Rights and wrongs - Telegraph The devoutly Christian owners of a Cornish hotel who refused to allow two gay men to take a double room have lost their final appeal to the Supreme Court. It ruled that Peter and Hazelmary Bull had discriminated against the couple, even though they had long operated a rule that unmarried guests had to sleep apart. One of the judges, Lady Hale, said such a case would have been unthinkable less than two decades ago, and it is a measure of how both the law and societal norms have changed that the Bulls should have found themselves in such a predicament. It is also a pity this matter was not settled amicably when the Bulls made an offer of redress; but campaigners were intent on making an example of them. The aggrieved men, Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, who were in a civil partnership, were supported by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The Bulls were perplexed as to why the EHRC should act against them, since their right to exercise their religious beliefs was being set against that of the men not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Lady Hale acknowledged that the commission could have chosen to take a neutral position rather than prosecute, but she suggested that this was to misunderstand the nature of the case. "If Mr Preddy and Mr Hall were hotel keepers who had refused a room to Mr and Mrs Bull, because they were Christians... no doubt the Commission would have been just as ready to support Mr and Mrs Bull in their claim," she said. But does anyone really believe that? Whenever the right to act in keeping with one's faith is weighed against the right not to be offended, the former invariably comes off second best. We hope Lady Hale's faith in the EHRC to act even-handedly proves to be justified.