The Supreme Court of the Uned Kgdom has led agast the Christian owners of a bed and breakfast hotel who refed to allow a gay uple to stay.
Contents:
- COURT OF APPEAL FDS B&B’S REFAL TO ACMODATE GAY UPLE TO BE UNLAWFUL
- B&B OWNER WHO TURNED AWAY GAY UPLE LOS APPEAL
- CHRISTIAN B&B OWNERS LOSE SUPREME COURT CASE OVER REFAL TO HOST GAY COUPL
- A GAY UPLE RAN A RAL RTRANT PEACE. THEN NEW NEIGHBORS ARRIVED.
COURT OF APPEAL FDS B&B’S REFAL TO ACMODATE GAY UPLE TO BE UNLAWFUL
In DLA Piper's se of the week, the Court of Appeal upheld a cisn that a B&B owner's refal to provi acmodatn to a gay uple was * gay b&b case *
In DLA Piper’s se of the week, the Court of Appeal upheld a cisn that a B&B owner’s refal to provi acmodatn to a gay uple was and another v Wilkson. Mr Black and Mr Man, a homosexual uple, were refed acmodatn at a B&B n by the appellant, Mrs Wilkson. The Court of Appeal nfirmed the County Court’s judgment of direct discrimatn, although the Court emphasised that nsired this se to be more ak to direct – rather than direct – discrimatn, bee Wilkson had applied a blanket policy that placed all homosexuals at a disadvantage pared wh heterosexual upl.
B&B OWNER WHO TURNED AWAY GAY UPLE LOS APPEAL
Such upl uld never atta the stat of a heterosexual married uple and therefore uld never be eligible to stay at the gut nsirg the issue of direct discrimatn, the Court of Appeal qutned the issue of jtifitn of direct discrimatn acrdance wh Wilkson’s fence that her rtrictn on acmodatg homosexuals was a proportnate means of fulfillg a legimate aim. There was nothg to prevent Wilkson om offerg a service that did not require her to discrimate agast homosexuals to mata her moral and relig posn. Greater weight was attributed to the rights of the homosexual uple who were nied the acmodatn not to be subjected to discrimatn.
The Christian owner of a bed and breakfast has lost her appeal agast a lg that she unlawfully discrimated agast a gay uple when she refed to let them stay a double room.
CHRISTIAN B&B OWNERS LOSE SUPREME COURT CASE OVER REFAL TO HOST GAY COUPL
The bs, which had been operatg sce 2007, provid a special gree of re and attentn to guts, who were ved to her home and treated as members of the mother-of-four said: "Bee I am a Christian, I believe that monogamo heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely tend for sexual relatns between persons and that homosexual relatns – as opposed to homosexual orientatn – and heterosexual relatns outsi marriage are wrong.
She would have been ntent to let them take separate rooms if any had been nclud that the cisn the Preddy se, where the urt cid there was direct discrimatn on the grounds of sexual orientatn, pelled the ncln that, by her policy of offerg double rooms only to married upl, Wilkson directly discrimated agast homosexual upl on the grounds of their sexual also directly discrimated agast homosexual upl on the grounds of their sexual orientatn by applyg a policy which put them at a disadvantage as pared wh heterosexual upl and she uld not reasonably jtify by reference to matters other than their sexual Welch, legal director of the mpaign group Liberty, said: "Hopefully today's lg will mark the end of out-of-date 'no gays' polici which are as tolerable as those referrg to a person's race, genr or relign.
But refg to acmodate ctomers simply bee they're gay is unacceptable and our clients should never have faced such discrimatn.
A GAY UPLE RAN A RAL RTRANT PEACE. THEN NEW NEIGHBORS ARRIVED.
The Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal by a Christian bed and breakfast owner, upholdg the cisn that she unlawfully discrimated agast a gay uple by refg to provi them wh a double bedroom. In my view, Preddy was not a se of direct discrimatn agast a homosexual uple on the ground of their sexual orientatn, sce there were other unmarried upl who would also be nied acmodatn on the ground that they too were unmarried. It was, however, a se of direct discrimatn bee the fendants’ policy that se put homosexual upl at a disadvantage pared wh heterosexual upl on the ground of their sexual orientatn.
The appellant had argued that excludg gay upl om double rooms was a proportnate means of achievg a legimate aim, namely exercisg her right to manift her relig beliefs (Article 9) and her right to rpect for her private and fay life (Article 8).