Peter and Hazelmary Bull were breaking the law when they denied Martyn Hall
and his civil
partner Steven Preddy a room at their hotel in Cornwall in
September 2008.
Judge Andrew Rutherford made the ruling in a written judgment at Bristol
County Court as he awarded the couple £1,800 each in damages.
Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, were seeking up to £5,000 damages
claiming sexual orientation discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual
Orientation) Regulations 2007.
At a hearing last month, the Bulls denied the claim, saying they have a
long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples both heterosexual and
gay from sharing a bed at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near
Penzance.
Mr Bull, 70, and his wife, 66, said their policy, operated since they bought
the hotel in 1986, is based on their beliefs about marriage and not a
hostility to sexual orientation.
Mrs Bull told the court: "We accept that the Bible is the holy living
word of God and we endeavour to follow it as far as we are able.
"We have a kind of routine we go through with folk. It is never our
intention to offend so we try to make it as gracious and as helpful as we
can."
James Dingemans QC, representing Mr and Mrs Bull, said they had been "vilified
as objects of fun" in newspapers for only allowing married couples to
stay in double rooms at their hotel.
He said: "The defendants respectfully submit that their policy is
directed at sex and not to sexual orientation and is lawful.
"Without the protection of the law they will simply not be able to
operate their business."
Hotel employee Bernie Quinn hinted that Mr Preddy and Mr Hall's booking was a
set-up.
"It is not beyond the realms of possibility. I have no proof other than
the phone call," he said.
Mr Preddy, 38, said he and Mr Hall, 46, had booked the hotel room over the
phone and were not aware of the policy until they arrived and were told by
Mr Quinn they would not be able to stay.
The semi-detached Chymorvah Private Hotel has seven rooms in total three
doubles, one family room, two twins and single with the Bulls living on the
ground floor.
The Bulls legal defence was supported by the Christian Institute while Mr Hall
and Mr Preddy were backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said that, in the last 50 years, social
attitudes in Britain had changed.
"We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in
Parliament," the judge said.
"It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held
beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social
attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.
"In the last 50 years there have been many such instances - the abolition of
capital punishment; the abolition of corporal punishment in schools; the
decriminalisation of homosexuality and of suicide; and on a more mundane
level the ban on hunting and on smoking in public places.
"All of these - and they are only examples - have offended sections of the
population and in some cases cut across traditional religious beliefs.
"These laws have come into being because of changes in social attitudes. The
standards and principles governing our behaviour which were unquestioningly
accepted in one generation may not be so accepted in the next.
"I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants' beliefs and it
is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold.
"It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the
years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants
would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the
other way around."
John Wadham, from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, welcomed the
ruling.
"The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their
beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is
the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay," he
said.
"The law works both ways. Hotel owners would similarly not be able to turn
away people whose religious beliefs they disagreed with.
"When Mr and Mrs Bull chose to open their home as a hotel, their private home
became a commercial enterprise.
"This decision means that community standards, not private ones, must be
upheld."
Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said they were extremely pleased with the outcome of the
case.
"When we booked this hotel we just wanted to do something that thousands of
other couples do every weekend - take a relaxing weekend break away," they
said.
"We checked that the hotel would allow us to bring our dog, but it didn't even
cross our minds that in 2008 we would have to check whether we would be
welcome ourselves.
"We're really pleased that the judge has confirmed what we already know - that
in these circumstances our civil partnership has the same status in law as a
marriage between a man and a woman, and that, regardless of each person's
religious beliefs, no- one is above the law."
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of equality campaign group Stonewall, also
welcomed the ruling.
He said: "We're delighted with the outcome of this test case.
"You can't turn away people from a hotel because they're black or Jewish and
in 2011 you shouldn't be able to demean them by turning them away because
they're gay either.
"Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice.
"For the estimated £30,000 that this court case cost Mr and Mrs Bull and their
supporters during the last month, Oxfam or Save the Children could have
vaccinated 100,000 people against meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa.
"That would have been a more Christian way to spend their money during the
festive season."
SIC: BT/UK