England and Europe have successfully traded their Christian tradition for a future
in which fisting, felching, farming, scat, chariot racing, jack hammering and the like are
“normal and positive” aspects of human sexuality. This is an inescapable objective
and consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Bulls below.
What is felching?
Felching is sucking (usually your own) cum out of someone’s arse, possibly with a straw. It may then include passing the spunk from mouth to mouth.
What’s the attraction?
Many of us are drawn towards tasting or swallowing cum (our own or others). It can mean taking into the body something seen as valued and potent.
Felching can also signify the end of the sex act. This meaning is even stronger if the cum’s been inside the other man as it’s a strong sign of two men joining together in a very intimate, ‘no limits’ way.
A strong, ‘piggy’ erotic charge comes from breaking the taboos around cleanliness and health that come with taking into your mouth something that’s been up another man’s arse.
xxxx Ends xxxx
B&B owners’ right to bar gay couple crushed by ‘need to fight discrimination’
- Guesthouse owners Peter Bull, 74, and his wife Hazelmary, 69, turned away Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy
- Bulls said they thought that any sex outside marriage was ‘a sin’ – and denied discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy
- Couple had previously lost fights in County Court and the Court of Appeal
- Now five Supreme Court justices have ruled against them
PUBLISHED: 12:08 GMT, 27 November 2013 | UPDATED: 00:42 GMT, 28 November 2013
A judge has said the rights of two Christian B&B owners to bar a gay couple from sharing a room were outweighed by the need to correct ‘centuries of discrimination’ against gay people.
The Supreme Court yesterday rejected the claim by Peter and Hazelmary Bull that they acted within the law when they refused a room to Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall because they were not a heterosexual married couple.
The decision ends a five-year legal battle that began when Mr Preddy and Mr Hall, backed by the Government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, took the Bulls to court under equality laws.
Lady Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, dismissed the Bulls’ appeal to the country’s highest court, saying that discrimination against homosexuals was ‘an affront to their dignity as human beings’.
She added that hundreds of years of persecution of gays had led European human rights judges in Strasbourg to require strong reasons to justify discrimination against them.
‘It is for that reason that we should be slow to accept that prohibiting hotel keepers from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion,’ Lady Hale said.
It follows a series of cases in which judges in London and Strasbourg have found against Christians who dissented from gay rights laws.
Among those who lost were Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington who wanted to avoid presiding at civil partnership ceremonies, and Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor sacked after he was questioned by his employers over his attitude to gay rights following a statement that he would not give sex therapy to a gay couple.
The Bulls were taken to court after they turned Mr Hall and Mr Preddy away from their Chymorvah Hotel, in Marazion, Cornwall, in September 2008.
The Supreme Court judges have upheld an earlier ruling that the Bulls, whose lawyers were paid for by the Christian Institute think tank, must pay £3,600 in compensation to Mr Hall and Mr Preddy.
Mrs Bull said yesterday: ‘We are deeply disappointed and saddened by the outcome. We are just ordinary Christians who believe in the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Our B&B is not just our business, it’s our home.
‘These beliefs are not based on hostility to anyone. We certainly bear no ill-will to Steven and Martyn.’
She added: ‘Britain ought to be a country of freedom and tolerance, but it seems religious beliefs must play second fiddle to the new orthodoxy of political correctness.
‘AN AFFRONT TO THEIR DIGNITY’: JUDGE’S RULING AGAINST GUESTHOUSE OWNERS
Dismissing the appeal, Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: ‘Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation.’
Homosexuals ‘were long denied the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others’, she said, adding: ‘This was an affront to their dignity as human beings which our law has now (some would say belatedly) recognised.
‘Homosexuals can enjoy the same freedom and the same relationships as any others. But we should not under-estimate the continuing legacy of those centuries of discrimination, persecution even, which is still going on in many parts of the world.
‘It is no doubt for that reason that Strasbourg requires “very weighty reasons” to justify discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
‘It is for that reason that we should be slow to accept that prohibiting hotel-keepers from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion.’
If Mr Preddy and Mr Hall ran a hotel which denied a double room to Mr and Mrs Bull, whether on the grounds of their Christian beliefs or on the grounds of their sexual orientation, they would find themselves in the same situation that Mr and Mrs Bull find themselves today.
‘We appealed to the Supreme Court to introduce a bit more balance when dealing with competing rights of sexual orientation and religious liberty.
‘Somehow, we have got to find a way of allowing different beliefs to coexist in our society.
‘But the judges have sidestepped that big issue, and reinforced the notion that gay rights must trump everything else.
‘In particular, we are deeply troubled by the remarks of Lady Hale, who says rulings by European judges means gay rights are almost untouchable.
‘What does this mean for other people in Britain who believe in traditional marriage – not just Christians, but Muslims, Jews, people of all faiths and none?
‘We ask Parliament to take a serious look at how Christians with traditional beliefs are being left out in the cold.
‘We have no regrets about contesting this case, nor will we ever be ashamed of our beliefs.
‘We are not perfect people, but we are trying to do our best to live out our faith with honesty and consistency. And we will continue to do that, come what may.’
The Bulls had accepted an £80-a-night double room booking, believing Steven Preddy, 38, would be staying with his wife.
But when Mr Preddy arrived with his 46-year-old civil partner Martyn Hall, the men, from Bristol, were told they would not be able to share one room and instead had to sleep separately.
The Bulls denied that they had discriminated against the couple, arguing that their policy of only allowing married couples to sleep in a double bed, in accordance with their religious beliefs, was applied to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
They said they had also prevented unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing double rooms since they opened 25 years ago.
Mr Hall and Mr Preddy said they were victims of discrimination.
The Bulls have since been forced to close the B&B in September because their falling income no longer covered the mortgage on the business they had nurtured over three decades.
They suffered a drop in bookings following the controversy, which led to negative reviews online, their website being hacked, property vandalised and receiving death threats.
Christian Institute spokesman Mike Judge said: ‘What this case shows is that the powers of political correctness have reached all the way to the top of the judicial tree. So much so that even the Supreme Court dare not say anything against gay rights.
‘Writing the main opinion in the ruling, Lady Hale effectively said gay rights are almost untouchable because of the rulings by European judges.
‘Combine that with gay marriage, and it’s a recipe for all sorts of threats to people who believe in traditional marriage.
‘This ruling is another slap in the face to Christians, and shows that the elite institutions are saturated with a liberal mindset which cares little about religious freedom.
‘It should be noted that the one-sided laws which paved the way for this case, the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007, were voted for by the now Prime Minister David Cameron.
‘Parliament needs to reform the law to allow a more reasonable approach which balances competing rights. Otherwise, Christianity will become the belief that dare not speak its name.’
Share or co
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514353/B-B-owners-right-bar-gay-couple-crushed-need-fight-discrimination.html#ixzz2mYAxH7JR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook