I may have been wrong to condemn Christian B&B owners for banning gay couple because people with religious beliefs have rights too, says top judge

Baroness Hale calls for a rethink on religious and gay rights

Six months ago she condemned B&B owners for turning away gay guests

Peter and Hazelmary Bull refused Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall a room

Last week Lady Hale and fellow judges said Bulls were not liable for costs

She tell lawyers judgement against the Bulls may have been too harsh



Rethink: Baroness Hale called for a rethink on religious and gay rights six months after she condemned a Christian couple for turning away gay guests from their hotel

A judge who condemned a Christian couple for turning away gay guests from their hotel yesterday said her decision may have been wrong.

Supreme Court deputy president Baroness Hale called for a rethink on religious and gay rights six months after she rejected the B&B owners’ arguments in a key test case.

Lady Hale said in a speech that the law has done too little to protect the beliefs of Christians. And she cast doubts over her own judgment in the landmark case in which a gay couple sued Christian hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

Mr Bull, 74, and his 70-year-old wife refused a double room at their Cornish hotel to Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall in 2008 because they were not a married heterosexual couple.

The incident led to a string of court cases, which culminated in defeat for the Bulls at the Supreme Court – where Lady Hale, leading four other judges, ruled that the rights of the gay couple outweighed the conscience of the Christian couple. Lady Hale declared in her Supreme Court ruling that we should be ‘slow to accept’ the right of Christians to discriminate against gay people.

But in March she acknowledged that the laws which ignore Christian consciences might not be ‘sustainable’. Last week, in a highly unusual move, Lady Hale and her fellow judges ordered that the Bulls will not be liable for legal costs – a decision which spares them a huge bill which would pay for the lawyers who represented Mr Preddy and Mr Hall.

And in a speech to Irish lawyers yesterday she gave an indication that her judgment against the Bulls may have been too harsh, asking whether courts would be better off taking a ‘more nuanced approach’.



Lady Hale suggested that the law should develop a ‘conscience clause’ for Christians like the Bulls.

Court case: Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall were refused a double room at Chymorvah House in Marazion

Christian beliefs: Peter and Hazelmary Bull were told last week that they will not be liable for legal costs

She said: ‘I am not sure our law has found a reasonable accommodation of all these different strands’, adding: ‘An example of treatment which Christians may feel to be unfair is the recent case of Bull v Hall. Should we be developing an explicit requirement upon providers of employment, goods and services to make reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of religious beliefs?’

Last year the Bulls were on the point of selling their hotel, Chymorvah House in Marazion. However they said they have managed to stay in business thanks to help from supporters. Mrs Bull said: ‘The pendulum has swung too far one way.

‘Why can’t two lifestyles live together? It is too late for us, but we are glad the issue hasn’t gone away. It is being debated so there may be an opportunity for more balance to be brought into this.’

And Colin Hart, from the Christian Institute, said: ‘The penny is beginning to drop among judges that the law is unfair. I hope the Supreme Court will find more room to protect Christian consciences.’