Does the “married couples only” rule count as direct or indirect discrimination asks Robert Wintemute
On 9 October, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from the decision in Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy [2012] EWCA Civ 83, in which the Christian owners of a hotel refused a double-bedded room to a same-sex couple, two men who were civil partners, because they were not married. The most interesting issue for the Supreme Court is not whether Art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 entitle Mr and Mrs Bull to have a religious exemption read into the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1263), which expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in access to services, including accommodation in a hotel. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made it clear in Eweida & Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37 that Art 9, whether taken alone or combined with Art 14, does not require exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation for religious individuals
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
