Court finds that christian hoteliers were discriminatory in refusing room to gay couple
Presumably this issue is being debated at the highest echelons of western churches. Their views on homosexuality are becoming simply unacceptable to much of modern society. Should they modify their 'god given' rules, or should they
continue to alienate large swathes of supporters, or even potential members? In a time when public sympathies for the church are rapidly declining, then surely they will have to opt to change their ways a little.
Two Christian hotel owners have been ordered to pay damages for refusing a bed to a gay couple .
Peter and Hazelmary Bull whinged that Christianity had been pushed to the margins of society, and added: Some people are more equal than others.
They spoke out after a landmark court decision awarded £1,800 each to civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, who were denied a double room under the Bulls' policy of allowing only married couples to share a bed in the hotel that is also
their home. Victory:
Judge Andrew Rutherford said that in the past 50 years social attitudes had changed. He concluded that the Bulls discriminate on the basis of marital status : There is no material difference between marriage and a
civil partnership. If that is right, then upon what basis do the defendants draw a distinction if it is not on sexual orientation? The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow [the claimants] to occupy the double room which they
had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that this is direct discrimination.
His likening of civil partnership to marriage may lead to a long legal battle if the Bulls appeal.
There was a suggestion during the trial that
the hoteliers had been set up as part of a campaign against discrimination. But the judge said he could see no evidence of such a sting operation and added that damages would have been greatly reduced if that was so. He said: There was a suggestion in
the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants were "set up" by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall. If this were true then, while it would not of itself
defeat a discrimination claim, it would very materially affect the issue of damages.
The judgment in
the appeal case of B&B owners, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, has been reserved and a ruling is not expected to be given for several weeks.
The Bulls are seeking to overturn a ruling by a previous judge who said their policy of restricting double
rooms to married couples discriminated against homosexuals.
A gay couple who were turned away by a Christian bed and breakfast owner because it was against her convictions to let them share a double bed are suing her for damages.
Michael Black and John Morgan have brought in human rights
organisation Liberty to help take legal action against Susanne Wilkinson.
The start of legal proceedings comes two months after Black and Morgan reported Mrs Wilkinson to police for refusing them a room. They said she was breaching discrimination
laws and that they were horrified by the former air hostess's outdated and abhorrent views .
But Mrs Wilkinson and her husband Francis, a former city worker, insisted they were simply living according to their values and Christian beliefs.
Mrs Wilkinson said she would have offered the couple two single rooms, but the guest house was fully booked. Susanne and Francis Wilkinson
Last night her husband said: Ours is a faith position and hasn't changed. This response seems completely
disproportionate-We feel the law is wrong and needs to be amended.
But James Welch, legal director of Liberty, said: Liberty defends the rights of religious groups to preach their beliefs, even when we disagree with them, but not to
discriminate in the provision of goods and services.
The Wilkinsons have been helped by the Christian Institute pressure group. Spokesman Simon Calvert said: This comes down to the rights of a gay couple to have a holiday where they choose
against the right of a Christian couple to act in accordance with their conscience.
Michael Black and John Morgan are seeking damages of £ 1,800 each for sexual orientation discrimination after
Susanne Wilkinson refused to give them a double room.
The couple said they were shocked when they were not allowed to stay the night at the Swiss B&B in Cookham, Berkshire, in March 2010.
A court heard that the men booked a room
online but when they arrived Mrs Wilkinson told them it was against her religious beliefs for them to share a bed, adding: This is my private home.
Black and Morgan said they were refunded their £ 30 deposit and asked to leave.
James Dingemans QC, defending, said it was against Mrs Wilkinson's religious beliefs for two unmarried people to share a bed under her roof, adding: This is protected by the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998.'
A bed and breakfast owner has lost her appeal against a ruling that she unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple when she refused to let them stay in a double room. Committed Christian Susanne Wilkinson declined to let Michael Black and partner John
Morgan have the room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire, in March 2010.
Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice McCombe, in the Court of Appeal in London, dismissed Mrs Wilkinson's challenge, but gave
her permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appeal, on October 9, will be heard at the same time as that of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who refused to let Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy share a bedroom at their seaside guesthouse in Cornwall.
Lord Dyson concluded that the decision in the Preddy case, where the court decided there was direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, compelled the conclusion that, by her policy of only offering double rooms to married couples,
Mrs Wilkinson directly discriminated against homosexual couples on the ground of their sexual orientation.
She also indirectly discriminated against homosexual couples on the grounds of their sexual orientation by applying a policy which put them
at a disadvantage as compared with heterosexual couples and she could not reasonably justify by reference to matters other than their sexual orientation.