In
Bull v. Hall, (UK Sup. Ct., Nov. 27, 2013), Britain's Supreme Court held 5-0 that the
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 prohibit a Christian couple who operate a hotel from refusing on religious grounds to rent a room with one double bed to a same-sex couple (who were in a civil partnership arrangement). The hotel owners rented double bed rooms only to married couples. Britain's
Equality Act 2010 distinguishes between "direct" and "indirect" discrimination. Indirect discrimination-- which is similar to the disparate impact concept in U.S. law-- is allowed if it can be justified as "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." Direct discrimination may not be justified. All 5 of the Supreme Court's justices concluded that the refusal to rent to the couple amounted to unjustifiable indirect discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Three of the justices also concluded that the refusal amounted to direct sexual-orientation discrimination.
Lady Hale's lead opinion disposed of the hotel owners' religious liberty claims rather briefly, saying:
There is no question of ... replacing “legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the defendants’ beliefs)” .... If Mr Preddy and Mr Hall ran a hotel which denied a double room to Mr and Mrs Bull, whether on the ground of their Christian beliefs or on the ground of their sexual orientation, they would find themselves in the same situation that Mr and Mrs Bull find themselves today.
The court's decision in the closely-watched case affirms the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. (See
prior related posting.) The
Daily Mail reports on the decision.
[Thanks to Marc Stern via Religionlaw for the lead.]
