Thursday, January 27, 2011

The emergence of the Gay Mafia

Following the discrimination conviction against Christian B&B proprietors Peter and Hazelmary Bull, another case is now being brought to the courts.

In March 2010, Michael Black and John Morgan were turned away from Swiss B&B in Cookham, Berkshire. It was the home of Susanne and Francis Wilkinson. Mrs Wilkinson politely told the couple: 'It is against my convictions for two men to share a bed', adding 'this is my private home'.

But now, having seen the success of Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, and how suing Mr and Mrs Bull has enriched them to the tune of £3,600, Michael Black and John Morgan have decided to be upset.

Very upset, actually.

It's taken nigh on a year, but so 'shocked' are they that they, too, are now intent on suing Christian B&B proprietors to 'make sure people can't break the sexual discrimination act and get away with it'.

All groups, of course, have their obnoxious extremists: Peter Tatchell has been the Gay Godfather for quite a few years, purposely 'outing' those who wished to remain private, and even clambering up the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral, while the Archbishop was preaching, in order to protest against the Church of England's 'persecution' of homosexuals by 'Christian bigots'.

And so we have gay 'moderates' and 'extremists'.

The moderates are appalled at the sort of McCarthyite witch-hunt being prosecuted by their co-sexualists in the name of 'equality': since the conviction of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, it has emerged that hordes of gay couples have been descending on their hotel in order to drive it out of business.

Imagine if this were professing Christians doing the same to a B&B run by homosexuals.

The extremists are intent on supremacy, and they are now terrorising believers into submission. It is a 'religious cleansing' every bit as offensive and obnoxious as that pursued against ethnic groups.

Thankfully, the moderates are siding with the believers, for they appreciate the value of liberty and the right to dissent. Ann Widdecombe and a young gay Tory activist Robert Leitch have spoken out against the gay mafioso.

For Miss Widdecombe: "There is a difference between discriminating against somebody because of what he is and refusing to promote or facilitate what he does. If the Bulls ran a grocery shop which refused to serve homosexuals then that would be discrimination but to refuse to facilitate their activity or that of an unmarried heterosexual couple by providing a double bed is not. It is the once lawful exercise of conscience against particular deeds.”

For Mr Leitch: “Mr and Mrs Bull have been tagged as homophobes, taken to court, forced to justify their literal interpretation of the Bible, told by the Judge involved that their views are out of date and, finally, given a punishment which will place significant strain upon their business’ finances. In the end, the penalty for holding a diverse viewpoint has been extreme. I am not a Christian. I do not hold any such stringent views about married or unmarried couples. Yet, as an openly gay man in a happy, long-term relationship, it infuriates me when equality groups tell me that cases such as the above should be celebrated as victories for the ‘homosexual community’. Sorry, but I refuse to be confined to any such sub-section of society.”

As Bill Cash MP told Tony Blair back in 2007: "You have given more preference to those who stand for gay rights than those who are concerned with conscience, with family and with religion."

And His Grace foresaw the inevitable consequences.

We must now await the outcome of Mr and Mrs Bull's appeal against the judge's ruling, to establish in the highest court the limits which the state now places upon religious conscience and liberties of the believer.

One final thought:

Why aren't these extremist homosexualists targeting businesses owned and run by Muslims? Why are they not applying to be youth workers in mosques? Or asking Muslim printers to print 'Gay Pride' leaflets? Or demanding to hire a hall dedicated to the glory of Allah? Or descending in hordes upon Muslim-run B&Bs?

Just wondering.


Blogger jdennis_99 said...

The crux of this matter, in my humble opinion, is the type of establishment that the plaintiffs have been turned away from.

If it was an hotel, or proper business establishment, I could understand their argument. To my mind, if you are carrying on in business, it is unreasonable to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. It's also bad business practice.

But the plaintiffs were being turned away, not only from 'guest houses', but also the defendant's HOMES. Their private residences, where they should be free to decide who may enter on whichever criteria they choose.

This issue is not just one of religious freedom, it is also one of freedom of association. This ruling has set a dangerous precedent where the State can dictate who may enter our homes.

Whatever happened to 'an Englishman's home is his castle?'

27 January 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous Bob F said...

Whilst not a homosexualist myself, were I to be one I, would certainly be booking myself and my partner into the Brighton Marina House Hotel for the weekend, a 'Muslim Bed and Breakfast' according to their web page. I wonder if one would last until the halal breakfast?Could be interesting?

27 January 2011 at 11:27  
Anonymous IanVisits said...

But the plaintiffs were being turned away, not only from 'guest houses', but also the defendant's HOMES. Their private residences, where they should be free to decide who may enter on whichever criteria they choose.

No they weren't - they were turned away from a commercial establishment, in which it just happens that the managers of the hotel also live in.

If you wish to convert your home into a commercial venture, in which you grant yourself "grace & favour" accommodation, that instantly translates the property into a commercial venue.

You may tend to feel as if it is your home, but it isn't - it's a commercial venue and as such has to abide by the laws applying to such venues.

Now, personally I think the first case had a lot of merit going for it, and the later ones seem like petty bandwagon hopping that should be blocked.

However, that does not change the core situation - these B&Bs are not private homes, they are profit making companies.

Don't forget, most Hotels have managers living on the premises as part of a grace&favour arrangement - should they also be treated as private homes?

Is 10 Downing St a private home because the Prime Minister lives there, or a working building because the Prime Minister works there?

27 January 2011 at 11:37  
Blogger jdennis_99 said...

@ IanVisits:

10 Downing Street is not a residence, because it is owned by the State, and not by the Prime Minister himself.

Hotel managers rarely own the premises they work in - the hotel chain normally does.

