On 27 November the UK Supreme Court ruled that the owners of a B&B who refused to allow two gay men in a civil partnership to share a double room in 2008 had acted unlawfully.
The B&B owners, Mr & Mrs Bull, are a Christian married couple claim their decision was a "religiously-informed judgment of conscience" as they believe that sexual intercourse outside marriage is a sin. The owners had stated on their website that they rent double rooms to heterosexual married couples only. The respondents, who are in a civil partnership, booked by telephone and were not informed of this policy. They were then refused a room when they arrived at the B&B.
The respondents, with assistance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, initiated proceedings under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, section 4 of which makes direct or unjustified indirect discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unlawful.
In 2011 Bristol County Court found that Mr & Mrs Bull had acted unlawfully and ordered the couple to pay £3600 in damages. They appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal.
Mr & Mrs Bull contended that they had not directly discriminated against the couple. They believe that any sexual intercourse outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful. They argued that they had turned away the couple not on the basis of their sexual orientation but their marital status. They also argued that their decision was protected by article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees freedom of religion.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. While the court disagreed as to whether the discrimination is direct or indirect, it was agreed that even if the discrimination was indirect it was not justifiable.
Lady Hale rejected the argument that turning the couple away did not constitute discrimination, stating that civil partnership is akin to marriage and the status of marriage or civil partnership is indissociable from sexual orientation. She added that sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation. She said that the long history of denying homosexual people the possibility of fulfilling themselves through relationships with others was “an affront to their dignity as human beings”. She noted that we should not underestimate the “continuing legacy” of this discrimination and persecution and that for these reasons Strasbourg requires “very weighty reasons” to justify discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. She concluded “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”.
Click here to read the judgment in full.
Click here to read an article on the UK Human Rights Blog.