In a case that pits religious freedoms against gay rights, a rental consultant freely admits she denied a Brampton apartment to a same-sex couple because the landlord is opposed to their sexual orientation.

Juliet Stewart says her clients, a Seventh-day Adventist husband and wife, told her in no uncertain terms during a screening interview that they would never allow a gay couple to rent their basement apartment.

That may violate Ontario’s Human Rights Code, but Stewart is unbowed, and the homeowners, who live in the house with the rental apartment, aren’t backing down either, she says.

“If the Human Rights Commission comes after me, they come after me,’’ Stewart said in an interview this week, adding she has received death threats over the stance she’s taking.

She said clients in her business often voice preferences for renters — no pets, no smoking, no gay people, no social assistance, ethnic groups they like or dislike — and Stewart always obliges.

“That’s just the way things are,’’ she says.

But the rejected renters in this case are furious and say they plan to launch a human rights complaint next week.

“I’m going to take this (complaint) as far as I can to ensure this doesn’t happen to someone else. Nobody should have to go through this,’’ says Thiago Derucio, 26, a local singer who was turned away with his partner, Chris Prentice, 21.

“I was pissed and hurt and couldn’t believe that (it) happened. We’re in 2012,’’ Derucio said in an interview.

The couple subsequently found another unit to rent in Mississauga.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s chief commissioner, Barbara Hall says that, generally speaking, issues such as the religion of a person offering a service determining who they’ll do business with has been found to “not be a competing right’’ in Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario judgments. In other words, when you go into business and put out services or products, you have to deal with whoever comes forward, regardless of religion, race or sexual orientation.

And it’s not a defence to say you’re discriminating because that’s your clients’ wish, Hall adds.

The code does make exemptions for sharing of facilities, such as a kitchen or a bathroom, but the Brampton case doesn’t appear to meet those criteria, Hall said, noting that if it’s a commercial enterprise, the operators “are governed by the Human Rights Code.”

The Ontario tribunal hears complaints and can order human rights training and/or a monetary penalty for those found to have breached the code.

The apartment conflict began a few weeks ago, after Derucio and Prentice responded by telephone to an online ad for a basement apartment Stewart advertised under her Rental Diva business, which Stewart told the Star isn’t licensed.

Located in a bungalow, the separate rental unit has its own bathroom and bedroom, with an open concept living and dining area.

It rents for $750 a month.

When Prentice used the word “partner’’ during his telephone conversation with Stewart, Derucio says she asked what he meant by the term.

When Prentice said he’s gay, Stewart responded her client doesn’t accept gay people, at which point the conversation ended, says Derucio.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Prentice explained what happened to Derucio. Shocked, Derucio called Stewart back and asked if she really denied him and Prentice the unit because they’re homosexuals.

She told him yes, he says, and she then repeated the comment about her client being opposed to gay renters.

“I said, ‘I don’t mean to cut you off, but you do realize that’s against the law.’ She said, ‘I don’t care, and don’t go all gay rights on me,’” and hung up the phone, he alleges.

“I was stunned, honestly stunned, that anyone would talk to someone like that,’’ Derucio adds.

Stewart generally agrees with that version of events.

She says she’s also a Seventh-day Adventist, and though she wouldn’t discriminate against gay renters herself, she understands why the homeowners in this case are digging in their heels.

“It’s not about my views, it’s the clients’ choice,’’ Stewart said, later adding she won’t apologize for “being honest.’’

She says the homeowners don’t want to be identified publicly at this time.

“The bottom line is, at the end of the day it’s (their home),’’ Stewart says, adding that as a black woman, she is fully conversant with issues of racism and discrimination.

The case is similar to one heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal last year involving two gay men who were turned away from a bed and breakfast in 2009 because the owners of the now-defunct business were evangelical Christians.

A few weeks ago the tribunal ordered that the gay couple in that case each receive $1,500 for “injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect’’ and the operators stop the discriminatory conduct.

The business had closed prior to the judgment.