The defendants may have been endeavouring to make a profit by renting out some of their spare rooms, but does that make it a 'commercial enterprise'? Are they offsetting their household bills against tax as business expenses? What about lodgers? Do they fall under this ruling?

If you own property, and it is treated as your private residence, you should be allowed to determine by your own criteria who may or may not enter.

27 January 2011 at 11:47  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Your Grace.
A deplorable situation that needs rectifying immediately.
This is victimisation for financial gain.
Laws have & are being passed with the aim of protecting minority groups from persecution but when the same laws become a weapon in the hands of unscrupulous people to harrass others to impose on them a lifestyle that they find morally unacceptable that law needs changing.
There are far reaching implications for all of society in allowing this form of legalized protection racket to continue & the backlash when it comes will harm the innocent as well as the guilty.
People are free to live as they choose within reason, but when radical elements start to impose their will it's time to say enough is enough.

27 January 2011 at 12:07  
Anonymous Face the music said...

Ffs, Cranmer, when are the people of Britain finally going to wake up to what is happening around them?

As a rightish sort of Christian student, I had to constantly run the gauntlet of feminists and homosexualists peddling their obnoxious wares. At least Margaret (pbuh) was still in charge of the country.

Now, though, those who were students in the 70s and 80s seem to have risen to the political ascendency, and appear to be winning the Kulturkampf which most Britons - heads firmly fixed in their collective derrières - do not even acknowledge is happening.

Wake up and smell the Nescafé, people! Win Britain back!

27 January 2011 at 12:08  
Anonymous IanVisits said...


There is quite a substantial difference both in law, and in common-sense, between renting out a spare room to some friends, and running a commercial operation that rents out rooms on a per-night basis to random strangers, which you pro-actively advertise and for whom you (usually) are expected to cook meals for.

Just because the building WAS your home, doesn't mean it is any more.

In essence, you invested in a Hotel by means of a capital transfer of assets into a business venture.

I find it amazing that people still seem to think they can treat a commercial operation as a hobby and be exempt from the laws simply because of how THEY think of the business.

As a business, they are subject to the same laws on fire safety, cleanliness, accounting as any other business.

If people don't wan their homes to be subject to laws affecting commercial venues, then they should simply use their home as collateral for a loan to set up a Hotel business in separate building and keep their home private.

The minute they "sell" their home to the company operating the Hotel, it ceases to be a private property.

People shouldn't set up B&Bs without understanding that basic fact.

27 January 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

First class Your Grace.
Human Rights have become the preserve of the criminal, immigrant and self-appointed oppressed groups. Miss Widdecome puts her point well - as ever.

27 January 2011 at 12:15  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Politically correct venal militancy. If that's what they call equality then they can stick it where the sun doesn't shine...

27 January 2011 at 12:25  
Anonymous JayBee said...

The extremists are intent on supremacy, and they are now terrorising believers into submission. It is a 'religious cleansing' every bit as offensive and obnoxious as that pursued against ethnic groups.

If 'Equality' really stood for what it said on the tin then the equal right of one party would be counterbalanced by the equal right of the opposing party and there would be a legal stalemate. But 'Equality' is a disguise to pursue the opposite course and deliberately fracture society in a similar way to multiculturalism. Smash traditional norms and conventions to impose a very different and supranational society.

It would be useful clarification if there were a Gay v Muslim test case to establish in NuLaw which minority is more equal than the other. Are there any Gaystapo agents brave enough to try? Any with enough bottle to risk the humiliation of finding that their sexual preferences are following their noses off the mountain?

27 January 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Regarding the final paragraph: Islamophobia trumps homophobia in the merry go round.

27 January 2011 at 13:05  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Thank you, your grace, for having the guts to do, what no other political blog has dared to do, and discuss the Nazi-style intimidation being run here. It's sickening to witness in what was once a free country. A backstairs conspiracy with an influential pressure group to get laws passed that allow that same pressure group to persecute ordinary men and women -- not rich or well-connected, of course! -- out of hate. This kind of bullying should be illegal. The laws, passed corruptly, to make it possible, need to be repealed. It doesn't matter who the victim is -- this kind of behaviour is unacceptable to almost everyone.

Please keep reporting the bullying. Bullies don't like their evil deeds brought into the light.

As for why the gays are not targetting Moslems, well we all know the answer to that, which is twofold. (1) Gays aren't sure whether Moslems are higher up the political pecking order than them or not, so can't predict how the carefully selected judges will decide (2) Gays know what happened to Salman Rushdie.

But persecuting a pair of elderly Christians? Well, that's a no risk bit of fun, isn't it?

Nor is this the end of the story. Surely the practical effect, intended here, is to prevent Christians running B&Bs? That is, to make it impossible for Christians to run hotels or offer hospitality, as they have always done since ancient times? We've already seen last year how the gays forced the Catholic adoption agencies to close, so no Catholic can run an adoption agency. No doubt the gays intend to make it impossible for Christians to be in business at all.

Do we feel comfortable in such a society? It is a fingerprint of every repressive society that it interferes with the church. The Christians are harmless -- that's why the gays are attacking them so viciously. But that this is legal -- brrrr!

27 January 2011 at 13:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

It is unwise to ask why they aren’t targeting the others. It would be like suggesting ‘don’t pick on us; pick on the others’.

Besides they know that to do so would provoke such a reaction that it would risk serious social disorder probably leading to the repeal of the laws in question.

Practising Christians have not been known to react violently in defence of their brothers and sisters since 17th century England.

It is unlikely, in my opinion, that Christian B&B owners will succeed on appeal.

Ultimately all these issues: the attacks on conscience and freedom of association (choosing with whom one associates with (for example, under one’s own roof)) mirror the actions of the Nazis and Soviets: the erasure of the distinction between the private and the public spheres of life.

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face...; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime..."

