In this case the Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the County Court, which was widely reported at the time, that a B&B owner had discriminated against a homosexual couple by refusing them accommodation.

The Claimants, a homosexual couple who were not in a civil partnership, had booked to stay in a double room in the Defendant’s B&B. The Defendant, who is a committed Christian, refused to let them stay making clear it was because she did not like the idea of two men sharing a bed.

The County Court found that this was unlawful discrimination in the provision of facilities on grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The Defendant contended that this was not discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as she sometimes prevented unmarried heterosexual couples from staying, though not always and even if discriminatory, it was justified as a proportionate means of fulfilling her legitimate aim of holding a genuine and protected legitimate religious belief.

The Court of Appeal found that the Defendant’s refusal to provide services was directly discriminatory as she was applying a criterion, marriage that the Claimants could never fulfil. As her actions were directly discriminatory they could never be objectively justified and so the Court was not required to consider the reasons for the Defendant’s actions.

Nevertheless, the Court considered that if the actions had been indirectly discriminatory they would still not have been justified. The Court gave weight to the fact that Parliament had considered the competing rights of different groups when drafting the Regulations and decided to give priority to religious belief only in certain defined circumstances, which did not include those at issue in this case. The Court did not believe that the Defendant’s Article 8 and 9 rights to a private life and freedom of religion under the ECHR should be given more weight than the Claimants’ rights under Articles 8 and 14 not to be discriminated against on grounds of their sexual orientation. The Defendant had not shown any reasonable justification for the indirect discrimination. http://bit.ly/15eQIRq