When ‘Human Rights’ Go Too Far

The basic concept of Human Rights is a noble one, or at least it was intended to be when first thought up. Sadly, times have changed.

It Seems Some Have More Rights Than Others!

Today, the laws are twisted and misused by many intent on getting their own way or evading justice, no matter what.

I find it distinctly disconcerting that the law not only allows this, but is complicit in many cases where the just rights of one individual are trampled by the courts because some malcontent feels he has been aggrieved.

I refer in the main to a case that came before a British court, brought by two homosexuals who were refused permission to stay in the hotel belonging to a devout christian couple in 2008.

The Chymorvah Hotel

Peter and Hazelmary Bull own the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance, and both hold strong christian believes. It has always been their policy not to allow unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, to share a bed in their hotel for they believe strongly in the sanctity of marriage.

This is indeed an unusual and refreshing attitude in this age of promiscuity, where it would seem anything, and indeed everything, goes.

The case against the Bull’s was brought by the homosexual ‘couple’ Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy who were turned away after they had booked a double room at the hotel because they were not married. They brought the case claiming sexual orientation discrimination under the Equality Act Regulations of 2007.

The Plaintiffs

The judge who heard the case, Judge Andrew Rutherford, agreed that the Bull’s had a right to their religious beliefs, but said social attitudes had changed in the last fifty years. While the Bull’s view may well have been the norm in those times, it was not in current society. For this reason he found in favour of Hall and Preddy.

The Hall’s were ordered to pay £1,800 to each of the plaintiffs, which thankfully has been covered by donations from The Christian Institute. Its interesting to note that Hall and Preddy’s case was funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. So no big bills for them!

The Defendants – Standing Up For Christian Values

After the ruling Mrs Bull is quoted as saying: “I do feel that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain. The same laws used against us have been used to shut down faith-based adoption agencies. Much is said about ‘equality and diversity’ but it seems some people are more equal than others.” Oh I do so agree Madam!

While I may be classed as ‘old school’, I agree with the right of the Hall’s to ban undesirables from their hotel whenever they please, and I have a certain affinity with their reasons. We have become far too promiscuous these days, evidenced by the number of single parent teenage mothers on our streets daily, many the result of ‘a one night stand’.

That is not to say my beliefs are as strong as the Bull’s, for I do feel a little practice is necessary in a long-term attachment before marriage, even if its just to find out if you are completely compatible!

And Not A Cop To Be Seen!

Today sees ‘Gay Pride’ parades in many cities around the world, with these misfits cavorting around around naked, semi-naked or in outrageous costumes that would have participants in a heterosexual parade arrested on the spot for contravening the decency laws.

Is this what we want our children to see?

The Equality and Human Rights Laws have given these misfits a voice, allowing them to ride roughshod over the rights of decent, law-abiding citizens at will.

Who knows how long it will be before a pedophile for example, uses these same laws to gain the right, as a down trodden minority, to molest children! Yes, I know, that’s crazy, but if a convicted felon can use these laws to escape a jail sentence or a terrorist deportation, who is to say it won’t happen.

We as a race have gone too far down the road of iniquity, so far in fact that decent behaviour and morals have faded to insignificance for many. This I find sad!



It’s nice to hear the Bull’s are to appeal the ruling by Judge Rutherford in the High Court. Hopefully, this time they will get proper justice.

21 Responses to “When ‘Human Rights’ Go Too Far”

  1. Heyo Says:

    “PRIVATE HOTEL” Gee, shouldn’t that mean that THE OWNERS get to say who stays and who goes? I’m only 26 and I’m the most old-school person I know of besides my grandmother.

    P.S. I know, old post. 😛


    • Hi Heyo,
      Nice of you to comment. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment, its just a shame the law doesn’t. I can only conclude the country is going to the dogs and I am glad I am no longer part of it, except in spirit.
      Best Regards,


  2. Clif Says:

    Hi Roy,

    I completely agree with you! It’s almost as if I have written the article myself.
    The basic concept of human right is great, in general. But now things have gotten out of hand. Human rights these days equal “do exactly what the heck we want “. That’s my perception.
    Sometimes when we as human beings think that we take 2 steps forward, in reality we are taking 4 steps back. Human right, as they are enforced at the moment are contributing to the moral downfall of society, a downfall that we are confronted with every day.
    For example:In this case the human rights of these homosexual men were more important than the religious rights of the hotel owners, according to the judge.
    An important thing that I like to add: this might sounds controversial, but in general, human rights and Christianity don’t go together. I know that there are human rights activists, famous human rights activists out there who claim to be Christian, but if you support gay rights, same sex marriage, abortion etc. my friend, you are not a Christian, you just claim that you are. Of course there are certain human rights that are in line with Christianity, but in general they just don’t go together. So there will always be clashes.