George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

27 January 2011 at 13:26  
Anonymous graham wood said...

jdennis99. You said:
"This issue is not just one of religious freedom, it is also one of freedom of association."

I believe you are correct in identifying the central issue.
Whilst the distinction between a purely private home, and commercial premises is a valid one under the new equality laws, notwithstanding it is the freedom issue which is central - whether the premises are strictly private, or commercial.
Like freedom of speech, of opinion, of expression, freedom of association is a basic right that has long been recognised under English (British) law.
Logically, and of necessity this freedom must include the right of an individual or a group NOT to associate with others.
This is what the current laws and the judge in this case, fail to take into account.
The assumption of freedom of association forms the basis of many groups - i.e. trade unions, political parties, churches, all of which assume the right to freely and voluntarily form an association at the most basic level.
Thus atheists have every right to form an association with other atheists, without the assumption of Christians, Moslems, or any other faith group insisting on the "right" to join. Likewise vice versa with Christians.
The prohibition of full freedom of association therefore, which incidentally harms nobody, and which does not contravene any Statue law, is a basic freedom.
The State historically has respected this, together with the protection of religious minorities.
All that has changed with the new equality laws.
Anne Widdecombe is also correct in that Christians have not discriminated against homosexuals per se, only insisting on their equal right not to associate with homosexual practice.
What if the Bulls demurred from say, rapists, drug users or distributors, or other identifiable and objectionable groups using their rooms?
Where is the line drawn?
The principle is extremely important as soon, no doubt, the homosexual lobby will demand that "gay marriage" in churches formally licensed to marry couples must be open to them - so breaking once again the freedom of churches NOT to associate with those who do not share their doctrine or values.

27 January 2011 at 13:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this "it's our home" debate is missing the point. Whether you conduct a business from the same building that you live in or from separate premises doesn't matter. We should, however, be free to contract, or not, as we see fit. I am at a loss as to why the Bulls should be forced to enter in to a contract that would be repugnant to them. Let us not lose sight of the fact that they were also unwilling to permit unmarried heterosexual couples to share a bed in their establishment. By applying their personal morality to their business they are choosing to limit their potential clientele and therefore the potential profitability of their business. I do not see why the state should intervene to force them to make contracts that they do not wish to make.

27 January 2011 at 13:43  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

One tricky thing that occurs to me is this: the Bulls presumably objected to sinful sexual acts, heterosexual (pre-marital vaginal intercourse) or homosexual (presumably anal intercourse). It is generally accepted by many Christians that it is not sinful for men to live together as long as they are celibate (ie. it's the anal intercourse that is sinful, not the living together). Thus, if regularly married people do anal intercourse, is it sinful? (I would answer "yes"). Would the Christian hoteliers object if they had knowingly accommodated a married man/woman couple who had done such a thing? (Obviously, they would not know, unless they asked). It's a question though.

27 January 2011 at 14:02  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

Or descending in hordes upon Muslim-run B&Bs?

What no full English breakfast!


We must now await the outcome of Mr and Mrs Bull's appeal against the judge's ruling, to establish in the highest court the limits which the state now places upon religious conscience (bigotry) and liberties (wish to discriminate) of the believer.,

Handy translation supplied in bold

27 January 2011 at 14:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ah! at long last Mr Davis's Nazi sympathies are revealed. he supports the termination or at least suppression of conscience.

27 January 2011 at 14:17  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Incidentally, I think "homofascists" and "gaystapo" are used (but not by me, obviously) more often than "gay mafia"; besides, you risk making some gentlemen from Italy very offended and hurt, who might then drag you through the courts and throw the full weight of the pc judiciary at you. Are you good for much in damages, YG?

27 January 2011 at 14:18  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh you think that by labelling something “conscience” gives you the right to do whatever you please. Perhaps your conscience will tell you to kill homosexuals one day and of course that would be ok. Yours is the Nazi mindset.

27 January 2011 at 14:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davuis also wishes to suppress freedom of association: 'wish to discriminate': the right to choose.

At the risk of repetition he evinces nazi and communist sympathies.

27 January 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

We must now await the outcome of Mr and Mrs Bull’s appeal against the judge’s ruling, to establish in the highest court the limits which the state now places upon religious conscience and liberties of the believer.

The only state that matters anymore, the EU, has expressed its wishes in Article 21 of its Charter of Fundamental Rights:

❛Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.❜

27 January 2011 at 14:31  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

YG, Your final paragraph sums it up really. It is cowardice of the highest order. These Gay activists profess to want an equal society and are prepared to subjugate consciousness people to their will, but only if they are weakened by the state. Those that the state dare not take on are left alone by these odious creatures. The other cowards in this scenario, as you quite rightly pointed out, are the C of E. The Church could learn a thing or two from the Islamists.

27 January 2011 at 14:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Johnny Rottenborough spot on about the EUSSR.

Here is Article 34 of the 1977 Constitution of the USSR:

Article 34:

Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status. The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.

27 January 2011 at 15:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Maturecheese (14:44)—The Church could learn a thing or two from the Islamists.

The magnitude of the Church’s learning curve is revealed in today’s Telegraph: whereas 32 per cent of Christians actively practise their religion, the figure is 80 per cent for Muslims.

27 January 2011 at 15:27  
Blogger OldSouth said...

One inevitable result of this, regardless of outcome, will be a decline in the numbers of B&B accommodations in general.

Ramp up the risk, make profit harder to achieve, and fewer and fewer go into a particular business.

Price on remaining supply will also rise.

27 January 2011 at 15:57  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Cultural Marxism enforced through the courts, hopefully what the Arab World is doing will spread here and these entrenched rulers will be shown the door.

The time is ripe for it in every western nation.

