2007 Refusing service on grounds of sexual orientation outlawed

2007 Refusing service on grounds of sexual orientation outlawed.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1263) were landmark secondary regulations that outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, and services. 

Key Legal Changes

• Refusal of Service: It became illegal for businesses like restaurants, hotels, or shops to refuse service to individuals because they were gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
• Public Functions & Education: The law extended protections to the exercise of public functions and prevented educational establishments from discriminating against students based on their own or their parents’ sexual orientation.
• Adoption Agencies: Religious adoption and fostering agencies were prohibited from discriminating against same-sex couples, following a transitional period that ended in 2008.
• Liability: Employers and principals were held vicariously liable for discriminatory acts committed by their employees during the course of employment. 

Key Figures and Organisations Involved

• Ruth Kelly: As the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, she formally introduced the regulations in April 2007.
• Lord Alli: A key proponent in the House of Lords who pushed for amendments to make the original Equality Bill comprehensive.
• Tony Blair: The then-Prime Minister who notably addressed the controversy regarding faith-based adoption agencies, granting them a time-limited transition period.
• Desmond Turner: A Labour MP who led similar efforts in the House of Commons to ensure homophobic discrimination was covered.
• Religious Opponents: Figures such as Archbishop Vincent Nichols opposed the regulations on the grounds that they contradicted Catholic moral values, particularly concerning adoption. The Christian Institute also unsuccessfully sought a judicial review to overturn the regulations in Northern Ireland. 

These regulations were later consolidated into the Equality Act 2010, which remains the primary legislation for equality in the UK. 

The community response to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 was deeply divided, characterised by a sharp conflict between the push for LGBT equality and the preservation of religious freedoms. 

LGBT and Advocacy Groups

LGBT organisations viewed the regulations as a long-overdue victory for civil rights, closing a legal loophole that allowed discrimination in everyday life. 

• Stonewall & The Lesbian & Gay Foundation: These groups welcomed the law as an essential tool for holding public and private service providers to account.
• Rights of Women: They urged the government to remain firm against “religious-based lobbies,” arguing that allowing exemptions would create “different levels of protection” and undermine the principle of universal equality. 

Religious and Faith-Based Organisations

Faith groups expressed strong opposition, fearing the law would force them to act against their core moral doctrines. 

• The Catholic Church: Leading figures, including Archbishop Vincent Nichols, argued that religious adoption agencies should be exempt from placing children with same-sex couples based on conscience.
• The Christian Institute: This group spearheaded legal challenges, arguing the laws “trumped the freedoms” of religious individuals and charities. They warned that many faith-based services, particularly in adoption and fostering, would be forced to close rather than comply.
• Individual Business Owners: The response also included private resistance, most notably from Christian guest house owners who were later sued for refusing double rooms to gay couples. 

Public and Government Response

• “Getting Equal” Consultation: The government received extensive public evidence showing that discrimination in shops, restaurants, and schools was a “real everyday problem” for the LGBT community.
• Compromise Measures: In response to the backlash, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair introduced a transitional period until 2008 for adoption agencies, though he ultimately refused a permanent exemption, stating that there could be “no exception to the principle” of non-discrimination. 

Following the 2007 Regulations, several landmark legal battles clarified the balance between religious freedom and non-discrimination. The courts consistently ruled that while individuals have the right to hold religious beliefs, they cannot use them to deny services to the public in a commercial or public context. 

1. Bull vs Hall [2013] UKSC 73 

This is arguably the most famous case involving the 2007 Regulations. Peter and Hazelmary Bull, Christian owners of a Cornwall guesthouse, refused to allow a same-sex couple in a civil partnership, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, to share a double room. 

• The Defence: The Bulls argued they only let double rooms to married couples and that their policy applied to any unmarried couple, regardless of orientation.
• The Ruling: The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Bulls’ appeal. A majority ruled that the policy constituted direct discrimination because at the time, same-sex couples could not marry, making the “married only” requirement indissociable from sexual orientation.
• Significance: It established that providers of goods and services must treat civil partners with the same respect and esteem as married couples. 

2. Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) vs Charity Commission 

This series of cases (2009–2012) concerned a Catholic adoption agency that wanted to amend its objects to restrict its services to heterosexual couples only. 

• The Defence: The charity argued that if forced to serve same-sex couples, it would lose funding from the Catholic Church and be forced to close, which would ultimately harm the children it served.
• The Ruling: The First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal ultimately ruled against the agency. They found that the discrimination was not a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” and that the public interest in non-discrimination outweighed the charity’s religious tenets.
• Significance: It effectively ended the era of faith-based exemptions for adoption agencies in the UK. 

3. Black & Morgan vs Wilkinson [2013] EWCA Civ 820

Similar to the Bull case, Susanne Wilkinson refused a double room to Michael Black and John Morgan at her bed and breakfast because they were a same-sex couple. 

• The Defence: Wilkinson argued that her B&B was her private family home and she was exercising her right to manifest her religious beliefs.
• The Ruling: The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of discrimination. It noted that when a home is used as a commercial boarding house, it must comply with public equality laws.
• Significance: It reinforced that commercial business activities cannot be exempted from equality law simply because they take place in a private residence. 

2026EXP