The Appellants appealed against a decision that they had directly discriminated against the Respondents contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 reg.3 (1) in refusing to let them a double-bedded room. The Appellants where two Christian hoteliers who believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Their on-line booking form stated that double-bedded rooms were only let to ‘hetero-sexual married couples’. The Respondent’s had not seen this clause when booking into the hotel.

The Appellants denied that they had unlawfully discriminated against the Respondents on the basis of their sexual orientation. They claim that their policy was compatible with their Convention rights, in particular, their right to manifest their religion. The County court held that refusal to allow the Respondents to occupy the 42 double-bedded room they had booked was due to their sexual orientation and was considered direct discrimination.

The Appeal was dismissed. Regulation 3(4) emphasises that being married and being in a civil partnership was not to be treated as a material difference. Parliament created the institution of civil partnership to allow same sex couples the same legal rights as partners of the opposite sex. They should also be afforded the same respect and esteem.

The Court held that the limitation on the Appellants article 9 right (to manifest their religion) was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The aim being the protection of the Respondents rights and freedoms. http://bit.ly/1go2VJX