27 January 2011 at 16:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must be a moderate. My partner and I would never dream of booking a B&B without first checking whether the proprietors minded. It would be all too embarrassing.

Mind you, I always tend to book a twin room anyway as I'm not really very keen on anyone sharing my bed! The last time I booked a twin room we had two huge kingsize beds in the room - result!

27 January 2011 at 17:00  
Blogger andrew holden said...

"Imagine if this were professing Christians doing the same to a B&B run by homosexuals."

Err, a BB run by homosexuals is certainly NOT allowed by law to refuse business to Christians. If they did then I imagine that they would certainly have been taken to court AND probably lots of 'extremist' Christians would have done exactly this in order to protest against this persecution.

So it's a silly 'imagine' as I doubt that homosexual BB owners would do this in the first place.

OTOH if you grant that the Bulls should be allowed to refuse business to homosexuals then why shouldn't other BB owners refuse business to Christians?

Your Grace is barking up the wrong tree on this one and doing the cause of tolerant, reasonable Christianity no good at all.

27 January 2011 at 17:36  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Anonymous 1.43pm:

I think this "it's our home" debate is missing the point. Whether you conduct a business from the same building that you live in or from separate premises doesn't matter. We should, however, be free to contract, or not, as we see fit. I am at a loss as to why the Bulls should be forced to enter in to a contract that would be repugnant to them.

Well said. (It's a shame you're anonymous!)

We are seeing an erosion of property rights with the smoking ban and having to be careful not to hurt intruders (yeah, right).

This homosexual hotelier in Blackpool was worried about the 'equality' laws because he runs a "gay" only establishment.

I notice on their website they still say "If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment."

Can we expect Preddy and Hall to express their faux outrage at this, as they obviously hate discrimination?!

27 January 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger Sean Baggaley said...

No matter how much equality the state demands, it can never change how people *think*.

The Bulls are being forced to do something against their will: enter into a contract they do not wish to enter. This is much like the Spanish Inquisition turning up at Messrs. Cromwell & Son and demanding they sign a legal contract, or risk being taken to court for discrimination.

There is no point trying to 'eradicate' bigotry, because that's tantamount to demanding everyone be taught everything it is possible for Man to learn. Bigotry is just a synonym for 'ignorance'.

Everyone is ignorant. You. Me. Even Archbishop Cranmer. It is simply not possible to know everything there is to know about every subject under the sun.

Legislating against bigotry is legislating against ignorance. Neither plan has a hope in hell of surviving contact with the enemy.

27 January 2011 at 17:44  
Anonymous Yvonne Johnston (Whyjay99) said...

A very sensible and balanced piece. One thing I have noticed in this debate is the assumption on the part of the Christian guest house owners that the purpose of a double bed is for indulging in sexual activity. Anyone who has been married or co-habited any length of time knows differently, I think.

27 January 2011 at 18:02  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

When I was a bit of a rum turkey in my younger days and the landlord of a pub barred me, if I asked why, the answer was: "I do not need to give a reason, I can refuse to serve anyone I want"

homosexuality is not the problem here nor is christianity or islam.

Cultural Marxism has buggered us all and queers don't even see it.

I use the term queer not out of bigotry, hate or any other marxist word used to silence me but simply because that is the commonly used term within my culture.

My culture is not marxist.

27 January 2011 at 18:02  
Anonymous Flossie said...

As this seems to be developing into a 'gays-v-Christians' argument, let us examine which 'side' contributes most to the nearly-lost perception of 'the common good'.

Christians have eradicated slavery, brought about such institutions as nursing, education of the poor, eradication of poverty, and many other social goods.

Gays, on the other hand, (based on their sexuality alone, I hasten to add) have contributed ... er, well, there's AIDS ...

27 January 2011 at 18:33  
Anonymous len said...

I wonder how many people will now profess to be 'gay', say they have been affronted in some way an go for the compo?

27 January 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Ms Flossie,

His Grace's blog is a space for intelligent and reasoned debate. Your comment is crass and even gratuitously offensive. Homosexuals have suffered appalling persecution over the centuries. On Holocaust Memorial Day, it is worth reflecting on their fate in Hitler's concentration camps.

And some individuals have contributed an awful lot more to the 'common good' than very many Christians. To speak of them collectively and denigrate their corporate contribution, when they have only acquired the freedom to asssociate and organise over recent decades, is remarkably unintelligent.

One could just as easily argue that Christians brought us the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition...

27 January 2011 at 18:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't it NuLabour who helped bring about mass immigration of muslims into this nation? And wasn't it them too who brought about a strengthening of gay rights?

You'd think, Your Grace, that they had done this on purpose! The two don't sit well with one another. We moderates of all descriptions will be shortly sandwiched between the two sides.

What will come out of this? The New World Order and the Anti-Christ?

27 January 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger Suem said...

Gastypo, queers, homosexualists, obnoxious, queers, "them", gays.. odious, repugnant harrasment, bullying tactics. Just a few of the words commentors here have used to describe gay PEOPLE and the fact that those among us who are gay dare to ask for their legal rights to be respected.

David Kato was bludgeoned to death in Uganda I hear on the news today. No doubt you will mainly condemn this act. Such condemnation rings hollow when you have used such language to describe your fellow human beings.

He was a gay activist.

27 January 2011 at 19:01  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Why can't there be a choice. This case is similar to the smoking ban. A few fanatics hate smoking so enforce their views on the majority. That can never be right. If you don't want to have gays sharing the same bed, then you should be able to do so. If you want to offer B&B for gay couples then you should be able to do so. If you don't like Christians, then don't stay with them. Same for muslims or any one else. What I'm trying to say is that tolerance allows for choices, even if you don't agree with them. If tolerance is only acceptable to a few, then don't be surprised if the consequences for your limited tolerance come back to kick you very hard in the teeth. And don't expect any sympathy from the rest of us. I sympathise with the B&B couple and hope they appeal. If they do, I hope they win.

