(Bristol County Court) The claimants, homosexual partners in a civil partnership, sought damages after being refused a stay at the bed and breakfast hotel operated by the defendants, who said that this was their home, and that they were committed Christians.
Held: The claim succeeded. Rutherford J said: ‘The defendants’ right to have their private and family life and their home respected is inevitably circumscribed by their decision to use their home in part as an hotel. The regulations do not require them to take into their home (that is the private part of the hotel which they occupy) persons such as the claimants and arguably therefore do not affect the article 8 rights of the defendants.’ and ‘on a proper analysis of the defendants’ practice, the prohibition on a double room for those in a civil partnership is founded on sexual orientation. What is meant by the wording of Regulation 3(3)(d). The defendants have got to show that a practice which I have found to be based on sexual orientation can nevertheless be reasonably justified by reference to some other matters.’
Judges:
Rutherford J
Citations:
[2011] EW Misc 2 (CC)
Links:
Statutes:
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, Council Directive 2000/78/EC
Citing:
Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd CA 29-Apr-2010
The employee renewed his application for leave to appeal against refusal of his discrimination claim on the grounds of religious belief. He worked as a relationship sex therapist, and had signed up to the employer’s equal opportunities policy, but . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited – Eweida v British Airways Plc CA 12-Feb-2010
The court was asked whether, by adopting a staff dress code which forbade the wearing of visible neck adornment and so prevented the appellant, a Christian, from wearing with her uniform a small, visible cross, British Airways (BA) indirectly . .
Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd EAT 30-Nov-2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal
Christian counsellor dismissed by Relate for failing to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples.
Cited – The Christian Institute and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 11-Sep-2007
The Claimants opposed the Regulations which prohibited discrimination or harassment on grounds of sexual orientation on the grounds inter alia that they offended orthodox Christian beliefs and violated rights under the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy CA 10-Feb-2012
The appellants owned a guesthouse. They appealed from being found in breach of the Regulations. They had declined to honour a booking by the respondents of a room upon learning that they were a homosexual couple. The appellants had said that they . .
At County Court – Bull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430058
