In a recent decision the Court of Appeal has affirmed the first instance decision that a bed and breakfast business directly discriminated against a same-sex couple on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
The first instance court held that the defendant, Mrs Black, had directly discriminated against a homosexual couple after she had refused to allow them to share a double bed in her bed and breakfast. Mrs Black argued that as a committed Christian, she believed that sexual relations should only occur within heterosexual marriage and that as such, she restricted the sharing of beds to married heterosexual couples.
Upon arrival at the bed and breakfast in 2010, the couple was refused accommodation as Mrs Black did not like the idea of two men sharing a bed. They were successful in arguing that they had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation as the defendant had put them at a disadvantage compared to people who were not of their sexual orientation. The court at first instance agreed and held that this was unlawful.
Mrs Black appealed the decision arguing that the regulations did not apply as her business was run from her home and she would, in effect, be taking the couple into her home. This is a specified exception within the regulations.
Mrs Black’s arguments were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that it had been bound by previous authority to find that the discrimination alleged was direct discrimination.
However the Court commented that had it been free to do so, it would have made a ruling that the discrimination was actually indirect as even though the policy applied equally to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, same-sex couples were indirectly put at a disadvantage when compared with heterosexual couples as the defendant accepted that she had in the past, albeit unknowingly, accepted non-married heterosexual couples to stay.
The Court felt that Mrs Black had been unable to justify her policy in terms of showing that it prevented the business from suffering economically.
In terms of direct discrimination, the case highlights the point that while religious beliefs are capable of exempting service providers from adhering to laws on equality, the exemption is not an automatic one and providers should take extreme care when implementing potentially discriminatory policies based on such beliefs.
By Paul Burrows, Trainee solicitor