27 January 2011 at 19:09  
Anonymous len said...

What you are saying(those who advocate gay rights )is that Christians rights are not as important as 'gay' rights.Yes..?

What this comes down to is freedom to follow your own conscience, freedom to follow Religious practices.Freedom of speech and ideas.
If these freedoms do NOT exist we live in a Totalitarian State State not a Democracy.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." (George Orwell)

27 January 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Ms Suem I have freely used the word homosexualist to describe people who practise and pursue a homosexual agenda in a similarly aggressive way to that seen in Islamists pursuing their Islamic agenda.

I cannot see why this can be held to dehumanise them. I think it is a descriptive term. Whereas the adjective gay does not in itself carry any special connotation of humanity.

Accepting that people are people does not mean that we have to despoil an English word. You are engaging in linguistic bullying at least as much as that of which you accuse others.

27 January 2011 at 19:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay activists being murdered? Whoopie do! I don't see much in the main stream media about Christians being murdered. Do you?

27 January 2011 at 19:44  
Anonymous Flossie said...

YG,I do not wish to take issue with you on your august blog, but it is homosexual practice we are really discussing, no? I am fully aware of the contributions of people who are merely attracted to the same sex in the arts and many other fields. But homosexual practice per se does not contribute to society in any meaningful way, and this is what we are being demanded unquestioning acceptance of.

BTW, I read a book many moons ago by I can't remember whom, but a Jewish Holocaust survivor, who said that many SS were ultra-macho homosexuals who were among the worst persecutors of 'soft' homosexuals. Not that this makes it any better, of course, but it is not quite as black and white as some people make out.

27 January 2011 at 19:57  
Anonymous Oswin said...


What would be my position in law if I booked into a B&B and, discovering that my hosts were a homosexual couple, decided against staying?

Would I be exercising my right as a customer; or would I be somehow trespassing against the law, as she is now perceived to be?

Any thoughts?

27 January 2011 at 20:06  
Anonymous Gerry Lynch said...

The Wilkinsons are a poor recipient for His Grace's sympathy. Either they are as naive as they are projecting, or alternatively they knew the law, knowingly broke the law, and have little to complain about if they are then subject to the consequences of the law.

If the Wilkinsons thought their B&B was just a private home, I wonder were they paying tax on the proceeds of their business, as well as complying with the fire and safety regulations that apply to B&Bs? If they were, they know fine rightly that their business meant that their home was, in law, treated rather differently than any other private home.

Even if I try to put myself in the shoes of the Wilkinsons, I fail to see how letting a double room to two men compromises their position. They are clearly not themselves being forced to take part in any activity that would breach their interpretation of Christian morals. New Testament scripture is fairly clear that one should, where it does not intself constitute a flagrant moral breach, obey lawful authority. St. Matthew 22:15-22 (and parallel passages in the other synopic gospels) and Romans 13:1-7 might offer the Wilkinsons and their church and interesting point of departure for a bible study on this subject. And the law is pretty clear that one is not aloud to refuse to provide a service to a customer on the basis of their sexuality - any more than one can so do on the basis of their religious beliefs or the colour of their skin. And rightly so.

None of this is to delegitimise the Christian tradition of peaceful resistance to illegitimate authority and unjust laws. But if the Willamsons think that is what they are doing, they really need to do a little bit less whingeing about how the law shouldn't apply to them.

As a communicant Anglican, faithful to the best of my capacity, I also resent the casual and unthinking way that the Wilkinsons, the Bulls and their supporters claim with such lack of qualification that their view is as a result of their Christian principles. I don't doubt that they possess Christian principles, and may be in most ways fine people, but many Christians would be repelled by the idea of turning a gay couple away from lodgings because of their sexuality. Many would even hold that behaving in such a way was itself immoral. So, whatever principles motivate the Williamsons, they cannot be reduced to 'Mere Christianity'.

27 January 2011 at 20:09  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Suem it would be good to remember that homosexuals were traditionaly persecuted by the law, now we have a million and one laws to persecute everyone.

Where is the victory for freedom homosexuals pretended to believe in, the state wins, persecution wins because in the name of the law it convinced homosexuals to help it persecute in return for not persecuting them.

All PEOPLE can be subversive regardless of race, sex or religion.

We need togetherness as a PEOPLE against State intrusion not in support of it.

27 January 2011 at 20:21  
Anonymous Gerry Lynch said...

Archbishop Cranmer also, I think owes Messrs. Black and Bull an apology. He implies that they have waited almost a year to take a case on this subject, and did so only after Messrs. Hall and Preddie successfully sued the Bulls.

Previous press comment on the matter makes it clear that this is not the case. In the earliest reference to the case I can find, on 21 March last year (a BBC article linked to by His Grace in the second paragraph of this post), Messrs. Black and Morgan said they had already reported this matter to Thames Valley Police. In a subsequent BBC News article from 14 May 2010 ( ), the gentlemen said they intended to sue, and right through the case have said they will give any settlement to charity - identified as Oxfam in today's Daily Mail article linked to in His Grace's first paragraph.

I would hope that Archbishop Cranmer will accept their has been a degree of inaccuracy in his comment and will apologise to the gentlemen in question.

27 January 2011 at 20:30  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"It is a 'religious cleansing' every bit as offensive and obnoxious as that pursued against ethnic groups."
Good god. Hysterical, much? Lol.

