 pieces, therefore we need to have wholly inappropriate and discriminatory barriers put in our way, so for example, if you refuse to promote homosexuality to very young children, you don’t get to adopt or foster them.
Beyond tolerance? It’s beyond belief.
I see on the Pink News website that the Johns are looking for political intervention rather than take their case to the High Court because judges are having to interpret “bad law”.
Instead, they and Mr Diamond [their lawyer] are seeking a review of equality laws and will begin lobbying MPs and ministers to support their cause.
Last month, High Court judges Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beeston upheld the council’s decision and ruled that that the Johns’ views could harm foster children.
They also dismissed Mr Diamond’s claims as “a travesty of reality”.
Mr Diamond said in a Christian Legal Centre statement: “The courts are so set against religious freedom for Christians that an appeal is likely to only make matters worse.
“In recent years, there has been a combination of bad laws and a number of poor judicial appointments by the previous government.
“Where there are excellent judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.”
He added: “The British people have reversed silly laws in the past; the time is ripe for a review of the equality laws. It is time for the ‘Big Society’ to become a reality and to re-strengthen the communitarian institutions such as the church and other such bodies that can build this.
“Finally, the absurd ‘human rights’ agenda needs to be re-visited including the Human Rights Act.”
Mr Diamond and the Johns are to ask MPs to sign an ‘Equalities and Conscience Petition’ which calls on prime minister David Cameron to ensure that laws allow Christians to act on their consciences.
Getting the law changed is something we can all engage in. They have come for the smokers; they are coming for the Christians; they will come for us all. They are against us all, even the homosexuals, who they are just using to change society to break us down in order to sell us off.
They are destroying the moral order and trying to force everyone to comply with their new version of what they say is right and wrong.
How much worse can it get? Much worse still, because when a government decides on morality, it can make up any new laws it chooses.
And don’t think it is just Christians who will be affected. Everyone has lines which they won’t cross and those lines are getting closer and closer to us all.