    And Roy, I never argue with atheists. That would be a silly waist of my time.

    Thanks for the article Roy,

    Take care,



    • Hi Clifton,
      Thanks for the input. I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this is wrong. Unfortunately, there are many who do not because they holding human rights, and in particular ‘gay rights’, above all others. A sad fact of life today.


    • Stephen Davies Says:

      Would learning to spell be a “waist” of your time as well? You won’t argue with atheists, you say…well I won’t argue you then. But, seeing as you think you are allowed to impose your sad little views on people, here’s mine: you are an idiot.


      • Thanks for the comment Stephen,
        Like everyone else on the planet you have a right to your views, hence your comment appearing on this post. I would however say in my own defence that I do not impose my views on anyone. All who read my posts are free to decide what they think. Some will agree, while others may not of course. When writing I do take care with the spelling, and on balance, I think I make far fewer than the majority of people these days (“well I won’t argue [with] you then”). I will however not deny that occasionally one slips through unnoticed, but is corrected when found. It would appear from the vehemence of your comment that you are also ‘a member of the club’, if so that is your business, but it will not stop me from saying what I think on the subject of homosexuality. If you have views of your own, perhaps you too should start a blog and let the world know what you think.
        Best Regards,


      • Brad Foster Says:

        I think Stephen you are bloody “waist” of space. If this was my blog I would not allow your comment to be on this post. You can´t read, obviously a normal person would give his views and disagrements in relation to the subject. You can´t spell or write proper English either, maybe because you are the idiot. Stupid!!! Pisses me off people like you who think that they have a right to say something just cause you have to open your ugly mouth. If you are going to make a comment, say something that is constructive and enlightens people about your views on this point in particular, otherwise keep your stupid mouth closed.


      • Heyo Says:

        There is no point in arguing with atheists or theists about things they have strong opinions of, having been the former and being the latter. People will hold onto their convictions in spite of naysayers. If you don’t like it then that’s fine, you don’t have to be here. (protip: since your presence here is involuntary, nothing is thus imposed upon you in any sense at all – using words that you don’t know the meaning of is idiotic)


      • Hi Again Heyo,
        Welcome back. People today seem to jump on an idea without ever thinking about what it is they are passionate about. Deep thinking on almost any subject is a thing of the past. Folks don’t ask why anymore when someone says you should support e.g. homosexual freedom. Because morals are practically non-existent these days, no-one sees anything wrong in homosexuality, them getting ‘married’ or adopting children. If they took the time to stop and think of the possible psychological affects on children being brought up by two men, they may also think it is not such a good idea. People need to think of where society is headed by going down this road.
        Best Regards,


  3. Nicky Flouee Says:

    It is very interesting for me to read the article. Thank you for it. I like such topics and everything that is connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more on this blog soon.

    Nicky Flouee


  4. Well Roy, you raise some points above that aren’t related to the Equality Act or to homosexuality. Maybe we could discuss those some other time but for now I’d like to retain the focus on the respective rights of Christians and homosexuals.

    So your view is that homosexuals are deviants and the law that allows them to sue against unequal treatment is immoral. On marriage you say “married for any normal person means in the eyes of God, not a piece of paper from the local registrar under a dubious law.” Well it would be interesting to hear from Mr and Mrs Bull about whether they have ever refused a double room to a couple because they were only married through a civil procedure in a registry office. I’m guessing that they’ve never done that, though no doubt it would have made for some interesting newspaper headlines down the years.

    “[S]urely, commitment is an essential part of two people living together, and in particular, raising children.” An interesting point. There are married heterosexual couples who have never raised children. Are they then not married in the sight of God? Homosexual couples often do adopt and raise children, either belonging to one of the couple or through the normal adoption process. You have made it plain that in your eyes such a couple is not married in the sight of God. So the raising of children, while an important aspect of many marriages, is not essential.

    “The Bull’s have the same right to protection of their beliefs as anyone else.” Yes we agree on this at least in principle. If the Preddy/Hall couple were the hoteliers and they excluded the Bulls because they are Christians, the Bulls would have a case to sue for religious discrimination, which I think we would both strongly support.

