A high-profile case which pitted a Christian couple running a bed and breakfast  hotel against a gay couple they turned away, has ended in a defeat for the Hoteliers.

The UK Supreme Court has upheld a series of lower court rulings that found there had been discrimination. The case hinged on the court’s attempt at balancing the rights of the Christian couple running the bed and breakfast to manifest their Christian beliefs against the rights of the gay couple to buy goods and services without discrimination.

Lady Hale, one of the five judges on the court told the story this way:

Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion.

“Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are civil partners who live in Bristol. They planned a short break in Cornwall. On 4 September 2008, Mr Preddy made a telephone booking at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion, for a double bedroom for the nights of 5 and 6 September. Mr and Mrs Bull own the Hotel, and run it together with their cousin, Mr Quinn. They are devout Christians who sincerely believe (as the judge put it) “that the only divinely ordained sexual relationship is that between a man and a woman within the bonds of matrimony”. In 2008 their on-line booking form stated:

“Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note, that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only – thank you”. Twin bedded and single rooms, on the other hand, would be let to any person regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.

“Mr Preddy did not see this clause, because he booked by telephone, and Mrs Bull did not follow her usual practice of asking whether the reservation was for a man and his wife, because she was unwell when she got up to answer the telephone which had been ringing for some time.

When Mr Preddy and Mr Hall arrived at the hotel on 5 September, they were met by Mr Quinn, who informed them that the double-bedded rooms were for married couples only. Mr Preddy said that they were in a civil partnership. Mr Quinn “explained that we were Christians and did not believe in civil partnerships and that marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore we could not honour their booking”. It was accepted that this was not done in a demeaning manner, but there were other guests present. The refusal was “very hurtful” to the couple, who left the hotel and found alternative accommodation at another hotel. The deposit which they had paid was re-credited to their account.”

Mrs Bull told the BBC “We are deeply disappointed and saddened by the outcome.

“We are just ordinary Christians who believe in the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Our B&B is not just our business, it’s our home. All we have ever tried to do is live according to our own values, under our own roof.”

“Religious freedom shouldn’t be used as a cloak for prejudice,” said Ben Summerskill, spokesperson for the gay rights group Stonewall. “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.”

The BBC’s religious affairs correspondent Robert Piggot described the case as “another milestone in the waning influence of Christian teaching in British society and its laws”.

Possibly because this case might be seen as the rights of gay people being preferred to those of Christians, Lady Hale included this paragraph in her judgement: “There is no question of (as Rafferty LJ put it) replacing “legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the defendants’ beliefs)” (para 56). “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.”

Lady Hale also pointed out in her judgement that there are exemptions in the equality regulations that allow for discrimination. But they apply to “religious organisations, as opposed to individuals such as Mr and Mrs Bull who hold particular religious beliefs”.