CR spoke with Andrew Marsh about Baroness Hale's rethink

Andrew Marsh

A judge who condemned a Christian couple for turning away gay guests from their hotel has now said her decision may have been wrong. Supreme Court Deputy President Baroness Hale has called for a rethink on religious and gay rights six months after she rejected the B&B owners' arguments in a key test case. To discuss this Heather Bellamy spoke with Andrew Marsh, the Campaigns Director at Christian Concern.

Heather: Andrew, please could you begin by reminding us of the details of this case and the outcome?

Andrew: This is a case like one or two others. A person made a booking at a bed & breakfast down in Cornwall and the bed & breakfast in question had a policy of only providing double-bedded rooms for married couples. One of the people involved made a booking and when they turned up it became apparent that they were a same-sex couple. The owners explained that their policy was only to give double-bedded rooms to married couples and as a result they weren't able to provide a double-bedded room for the couple. What happened over a series of court cases is that that's been challenged and ultimately the case has gone to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK. The Court's found against Mr and Mrs Bull, the Christian couple involved, that they were wrong not to provide accommodation for the same-sex couple.

Heather: Am I right in remembering that they did offer them two single rooms?

Andrew: Yes. Various accommodations were offered and it wasn't undertaken in a hostile manner. They had been open about the policy, although the same-sex couple were not aware of the policy when they arrived, or they certainly said they weren't aware of it because they'd made the booking over the phone.

Heather: Their policy didn't only affect same-sex couples did it? If a boyfriend/girlfriend had turned up they also would have been turned away in relation to a double room. Is that right?

Andrew: That's absolutely right. My understanding is that it was a double-bedded policy for married couples only, so it wasn't something that specifically applied against same-sex couples. The Bulls sought to live by and to run this bed & breakfast which was in their own home in line with the biblical teaching that the one proper place for sexual activity is marriage between a man and a woman. They simply wanted to reflect that in the way that they conducted this bed & breakfast under their own roof.

Heather: With this being a test case, have there been subsequent rulings that have been determined by that case?

Andrew: There has been another case that springs to mind - and more recently there's the case of Jeff and Sue Green, with which we at the Christian Legal Centre are actively involved, in North Wales. That hasn't gone to court in this country at the moment precisely for this reason, because the Supreme Court has ruled on a case with such similar circumstances. So people like Jeff and Sue Green, the possibility for them is only to go straight to the European Court of Human Rights because there's no realistic prospect of a lower court in the UK finding in support of them, because this ruling has happened at the highest level in the UK. So Jeff and Sue Green are taking their case direct to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and asking that court to hear their case and to rule for them.

Heather: So if they can't go to a court in the UK because of that ruling that's already taken place, if they didn't go to Europe, what does that mean would happen to this couple in Wales?

Andrew: I guess that it would mean that either they would have to change their policy or change the arrangement of the bed & breakfast hotel that they operate or it means they'd have to close.

Heather: And what have been the effects on the lives of Peter and Hazelmary Bull, this couple that the ruling had gone against?

Andrew: As you can imagine it's had a profound effect on every area of life, including the operation of their bed & breakfast and so their livelihood. It would have an impact on every aspect of life because the bed & breakfast is very much integral to their life and to their home. I think it would be fair to say it's had a profound impact on them. As you can imagine, the media interest in this case, the pressure of legal action, is a big weight to bear. I think that's worth remembering always in these cases that they are real human beings who are involved in them and that the effect of these kind of events are very profound. Imagine if you were quietly seeking to run a bed & breakfast and to serve those and to offer genuine hospitality, not seeking to make a big deal of it, but simply to do that and then you find that this is the situation you face.

Heather: Having made that ruling, Lady Baroness Hale now feels that not enough is being done in law to protect the beliefs of Christians. How true a statement is that?