Bull v Hall

Last updated

Bull v Hall
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameBull and another v Hall and another
Argued9–10 October 2013
Decided27 November 2013
Neutral citation[2013] UKSC 73
Holding
Religious beliefs cannot be used to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation
Case opinions
Majority Lady Hale (Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson concurred)
Area of law
discrimination, religious freedom

Bull and another v Hall and another [2013] UKSC 73 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Peter and Hazelmary Bull and Martin Hall and Steven Preddy. [1] Hall and Preddy, a homosexual couple, brought the case after the Bulls refused to give them a double room in their guesthouse, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court held the rulings of the lower courts in deciding for Hall and Preddy and against the Bulls. The court said that Preddy and Hall faced discrimination which could not be justified by the Bulls' right to religious belief. [2] It was held that people in the United Kingdom could not justify discrimination against others on the basis of their sexual orientation due to their religious beliefs. [3]

Contents

Background

In September 2008, Steven Preddy and Martin Hall, a homosexual couple in a civil partnership, booked a double room at a guesthouse in Marazion, Cornwall over the telephone. When they arrived, the Bulls, who are Christians, refused the couple a double room as they found extramarital sex incompatible with their religious beliefs. Hall and Preddy were offered a two-bed room or two singles, but left and found alternative accommodation. They then filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to the County Court which found in their favour and ordered the Bulls to pay £1800 to each of them in damages. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court but the Bulls appealed to the Supreme Court. [2]

Case

The Bulls argued that the Court of Appeal had been wrong in their judgement as they had not discriminated on the couple's sexual orientation but rather their marital status, which is allowed in English law. They accepted that this resulted in indirect discrimination for same-sex couples (who could not at the time get married) but maintained that this was justified because of their sincerely held religious beliefs. [4]

Judgment

The appeal was dismissed unanimously, with all judges ruling that the indirect discrimination could not be justified by religion and a majority of three judges holding that it still constituted direct discrimination. [5] Lady Hale wrote and delivered the majority decision, with which Lord Kerr and Lord Toulson agreed. Lord Neuberger and Lord Hughes dissented on the ruling of direct discrimination but concurred with the other justices in a unanimous agreement that the case constituted unlawful indirect discrimination. [6]

Reaction

LGBT rights organisation Stonewall said they were "pleased" that the Court had upheld the rights they had "fought so hard to secure". A statement from the Christian Institute criticised the outcome, saying that "the powers of political correctness have reached all the way to the top of the judicial tree". [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1999.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian Institute</span>

The Christian Institute (CI) is a charity operating in the United Kingdom, promoting a Christian viewpoint, founded on a belief in Biblical inerrancy. The CI is a registered charity. The group does not report numbers of staff, volunteers or members with only the Director, Colin Hart, listed as a representative. However, according to the accounts and trustees annual report for the financial year ending 2017, the average head count of employees during the year was 48 (2016:46).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Kenya</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Kenya face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Sodomy is a felony per Section 162 of the Kenyan Penal Code, punishable by 21 years' imprisonment, and any sexual practices are a felony under section 165 of the same statute, punishable by 5 years' imprisonment. On 24 May 2019, the High Court of Kenya refused an order to declare sections 162 and 165 unconstitutional. The state does not recognise any relationships between persons of the same sex; same-sex marriage is banned under the Kenyan Constitution since 2010. There are no explicit protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Adoption is prohibited to same-sex couples.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir</span> President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Robert John Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir, is a British judge who has been President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since January 2020. He was the principal judge in the Commercial Court in Scotland before being promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2008. He is an authority on human rights law in Scotland and elsewhere; he served as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights. He was also a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Northern Ireland</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights in Northern Ireland have traditionally been slower to advance than the rest of the United Kingdom, with the region having lagged behind England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland was the last part of the United Kingdom where same-sex sexual activity was decriminalised, the last to implement a blood donation “monogamous no waiting period” policy system for men who have sex with men and, after intervention by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the last to allow same-sex marriage. Compared to the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, all major LGBT rights milestones had been reached earlier in Northern Ireland, with the exception of same-sex marriage. Homosexuality was decriminalised in Northern Ireland a decade earlier and civil partnerships were introduced six years earlier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Bermuda</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT persons. Homosexuality is legal in Bermuda, but the territory has long held a reputation for being homophobic and intolerant. Since 2013, the Human Rights Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Louisiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana, and same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

<i>HJ and HT v Home Secretary</i>

HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning two men, from Iran and Cameroon respectively, claiming asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds of their homosexuality. The men's claims had previously been turned down on the basis they would not face persecution in their own countries if they would conceal their sexuality. The appeal therefore centred on the question as to whether the men on their return could reasonably be expected to tolerate this requirement of discretion; the so-called 'discretion' or 'reasonable tolerability' test. Interventions were made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

<i>McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd</i> 2010 UK court case

McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd[2010] EWCA Civ 880; [2010] IRLR 872; 29 BHRC 249 was an application in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, that a relationship counsellor dismissed for refusing to counsel same sex couples on sexual matters because of his Christian beliefs did not suffer discrimination under the Employment Equality Regulations 2003. The application was heard by Lord Justice Laws, who issued his decision on 29 April 2010 refusing the application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Arizona</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBT people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Indiana enjoy most of the same rights as other people. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Indiana since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Baskin v. Bogan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the Commonwealth of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT persons. LGBT rights in the state are a recent occurrence with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective July 1, 2020, there is a state-wide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws also now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Nebraska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Nebraska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Nebraska, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. The state prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and a subsequent decision of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. In addition, the state's largest city, Omaha, has enacted protections in public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Idaho</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Idaho, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since October 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities and counties provide further protections, namely in housing and public accommodations. A 2019 Public Religion Research Institute opinion poll showed that 71% of Idahoans supported anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBT people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

This article gives a broad overview of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) history in Canada. LGBT activity was considered a crime from the colonial period in Canada until 1969, when Bill C-150 was passed into law. However, there is still discrimination despite anti-discrimination law. For a more detailed listing of individual incidents in Canadian LGBT history, see also Timeline of LGBT history in Canada.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

<i>Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others</i> Northern Ireland, UK discrimination, and freedom of speech and religious expression, legal case

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others[2018] UKSC 49 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Gareth Lee and Ashers Baking Company, owned by Daniel and Amy McArthur of Northern Ireland. Lee brought the case after Ashers refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings in favour of Lee and made a judgement in favour of Ashers. The court said there was no discrimination against Lee and that Ashers' objections were with the message they were being asked to promote. The court held that people in the United Kingdom could not legally be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagreed with. The case became known in the British and Irish media as the "gay cake" case.

Aidan O'Neill, (Scot) KC is a Scottish advocate, barrister, and King's Counsel.

References

  1. Jazrawi, Wessen (20 February 2012). "Keeping it controversial: Religion, deportation and open justice – The Human Rights Roundup". UK Human Rights Blog. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  2. 1 2 "Case SummaryBull and another v Hall and anotherUK Supreme Court: [2013] UKSC 73" (PDF). Equal Rights Trust. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  3. Hardwick, Jayne. "Bull v Hall: why the Supreme Court found direct discrimination". Equality and Human Rights Commission . Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  4. "PRESS SUMMARY Bull and another v Hall and another [2013] UKSC 73" (PDF). Supreme Court . 27 November 2013. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  5. "New Judgment: Bull & Anor v Hall & Anor [2013] UKSC 73". UK Supreme Court blog. 27 November 2013. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  6. "UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS? THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS CHRISTIANITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY" (PDF). FTB Chambers. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  7. "Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal". BBC . 27 November 2013. Retrieved 25 May 2020.