27 January 2011 at 21:09  
Anonymous CRT said...

"The new morality". Based on Man's viewpoint as to what is right and acceptable, not God's.
Someone mentioned freedom of choice earlier. That's what we should be getting back to. The right to turn people away, the right to serve, the right to reject.
All this posturing and posing over gay rights started only because some minority group with a big mouth began pulling political strings. Then along comes the EU, "thou shalt not discriminate against anyone, based on......". In other words, you are forced by law to keep smiling faces and make polite comments, even if you do not like the sector of society concerned.
The gay Brigades have forced themselves upon society with a clear intent to rupture it, pervert it and woe betide anyone who speaks against them. I am especially angry at church ministers who have seemingly abandoned God's way in order to encompass the new "anything goes" way of life.
Sorry, but it's out of order. Gay people don't have the balls to try their games out on Muslim communities. And it's about time Christians stopped being so wishy-washy and stood up for themselves.

27 January 2011 at 21:28  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I keep going back to reread this with a sense of awe. It's the Daily Mail at its best.

Gay Mafia, Gay Godfather, McCarthyite witch-hunt, co-sexualists, hordes, extremists, terrorising, 'religious cleansing', gay mafioso, extremist homosexualists, descending in hordes.

Cranmer, you're Melanie Phillips today and I claim my £5.

27 January 2011 at 21:32  
Anonymous len said...

You seem easily amused and somewhat overawed, Calm yourself, there is much more to come.

(A fiver is very cheapskate and hardly worth the effort.)

27 January 2011 at 22:25  
Anonymous len said...

This whole 'gay rights 'fiasco is the moral quagmire man has stumbled into when he embarked on the lunatic idea of rejecting God`s moral order and making up his own 'moral code', which is loosely based on there 'are no moral absolutes so anything goes.'
God is for perfect order as laid out in His Creation before sin started the process of corruption and decay, without God we descend into disorder and the resultant chaos.
"The Bible says the soul who sins will die".
This is a simple fact.
This doesn`t mean God will hit you with a lightning bolt, but your lifestyle choices will have a cause and a resultant effect.
God in short is saying "Don`t sin because it will kill you". Physically, Morally and Spiritually.
Seems good advice to me,I wonder why so many do not take it?

27 January 2011 at 22:41  
Anonymous Gladiatrix said...

Just out of interest has anyone considered reporting the judge in the Bulls' case to the OJC for misconduct on the bench? Specifically, indulging in religious discrimination and issuing a judgement that was in itself unlawful for being incompatible with the HRA.

I think someone, perhaps even Your Eminence, should do so if only to make the OJC sit up and think about this.

27 January 2011 at 22:47  
Blogger srizals said...

Roger Pearse said at 13:17;

"(2) Gays know what happened to Salman Rushdie".

Well, he was knighted, pampered with security fitting for a king, blessed with luxury and popularity, and married a very sexy lady. All on the expenses of the nice people of the Great Britain. Was he even a British?

And your point is?

"A former bodyguard to Rushdie, Ron Evans, planned to publish a book recounting the behaviour of the author during the time he was in hiding. Evans claimed that Rushdie tried to profit financially from the fatwa and was suicidal, but Rushdie dismissed the book as a "bunch of lies" and took legal action against Ron Evans, his co-author and their publisher.[36] On 26 August 2008 Rushdie received an apology at the High Court in London from all three parties.[37]"

See, only the privileged, selected few can have the freedom they want. They are special. The rest are goyyim. If not to a certain party, they are 'blessed' to be one for other higher beings, especially when it comes down to intimidating Muslims. Try to be not, no one would even remember your name.

27 January 2011 at 23:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Len said; 'God in short is saying "Don`t sin because it will kill you".'

Only in Sharia, Len. In the highly civilised West, you'll end up with 'life' in a very, very expensive prison to educate you and make you sorry for all the death and everlasting miseries you have caused to the 'deserving' non-sinners. You sinned and got pampered by the 'society' (the ruling elites, more likely).

Who could have asked for more? The Gays?

27 January 2011 at 23:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If there's one place that the Kingdom should be demonstrated first and foremost, its in the believer's family. And if there's one place that Satan is attacking today, its the family. The family was designed by God to represent the Kingdom , and Satan wants to blur, obscure and eliminate the message of the Kingdom. He is afraid of the Kingdom because wherever the Kingdom is established his power has come to an end."

The late Derek Prince

27 January 2011 at 23:40  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

This is a difficult one Your Grace. Some gay couples now have adopted children. What if it was a practising Christian gay couple with children that booked a family room and then turned up only to be ejected, or denied service, and then had to explain to the children that in the eyes (or minds) of some Christians, they are considered as abominations. What a thing to have to explain to your children. We need clear guidelines on what is and is not the right thing to do in the eyes of the law. For instance, it could be a requisite that Christians who object should have their objections clearly set out at times of booking, otherwise they are obliged to accept. Maybe, or maybe not. Difficult one.

28 January 2011 at 00:27  
Anonymous Gerry Lynch said...

Oh, and while I'm at it, you owe Peter Tatchell an apology. He's the one who stood behind that Cumbrian street preacher's right to free speech, not the milquetoast moderates you laud.

28 January 2011 at 01:28  
Anonymous Tony Sidaway said...

This new case seems to have even more merit than the Cornish one, on the face of it. The Bulls in Cornwalk had an established record, evidenced by newspaper stories going back over a decade, of refusing double rooms to unmarried couples, so that case depended on a close passing of the regulations under the Equality Act equating civil partnerships and marriages. In the new case it appears the hotelier simply decided she wouldn't accept two gay men, and there's no suggestion as yet of a general bar on use of the facilities to the unmarried. So that sounds like a very clear and blatant act of unlawful discrimination.

The blogger here (let's not play cute, he isn't a long-deceased Tudor church leader any more than I'm Alfred the Great) says the new plaintiffs waited months to get upset, but he links to an article from last year in which they were so upset they went to the police to report the homophobic incident. That isn't a sensible way to blog, because your dishonesty is easily spotted. False witness, hmmm.

