Christians lose appeal in B&B case
The Christian owners of a Cornish B&B today lost their appeal against last year’s ruling that their policy of restricting double rooms to married couples discriminated against a gay couple.
But, while upholding that ruling, the Court of Appeal warned that a new intolerance should not take root against Christians because of their beliefs about sexual ethics.
The three judges upheld last year’s County Court decision which found the policy to be discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation – despite the fact that the policy was also applied to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Last year Peter and Hazelmary Bull, owners of the Chymorvah B&B near Penzance, were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages to Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, a gay couple in a civil partnership.
The Christian Institute funded Mr and Mrs Bull’s appeal. Spokesman Simon Calvert said: “Peter and Hazelmary have been penalised for their beliefs about marriage.
“Not everyone will agree with Peter and Hazelmary’s beliefs, but a lot of people will think it is shame that the law doesn’t let them live and work according to their own values under their own roof.
“Something has gone badly wrong with our equality laws when good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary are penalised but extremist hate preachers are protected.”
Read the ruling in full here.
Court bans prayers at formal council meetings
The saying of prayers as a ‘formal’ part of local council meetings has been ruled unlawful by the High Court today in an extraordinary judgment.
The judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, said there is no law that gives councils the power to do so.
But critics hit back, saying the ruling also means a council has no power to formally start its meetings with the national anthem.
In December the head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, said he ‘dropped his coffee’ when he heard the case was being taken to court, calling it “nonsense on stilts”.
Today’s ruling only affects the formal meetings of local government, and does not stop councils from holding prayers outside of that setting if they wish to do so.
And the court rejected claims that the saying of prayers discriminates against, or breaches the human rights of, secularists.
The practice of saying prayers at Bideford Town Council meetings is understood to date back to the days of Queen Elizabeth the First.
The Council has, recently, twice voted in support of continuing with the prayers.
Individual councillors were free to not take part in the prayers if they wished, and the register of attendance was not taken until after the prayers had finished.
Nevertheless, a court case was brought by the National Secular Society and a secularist former councillor, Mr Clive Bone, against Bideford Town Council.
The claimants’ legal case rested on three arguments: that the prayers were discriminatory against atheist councillors, the prayers were a breach of human rights laws, and that the council had no lawful authority to hold prayers as part of its formal meetings.
The judge rejected the first two arguments, but ruled: “The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue.”
The Act does allow councils to do anything that “facilitates, or is conducive or is incidental” to a council’s functions, but Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the saying of prayers at formal meetings does not fall within that provision.
If councillors are not compelled to pray, the judge reasoned, then prayers cannot be an essential part of a council’s functions and therefore should not be part of the formal council meeting.
The decision was criticised by The Christian Institute – a national charity that defends religious liberty and underwrote Bideford Council’s legal costs.
Institute spokesman Simon Calvert said: “We welcome the finding that the saying of prayers isn’t discriminatory, or a breach of equality laws, or human rights laws.
“But it is extraordinary to rule that councils have no lawful authority to choose, if they so wish, to start their formal meetings with prayers. That is simply wrong.
“The logic of the ruling is that councils would also be going beyond the law if they took a vote and decided to start each formal council meeting with the national anthem.
“There is no way that Parliament, when it passed the Local Government Act 40 years ago, intended it to be used to outlaw prayers.
“This case was brought by a campaign group that wants to drive Christianity out of public life, and the High Court has today given them great encouragement to take matters further.
“It is high time Parliament put a stop to this assault upon our national heritage. What’s next? Will prayers at the cenotaph end up in court?
“What about local councils that wish to formally mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee as part of their official meeting? Is that now unlawful too?”
