Iain Davenport (Letters, 30 November) defends the right of guesthouse owners the Bulls to refuse to book in a gay couple because, like the heterosexual couples they also turned away, they were not married.
However, the gay couple in question are in a civil partnership, an institution of comparable legal status – a fact not recognised by the Bulls or, it would seem, Mr Davenport.
He argues that as some religious celebrants have secured the right not to marry same-sex couples, exemption on the grounds of “conscience” is not unprecedented. How much anti-gay discrimination would Mr Davenport endorse?
It is a flagrant religious privilege to be granted power by the state to marry couples and also to choose whom they marry. I’m certain there would be zero tolerance of any refusal to marry a mixed-race couple or to deny them room in the inn.
the prosecution of a Christian couple, Mr and Mrs Bull, for refusing to let unmarried couples book double beds was more about enforcing official state doctrine than about protecting the hurt feelings of two men who faced the inconvenience of having to find another B&B.
Meanwhile, “Key West” proudly proclaims itself “the UK’s first gay resort and the largest gay men only venue in the south of England”. Perhaps if Mr and Mrs Bull had branded their double bedrooms as “a straight married couples’ resort” they would still be in business. But, of course, we know that they wouldn’t because our faulty laws and aggressive taxpayer-funded gay rights lobby are driven by ideology, not justice.