28 January 2011 at 05:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this actually right?

28 January 2011 at 06:41  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

There's something deeply, deeply unpleasant about watching self-righteous Christians gorging themselves on a story about gay people.

I've recently spent a couple of weeks on a Christian blog watching a stream of really quite vicious comments flow by. The place seemed almost devoid of love at times, except for the comments of one very lovely exception.

Christianity ought to be fairly attractive, given one of its core messages in Matthew 5, but I find it hard not to be repelled by some of the people who supposedly practise it.

28 January 2011 at 06:51  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

So where does this leave "the management reserves the right of admission"?I have been refused service many times ,in various places,in one instance in was told that i could not enter,because "i did not look as if i had many possessions"The thugs on the door to clubs and such like are actively discriminating and back this up with physical violence,yet here we have Christians who like the majority are revolted by these perverts practices,what did mrs winsor say in 1953 about upholding the protestant religion?

28 January 2011 at 07:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congratulations mr. Cranmer on stealing the rhetoric of Robert Mugabe. Your mother must be so proud of what you're doing.

28 January 2011 at 08:07  
Anonymous len said...

There is an universal Spiritual Law 'The Law of Sin and Death'it is this which kills you!.

If Bible believing Christians just comply with the secular and 'gay' societies and tell them that God loves them this would be only half the truth.
To see God`s judgement on sin look at what happened to Jesus when he atoned for man sin on the Cross at Calvary.
For Christians to sit back and do nothing just to say "God is love don`t worry, don`t be judgemental" is this Love?.Certainly not!. This is the spineless 'christianity' we see today.
We Christians should be shouting "Repent,the period of God`s grace will come to an end, get right with God BEFORE Judgement falls!!!!.
Christians should be waking up the
secular World from its stupor.
Well done your Grace it takes courage to tell the truth in an age of universal deception!.

28 January 2011 at 08:25  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Spot On Len. We are all sinners but we must try to repent and turn away from our sunning behaviour. To just turn around and say it doesn't matter and we can do as we please, is so wrong.

28 January 2011 at 09:02  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Can we have the Briefing Notes supplied to Judges by the Ministry of Justice and LCJ published ?

It would be so nice to see what steer Judges are given in such matters and how they are to "interpret" marriage

28 January 2011 at 10:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The joys or cultural marxism. And there’s plenty more to come thanks to Labour and ConDem.

28 January 2011 at 10:23  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

len: "Christians should be waking up the secular World from its stupor."

We had centuries of that sort of stuff and, well, knowing what I know of English history, I think it's rather nice to be living now instead of then to be honest. That's not stupor.

Of course, Christians are not the only ones with a sense of certainty anyway. No doubt Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists feel the same way. No doubt followers of Baal and Zeus and Mithras and many others thought so too.

28 January 2011 at 10:25  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I see there are a few militants from both sides of the equasion here, some of them not particularly gracious. I don't have an axe to grind with sexual orientation because I have a close relative who is gay. His sexual orientation doesn't stop him being accepted by family or friends. It certainly doesn't prevent him from being a likeable, highly intelligent individual with feelings, ambitions and hopes. He doesn't need "rights" to exist because he already shares common rights with everyone else. He loathes militancy because of the negative impact it has. He's not special and doesn't want to be treated as special. He just wants to get on with his life. He also accepts that some people can be idiots but doesn't think they don't have the legal right to be idiots. You don't bring people around to a different point of view by forcing them to accept what they find unacceptable. All that does is entrench the problem and that's what we have here.

I am not a practicing Christian; I'm an agnostic so no religious axe to grind. What concerns me is this "rights" issue. In fact I believe it is "rights" that concerns the host of this blog. It seems that some "rights" are not equal to other "rights". In my mind superior rights therefore cancel out inferior rights.

That's unfair.

Earlier in the comments someone posted a link to a men only, gay hotel. According to the law as it exists, this hotel breaches a number of equality issues and is therefore breaking the law. It holds a parallel with the Bulls' situation yet it is the Bulls' who have come under attack.

That's unfair.

This is what happens when the law imposes unequal "rights".

I do not condemn the existence of gay only hotels. People should be allowed to feel free to enjoy their holiday without putting up with disapproving scowls over the breakfast croissants. Nor do I condemn the Bulls who should be able to feel free to accept into their establishment whomsoever they wish or not without the fear of falling foul of "rights" superior to their own. If gay hotels are permitted to exist (and why shouldn't they?) then so should Christian B&Bs.

Bullying is distasteful and legal bullying is worse because it eats into society like concentrated acid and steamrollers over individual expressions of freedom. It also creates social rifts like the one demonstrated by the comments and boy, do people enjoy tearing it wider.

State intervention doesn't solve anything, it merely opens up a festering wound. Some people will always dislike what other people do, it's part of human nature. We are all supposed to be adults who learned to deal with namecalling in the playground so get over it.

28 January 2011 at 10:32  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

YG, might I just point out that it's argued very strongly (with evidence), in various places, that the Nazis were in no way anti-gay, but indeed were essentially a product of a particular kind of homosexual culture, and the gays that were elliminated were simply rivals to Hitler or his brand of National Socialism, and that sending them to camps, etc., was not because they were gay as such. Hitler - it is argued - was very much gay. See, for example: No doubt Stonewall activists would say this is all lies - but maybe it's right, and they are wrong.

28 January 2011 at 10:47  
Blogger Hazel said...

*Blink and rubs eyes*

Thankfully, the moderates are siding with the believers, for they appreciate the value of liberty and the right to dissent. Ann Widdecombe and a young gay Tory activist Robert Leitch have spoken out against the gay mafioso.