    “I do not wish to see or hear from homosexuals. I do not wish to have their deviance in my face at Gay Parades or see them on the streets walking hand in hand.”

    What would you say to a hypothetical person who said he didn’t want to see or hear from religious people, didn’t want them to give witness in the street or hold religious processions and gatherings? I think I would say, as an atheist myself, “if you don’t want to see that don’t look.” I’ve been visited at my home by preachers going from door to door, or approaching me in the street, and never found that offensive. I just say politely “I’m not interested”, and the usual response is a polite “good day” and that’s that. All people have a right to practice and teach their religion, in defence of which I would fight if necessary.

    I think this discussion started out with the appearance of an argument about rights, but it’s becoming increasingly obvious that it’s about morality. I view homosexuality as morally neutral whereas you see it as fundamentally immoral, something to be hidden lest it offend “normal” people. That’s a pretty fundamental disagreement, but I’m old enough to remember when this view was widespread enough to be thought righteous and homosexual campaigners were on the extreme margins without any real political power.

    Would it be right to abandon hope that you will be persuaded that homosexuals are not intrinsically immoral, and that married homosexuals should have recourse to legal protection of their rights to be treated as the equals of married heterosexuals? I don’t want to abandon hope, but of course in practical terms I think our current discussion is at an end because on this occasion we cannot reach agreement. There may be other occasions when a more productive discussion can proceed. I value your contribution as it has helped me to understand your honest and deeply held objection to this law and to this outcome. Thank you.


    • As you say Tony, there seems to be little ground for us to agree on this issue, but Ces’t La Vie, we each have a right to our own opinions. Firstly, what I in fact said was, that civil unions by homosexuals, and the law that allows it, is immoral. In my opinion, such a law should never have been passed in the first place. Thereby, any actions taken under the said law are inappropriate.
      I do agree that many hetrosexual couples do not have children, but even in such a case I feel ‘commitment’ to marriage is essential. If you truely love someone then you should not balk at this. On this subject, we have become a nation that lacks commitment to most things and that is detrimental to our well-being in general.
      With regard to the raising of children by homosexuals, I have serious doubt that any child in such a union could ever grow up to function without some form of psychlogical damage. It needs more time and study to find out what the ramifications are in such a situation.
      It amuses me that you mention Jehova’s Witnesses. I too have had them on the door many times, but I found the best cure is to tell them politely not to call anymore, and they don’t. With regard to your parades comment, I have never seen christanity peddlers flocking the streets in skimpy (to say the least) costumes and grinding against one another in a provocative fashion as happens on these parades. This activity does nothing to further the cause of homosexuality in our society.
      I am of the older generation when homosexuals carried out their business in private, and to be honest I would prefer it that way. As previously said, I don’t like having it shoved in my face when I walk down the street or watch the news on TV.
      I am well aware, that apart from their sexual preferences, homosexuals are for the main part decent people. I do not deny that, but in general, they should not be forcing acceptance of their way of life on normal people through the courts or parades.
      I seems we must agree to disagree on this matter. I respect your point of view as I hope you respect mine. Thank you sincerly for your comments. Good Luck!


  5. So when you say that the “noble” idea of human rights has “gone too far”, you mean that you object to homosexuals having such rights protected in the courts?

    You say the laws are “twisted and misused by many intent on getting their own way or evading justice, no matter what.” That would be the Equality Act and its associated secondary legislation.

    This law says that in this context marriages and civil partnerships are equal, and if somebody is treated differently from a married person because he or she is in a civil partnership, that’s unlawful discrimination.

    Now that you know what the law says, would you care to revise your opinion that the law is being “twisted and misused”? Wouldn’t it simply be more accurate to state that you did not know what the law said?


