This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/17/gay-couple-sue-bed-breakfast
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Gay couple sue bed and breakfast owner | Gay couple sue bed and breakfast owner |
| (about 1 month later) | |
| A gay couple have sued the owner of bed and breakfast accommodation after she refused to let them stay in a double room because of her religious views. | A gay couple have sued the owner of bed and breakfast accommodation after she refused to let them stay in a double room because of her religious views. |
| Michael Black, 64, and partner John Morgan, 59, sought damages from Susanne Wilkinson after she declined to let them have the room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire, in March 2010. | Michael Black, 64, and partner John Morgan, 59, sought damages from Susanne Wilkinson after she declined to let them have the room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire, in March 2010. |
| In their particulars of claim to Reading county court, the couple, from Brampton, near Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, told how Black, an exams consultant and writer, had booked a double room for 19 March 2010. | In their particulars of claim to Reading county court, the couple, from Brampton, near Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, told how Black, an exams consultant and writer, had booked a double room for 19 March 2010. |
| But when he and his computer consultant partner arrived there Wilkinson made clear to them that she was not prepared to allow them to share a double bed and that she would not accommodate them. | But when he and his computer consultant partner arrived there Wilkinson made clear to them that she was not prepared to allow them to share a double bed and that she would not accommodate them. |
| Lawyers from Liberty, the human rights organisation, which has taken up the case, argued that under legal regulations it was unlawful for a person concerned with the provision of services to the public to discriminate against a person on the grounds of that person's sexual orientation. | Lawyers from Liberty, the human rights organisation, which has taken up the case, argued that under legal regulations it was unlawful for a person concerned with the provision of services to the public to discriminate against a person on the grounds of that person's sexual orientation. |
| Lawyers for Wilkinson argued that a person offering bed and breakfast in their own home was entitled to refuse to permit persons who were not married or in a civil partnership (whether of the opposite sex or the same sex) to share a double bed. | Lawyers for Wilkinson argued that a person offering bed and breakfast in their own home was entitled to refuse to permit persons who were not married or in a civil partnership (whether of the opposite sex or the same sex) to share a double bed. |
| The couple are not in a civil partnership, and in these circumstances, there was no direct or indirect discrimination, the lawyers said. | The couple are not in a civil partnership, and in these circumstances, there was no direct or indirect discrimination, the lawyers said. |
| Wilkinson, a married mother-of-four, considers that providing a double bed to the couple would involve her in promoting what she believed to be a sin, namely sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage. | Wilkinson, a married mother-of-four, considers that providing a double bed to the couple would involve her in promoting what she believed to be a sin, namely sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage. |
| James Dingemans QC, for Wilkinson, told the court: "If Mrs Wilkinson had simply said, 'don't come in because you're gay', that could never be justified. It was simply the provision of the double bed which Mrs Wilkinson believed was wrong." | James Dingemans QC, for Wilkinson, told the court: "If Mrs Wilkinson had simply said, 'don't come in because you're gay', that could never be justified. It was simply the provision of the double bed which Mrs Wilkinson believed was wrong." |
| Henrietta Hill, for the couple, said: "It is obvious that there is a difficult balancing act to be carried out in this case. The proper balance to be struck has already been determined by the very clear will of parliament." | Henrietta Hill, for the couple, said: "It is obvious that there is a difficult balancing act to be carried out in this case. The proper balance to be struck has already been determined by the very clear will of parliament." |
| The men seek a declaration that they have been discriminated against, and damages – if they win the case, it has been agreed that £1,800 each would be an appropriate sum, Hill said. | The men seek a declaration that they have been discriminated against, and damages – if they win the case, it has been agreed that £1,800 each would be an appropriate sum, Hill said. |
| It has been previously reported that they will give any money to charity. | It has been previously reported that they will give any money to charity. |
| The judge, Claire Moulder, reserved judgment after the one-day hearing, saying she expected to give her ruling in one to two weeks' time. | The judge, Claire Moulder, reserved judgment after the one-day hearing, saying she expected to give her ruling in one to two weeks' time. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |