A sad day for English Law

"Much is said about diversity, but it seems that some people are more equal than others."

These were the words spoken by Mrs Hazelmary Bull, who has been fined £3,600 by the County Court in Bristol for refusing to provide a double room for Mr Martyn Hall and Mr Steven Preddy, on account of the fact that they were an unmarried couple. This, according to Mr and Mrs Bull, was contrary to their religious beliefs, beliefs which are the foundation stone for the English legal system, because it would mean, essentially, that they would have enabled sinful acts, or at least, have provided a near occasion of sin.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy took this to mean that Mr and Mrs Bull were discriminating them because they were in a homosexual relationship. Moreover, the ruling has established the precedent that civil partnerships are the equivalent of marriage. They claimed also that discrimination against unmarried couples was akin to refusing accommodation to 'blacks and Jews', something consigned to the history books in this country - mostly.

The hotel in question is also the home of Mr and Mrs Bull, and they argued that they did not want adulterous acts to take place under their roof.

I think that argument is fair enough.

But the couple in question, their legal team, and other lobbyists for homosexual 'equality' argued that the hotel's owners refused their guests because they were homosexual.

The Court, we have heard today, bought that argument.

We cannot really know what the intentions of Mr and Mrs Bull were in the formulation of their booking policy - only they and God can see into their consciences - and we do not have the ability to fall back onto the authority of Church teaching, because they are not fully part of the Church, I am led to understand.

I suspect, however, that even if they were, it would not have helped them.

This has some parallels with the stories of recent years, telling of persecuted employees, particularly of air companies seemingly, who were not permitted to wear jewelry, including a cross.

I didn't buy this argument at the time. Wearing jewelry is not an integral part of the Christian faith (seeing what the airline would have said to the lady if she had have worn ashes for Lent), and so the argument didn't have anything to fall back on. The only religion - to my understanding - which requires a particular dress is Sikhism. Islam and Judaism is vague, because of the various interpretations of their scriptures and laws.

If we think of Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, who became John XXIII, he was not permitted to wear ecclesiastic dress as apostolic nuncio to Turkey, and pounded the streets in a lounge suit.

We can see that even bishop curtail to local laws and customs, as scripturally required - something apparently lost of Mr and Mrs Bull - so long as they do not cause one to break greater, divine laws. Wearing a dog collar is not divine law. Neither is permitting an unmarried couple to share a bed; it is always best to give the benefit of the doubt in all things.

By providing the environment to allow the potential for a sinful act to take place, as is the question with this court case, it does not necessarily make that provider culpable for the actions (are there not parallels here also with the Tucson shootings?), which, unfairly, they are assuming will take place in the room.

There were some allegations that the two men were working on behalf of a lobby group, which targeted this hotel for its booking policy, in order to entrap them into a criminal offence. These allegations were false, but if these things go on, which I'm sure they do, it would be interesting to see the reaction of the Courts in the face of charges being brought against members of other religions with similar beliefs.

I can understand, however, the feelings of Mr and Mrs Bull, which I think are more damaged now, than the feelings of the homosexual couple originally, and this should have been taken into account. Fortunately, they were the recipient of many donations from supporters, which have covered their fines.

In the future, we can, interestingly, look to Spain for guidance in this area of culpability. The King of Spain is a Catholic, and bound by Church law and teaching. When the government of Spain liberalised abortion laws, the King was constitutionally required to sign the bills into law, and thus, seemingly, have allowed abortion himself. The Bishops' Conference, however, assured the King that he did not excommunicate himself, because he was not fully culpable for the actions which he committed; his refusal would have resulted in something unacceptable because the King does not possess freedom of conscience - something, one would argue, which affords him various other rights and privileges. Similarly, King Boudewijn of Belgium abdicated for the day in 1990, instead of signing abortion bills into law. The last monarch in this country to refuse a parliamentary bill was Queen Anne, and, indeed, the last monarch to actually 'sign' a bill physically was Queen Victoria. In the UK therefore, Royal Assent is assumed.

So, in the end, Mr and Mrs Bull are guilty of a criminal offence, and so are subject to the penalties laid down by the law. We should always remember to be ready to defend the faith when needs be, but also be aware of the distinction between that which is essential, and that which is not.

Interestingly, both of the men in question were awarded their reparations separately. So much for the equality of civil partnerships.