    • Hi Tony,
      Nice to hear from you, and I appreciate your comment. However, as a Christian I am against the so-called ‘Civil Partnership’ because I think it is immoral. Speaking for myself, I do not think homosexuals in such a ‘union’ should have the same rights as normal couples for the simple reason the ‘union’ itself should not be allowed under the law, and I care not what the law says! We have all recently heard about Elton John trumpeting about how proud he is to be a father. No-one has yet any idea the psycological effect it will have on a child growing up in a homosexual home. To begin with: Who do they call Mummy! On top of that, no-one knows yet the extent of the vicious taunting such a child will have to contend with when they start school. Children, as I am sure you know, can be very cruel in such circumstances.
      In the hotel case it is my firm conviction that the rights of the Christian couple were trampled upon as they banned both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and as Mrs Bull said: “… it seems some people are more equal than others”. What about their rights? It is my belief that the only reason the Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs is the amount of hype that surrounds every case concerning homosexuals these days. That does not make it right!
      I did make a point that many people have used our Human Rights and Equality laws to escape justice: “…but if a convicted felon can use these laws to escape a jail sentence or a terrorist deportation” which in effect makes them an ass.
      Since they ‘came out of the closet’, homosexuals have screamed for their rights from every rooftop, indulge in lewd and disgusting displays with their Gay Parades shoving their diviance down everyone’s throats. Since when do hetrosexual couples behave in such ways on our streets? They don’t! I lived in Holland for many years and was sickened by the sight of homosexual couples walking down the street kissing and fondling each others backside. Normal couples don’t do this!
      Let me however make one thing clear, I have no problem with homosexuals provided they keep it private and refrain from trumpeting their deviance to everyone. In other words, they should get back in the closet and stay there!


      • You now say “I care not what the law says!”

        I think that really sums it up. You’re accusing homosexuals of manipulating the law, you say it’s being “twisted and misused”. Then when I point out that it’s being interpreted very straightforwardly you say you don’t care what it says.

        You repeat Mrs Bull’s plaintive cry “it seems some people are more equal than others”, but you don’t seem to understand that all the law says is that married people and those in civil unions must be treated the same–they should be treated exactly equally, not better.

        Being religious doesn’t give anybody the right to ignore the rights of another. You have the right to follow a religion only up to the point where you don’t step on another’s rights. Here the right to equal treatment was infringed by an act of unlawful discrimination.

        “I have no problem with homosexuals provided they keep it private and refrain from trumpeting their deviance to everyone.”

        Such as getting married to one another, you mean?


      • Hi Tony,
        Nice to hear from you again. It is true I do not care what the law says, for the simple reason I do not agree with it being passed into legislation in the first place. I have never refuted the fact that within the framework of such a law, homosexuals have the right to complain about their treatment, but that does not justify an immoral law. If every deviant on the planet of no matter what ilk can find justfication, and indeed protection, under such laws then there has to be something wrong with the system. The Human Rights and Equality laws have been misused by many in the past, and I meant that in a general sense.
        As an example, Abu Namsa the Islamic hate preacher managed to escape deportation using these laws. Another prime example is covered in my post dated 17/12/2010 “When the Law is an Ass”. A Muslim hit and run driver who killed a child evaded deportation for the simple reason he married an english girl and “had a right to family life”. This despite having a string of convictions. The people of this country must now harbour a known killer who had no right to be here in the first place. Hence my agreement with Mrs Bull’s statement that some have more rights than others, especially if you are from a minority group.
        Surely you cannot deny that the Bull’s also have human rights, and despite the fact they made the same distinction for hetrosexual couples, were pilloried in the court. They made it clear during the hearing they did not take such action because the two were homosexuals, but because they were not married. And before you comment, married for any normal person means in the eyes of God, not a piece of paper from the local registrar under a dubious law.
        I fully understand that marriage is considered unnecessary my many today, people preferring not to have the commitment that it brings, but surely, commitment is an essential part of two people living together, and in particular, raising children. Such practices are accepted as normal these days, but do not make for stable relationships in my view.
        I for one will never accept that two people of the same sex can be married in the eyes of God, for such a union is described as an abomination. You can pass all the laws you like about such things, but it doesn’t make it right. The Bull’s have the same right to protection of their beliefs as anyone else.
        In such cases there are always two sides to the story and in any event one side must lose, but I find the ruling incorrect on moral grounds, if not under the law.
        How would you feel if squatters took over your house while you were out and refused to move? This happened to a UK family last year. You could take them to court, but what if the judge listened to their sob story about not having a roof over their heads and found against you, giving them the right to stay in your house? Such a judgment would be correct under the law, but that doesn’t make it morally correct. But they too are a minority that require protection under the Human Rights and Equality laws are they not!
        So far as the ‘Private’ quote is concerned, I do not wish to see or hear from homosexuals. I do not wish to have their deviance in my face at Gay Parades or see them on the streets walking hand in hand. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them and no concern of mine. I also do not wish to see laws passed that support immorality and most certainly the adoption of children by such couples.
        There is more than enough trouble in the world today


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: