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 name Bull 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

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

The Christian Institute (CI) is a charity operating in the United Kingdom, promoting a conservative evangelical 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 former director, Colin Hart, listed as a representative. Hart died in March 2024, leaving the directorship vacant. 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">Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption</span> English lawyer and judge

Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption,, KC, is a British author, medieval historian, barrister and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018, and a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal from 2019 to 2024.

Christopher Stephen Myles Kempling is a Canadian educator who was suspended by the British Columbia College of Teachers and disciplined by the Quesnel School District for anti-gay comments in letters to the editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer. Kempling challenged the suspension in court, arguing that his right to freedom of expression had been violated. The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled against him, ruling that limitations on his freedom of expression were justified by the school's duty to maintain a tolerant and discrimination-free environment. Kempling filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the disciplinary action taken against him by the school district infringed his freedom of religion; this complaint was dismissed on similar grounds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe</span> British judge (1938–2023)

Robert Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe,, was a British barrister and Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. He served as a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal between 2009 and 2023.

<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 Scottish 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 Bermuda</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. 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">LGBTQ rights in Louisiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. 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>R (E) v Governing Body of JFS</i>

R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15 is a United Kingdom discrimination case, concerning the Jewish Free School's policy of denying entry to people whom they defined as belonging to a different religion.

<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">LGBTQ rights in Arkansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arkansas face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arkansas. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the U.S. state of Indiana have been shaped by both state and federal law. These evolved from harsh penalties established early in the state's history to the decriminalization of same-sex activity in 1977 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2014. Indiana was subject to an April 2017 federal court ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation is tantamount to discrimination on account of "sex", as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling establishes sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in the workplace, forbidding unfair discrimination, although Indiana state statutes do not include sexual orientation or gender identity among its categories of discrimination.

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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Idaho face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ 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 LGBTQ 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 LGBTQ people, and a 2016 survey by the same pollster found majority support for same-sex marriage.

<i>Ladele v London Borough of Islington</i> United Kingdom labour law case

Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (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.

This is a list of the judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the year 2017. 5 cases have been decided as of 25 January 2017 and these are ordered by neutral citation.

<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 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.