Did you just call Ann Widdecombe a 'moderate'?

28 January 2011 at 10:47  
Anonymous Caedmon's Cat said...

Once again I see among the comments of this blog more than a few hostile postures by those who aggressively attack a caricature of what is being presented. But then, it's easier to pour vituperation onto a cardboard cut-out than the real thing - after all, that takes courage, knowledge and consideration, doesn't it? I find it nauseating that Christians are regularly presented by certain commenters as mindless bigots by those who've already formed their own immutable opinions. By so doing they undermine their argument by portraying themselves in the same light as the very people they attempt to demonise.

Cranmer is right to highlight this issue; the underlying principle in all of this is freedom of conscience - and this applies to all - regardless of belief. If the state legislates to criminalise those who take a stand on a social issue because it's contrary to their personal convictions - whether they be Christian or not - then it has stepped beyond its remit, and a showdown is inevitable. The imposition of legislation deliberately favouring vociferous minorities is deliberately designed to polarise and to provoke. When people on opposing sides of the divide start throwing polemical punches, they've achieved exactly what was intended by the legislation.

For those Christians who are inclined to thunder God's judgement on the issue - remember that Christ directed His wrath against the religious and self-righteous rather than the sinners. It's not our job to single out specific issues and magnify them. All sin is equally damnable - and the good news is pardon and peace with God, regardless of the offence. When Paul spoke of homosexual practice in Romans 1, he was framing the issue within a wider context - i.e. the outworking of the wrath of God. He didn't thunder judgement against those engaged in homosexual practices. He reminds the Corinthians that there were such among them - before they were washed and sanctified. Gay people need Christ as much as anyone else; singling them out is neither wise nor constructive.

28 January 2011 at 11:06  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Jared Gaites (00:27)—Is it likely that a gay Christian couple would have children? Children get the best start in life with a mother and father who are married. Knowing that, would a gay Christian couple (honour bound as Christians to put the well-being of others first) even consider raising children? Good to see you back.

@ Gnostic (10:32)—Superb.

28 January 2011 at 13:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Were a none religious B&B owner to turn away a couple because they were christians, the god bothering bleeding hearts would hold this as an example of anti christian bigorty and use the law in just the same way as this gay couple has done; rightly in my opinion.
If you want to set up a business in my country you cannot discriminate against people based on their sexuality...or their religion.
Christians should beat a swift path to church aand offer up prayors of thanks for such protection.

28 January 2011 at 17:39  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

A rather fine piece by Johann Hari today in the Indy:

28 January 2011 at 18:08  
Anonymous Corey Mondello said...

Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.'s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it's way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this. James Madison, the "Father of the U.S. Constitution", along with many founders of this country, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations, knew keeping politics and religion separate not only preserves each, but helps them flourish: "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State."

28 January 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Corey Mondello - you have just won the braindead bullshit of the week prize.

Well done.

29 January 2011 at 08:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We ALL have to answer for how we lived our lives while here.
Some are going to find that a bit tricky.
The foolish one's think repenting at the end will 'do it' for them.
I watched something a while back called 'Hell's gateway'and a fellow on there,who had 'died' and saw Hell,said,"anyone who thinks that just because they have been
'good' while here does not get you direct entry upwards".
You first have to pass through Hell
I was presuming from what the bloke said,you have to know the difference from 'good'&'evil'...
Thinking you do is not enough,
because you will be'tempted'as you pass through Hell.
Scared the heeby geeby's out of me and I ask myself every night,Will I REALLY know good from evil?
I know right from wrong,but good v evil is different...cunning little bugger that devil bloke.
What if I have to eat chocolate forever!!!!
In that bloody heat!!!
(Last bit's a jest,but the rest is true).

29 January 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger Nightwatchstate said...

Gay "moderate" reporting in. Leftists are leftists no matter who they sleep with. Should time arise for me to show solidarity with Mr Leitch, to speak up for liberty despite others who tar the reputation of freedom loving homosexuals, I will without doubt or fear from the equality supremacist brigade.

30 January 2011 at 01:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quite by chance while searching the internet for articles regarding gay bullying from within it's own community I happened upon your blog 'The Emergence Of The Gay Mafia,' and as a gay man, in the main I found what you wrote to be entirely accurate and perfectly true.

Many outsiders would dissagree that the gay mafia exists at all, but it certainly does, and with even more vehremence and power from within its own circle than one would imagine, especially if one happens to dissagree or venture an opinion which differs with that of the majority. The concequenses of doing so would not be particularly pleasant and would certainly reverberate throughout all aspects of general gay life from the workplace to private social activities.

Sadly all too many gay men and women are now too frightened to speak out against it.

Thirty years ago the aim was just to be seen to be as being no different to the heterosexual community but the past few years have brought about a millitant attitude that the laws and ideas of everday society now have to be especially adapted to cater to the gay community & lifestyle for there is to be no compromise.

I felt very sorry for Mr & Mrs Bull when I first read of the new case. But I doubt it would have arisen had it not been for the previous action sought by Michael Black and John Morgan who were obviously equally 'terribly upset' as gay men.

Two other recent incidents in Bristol, the home of Hall and Preddy immediately sprang to mind; and also

Where is the discrimination and victimisation now?

Surprisingly, even now if one telephones to complain of such activity the council insists no-one has ever complained before!

It is not the heterosexual society who now victimise the gay community, but the community itself who are pushing the boundaries of common sense and decency who are now deliberately causing many of the problems., backed by the THT and the likes of Peter Tatchell.

Even family social networking sites such as Facebook are not immune.

More and more the website is being used as another gay forum. And because it is self moderating it is free to distribute entirely innapropriate images without fear of being reported.

Just where is this going to end?

23 February 2011 at 14:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older