Peter and Hazelmary Bull had asked the Supreme Court to decide whether their decision not to let Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy stay in a double room constituted sex discrimination under equality legislation. … They argued their decision was founded on a “religiously-informed judgment of conscience” and that earlier judgements against them were a breach of their human rights to freedom of religion.
The Bulls had accepted an £80-a-night booking for a double room from Steven Preddy, and assumed he would be staying with his wife. When Preddy arrived instead with his boyfriend, Martyn Hall, the men were informed that they could only have two separate rooms; the Bulls wouldn’t allow their guests to share accommodations.
The B&B owners insist that their policy against letting unmarried couples sleep together applies to gay and straight guests alike, but they nonetheless focus their ire on a judicial culture in which “gay rights must trump everything else.”
Hazelmary Bull’s cognitive dissonance reached its apex when she told reporters,
“Britain ought to be a country of freedom and tolerance, but it seems religious beliefs must play second fiddle to the new orthodoxy of political correctness.”
The Bulls’ idea of freedom and tolerance as a one-way street is at odds with the law of the land. Luckily for them, one thing they won’t have to worry about is their legal bills, already thought to add up to hundreds of thousands of pounds after their case was decided by a County Court, a Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court. The innkeepers’ attorneys are being paid by the Christian Institute, a national charity. Their next stop: the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.