• Home
• UK Politics
• World Politics
• Policy
• Media
• Lifestyle
• Sport
• Contributors
• Topics

Christians v Gays: The Battle Of The Rights

Daniel Barnett analyses the case of the bed & breakfast owners who refused a gay couple.

By Daniel Barnett

11 Feb 2012, 09:00

Remember the scene in Fawlty Towers when Basil Fawlty refuses to let an unmarried couple share a room?  

That was comedy.  But when it happens in real life, it’s just a bit depressing.

The Court of Appeal has, today, confirmed that gay rights trump Christian beliefs – at least in certain circumstances.  Mr Preddy and Mr Hall, who are civil partners, booked a double bedroom at the Chymorvah Private Hotel  in Cornwall.  Its owners, Mr & Mrs Bull, were an old-fashioned couple with firmly held Christian beliefs.  Those beliefs included refusing to allow unmarried couples to share a double bedroom (although they could book two single rooms or a twin room).

When Messrs Preddy and Hall turned up for their weekend away, they were politely told that they had to either have separate rooms, or they could instead go to a different hotel nearby.  They sued, claiming they had been discriminated against on grounds of their sexual orientation.  They argued that as civil partners, they should be treated the same way as a married couple, and the only reason they were treated differently was because they were gay.

The Court of Appeal agreed, saying that if the hotel owners denied a double bed to ALL homosexual couples, but only denied a double bed to SOME heterosexual couples, then they were discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation. The hotel owners have been ordered to pay £1,800 to each of the two men for injury to feelings.

The battle of the conflicting beliefs is, and will remain, a complex and troubling issue.  Should the Christian hoteliers have their freedom to live life according to their religious beliefs fettered?  Or should Mr Preddy and Mr Hall simply accept minor inconveniences as a consequence of living in a world where people are entitled to hold a spectrum of different views.

The argument that clinched it with the Court of Appeal was that the hotel was ostensibly open for business to everybody.  It was not, as Mr & Mrs Bull argued, a part of their home (they lived in a separate part of the hotel), in which case their right to manifest their religious belief might have taken precedence.  If they chose to run a business, they had to run it in accordance with the law – which includes an obligation not to discriminate against potential customers on grounds of their sexual orientation. 

To put it another way, the Court of Appeal said that if people choose to run a business, they cannot claim to be exempt from the laws regulating business because their religion or conscience tells them so.

It’s a trite comparison, but useful nevertheless.  Imagine if a hotel owner hung a sign outside saying, ‘No Blacks or Irish’.  No sensible person would have any sympathy.  Yet it is impossible not to feel at least some compassion for the Bulls, given they were quite happy to allow Messrs Preddy & Hall to stay; just on the same terms as heterosexual couples who had not been through a formal marriage ceremony.

The Court deliberately left open the question of what would happen if Messrs Preddy & Hall had not been in a civil partnership, preferring to leave that particular bullet for another day.

This sort of approach has been followed by courts for a little while now.  The House of Lords told Shabina Begum, a Muslim schoolgirl, that she had no right to foist her traditional Islamic dress onto others at school.   Courts have upheld dismissals of religious Christians for manifesting their beliefs, for example social worker Naphtali Chondol who was dismissed for excessive prosletysing at an elderly patient. 

Similarly, Lillian Ladele’s dismissal for refusing to perform same-sex civil partnership ceremonies on behalf of Islington Council was held to be non-discriminatory, and British Airways were held not to have discriminated against Nadia Eweida, an airline worker who wanted to wear her crucifix on her necklace outside her clothes, in breach of BA’s uniform policy (which they have since changed).

The position thus appears to be that individuals can hold beliefs, but cannot foist them upon others in breach of others’ rights.