Equal treatment

Tim Hopkins and Ian Baxter (Letters, 4 December), and even Lady Hale, assume that Mr and Mrs Bull refused accommodation on grounds of sexual orientation.

But the Bulls’ policy applied equally to all couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It was not directed specifically against homosexuals.

The pursuers’ circumstances brought them within the generality of this policy. They were refused accommodation because of their marital status, or lack of it. Had they been a heterosexual couple they would have been treated the same.

Some will argue that religious belief should be kept separate from daily life, especially business. But beliefs that remain hidden are not worth much and can hardly be discriminated against. It was the Bulls’ beliefs that determined their actions, the two being inseparable, and it is their beliefs that have exposed them to what they have since experienced.

To try to separate their actions from their beliefs is to create a false dichotomy.

It remains ironic that legislation intended to protect two classes of persons whose lives have come into conflict has proved incapable of protecting them both.

There is need for the wisdom of Solomon, who would surely have sorted this out equitably.

Geoff Miller

Newtyle

Angus