Ah the constitution: the hallowed legislature which binds and entitles us all to a peaceful, non-discriminatory and equitable existence… in theory. In practice, as it has so many times before, the constitution is not really all that protective of real people in real life.

This is particularly the case for members of the LGBT community as there has been massive debate and push for the clause protecting diverse sexualities to be removed from the constitution. Thankfully, it has yet to be removed from the legislature but it certainly seems not to have filtered into the general consciousness of the public.

It was November 2013 when Neil Coulsen and his husband Jonathan Sedgwick (the couple are Christians and were married in a religious ceremony last year) found themselves in need of accommodation when their son was due to attend a school camp in the picturesque mountain retreat of Ceres in the Boland.[…]

Sedgwick had liked the look of a guesthouse called Watershed (since renamed House of Bread) and rang the establishment with the intention of booking a room. While guesthouse owner Marina Neethling confirmed that a room was indeed available she informed Sedgwick, after learning that he was checking in with his husband, that she could not accommodate the couple as her guesthouse was not “gay friendly”.

Not child-friendly, sort of understandable. Not animal-friendly… again we can see how bringing your five dogs and three cats to guest house might be problematic for the owners. Not “gay friendly”?! Huh? What is it the owners think “gays” might need in order to make use of a guest house appropriately?

Naturally, feeling rather disgruntled, the couple took the case to court. Had the guesthouse owners denied access to someone based on their gender, their race or their religious beliefs, the compainants would no doubt have been awarded the victory in seconds. But because they are a homosexual couple up against a religious couple (who were represented with the peaceful façade that has long since been covering up Christian discrimination), the ruling was thus:

In delivering his ruling, Magistrate Jerome Koeries made it clear he was of the opinion that the two parties should be referred to “another body” which would “mediate, conciliate and negotiate” the case “in the interests of building a bridge of mutual acceptance between the broader gay and lesbian community on the one hand and the Christian faith community on the other, rather than drive a wedge between the communities as this case potentially might do.”

Summing up, Koeries suggested that Coulsen “was not the party towards whom the alleged discrimination was directed. It seems to be common cause that Mr Sedgwick, at that point, had no issue with what the respondents said. In fact, it is stated that they parted in a friendly manner, that there is no indication at that point that Mr Sedgwick felt aggrieved or humiliated or offended.”

Coulsen maintained following this ruling that they would continue to fight against the discrimination until a “fair” ruling was given.

Read more on the rather flimsy case made by the defense and the pretty solid one made my the prosecution at The Daily Maverick.

Is this current ruling “fair” or was the court fooled by the “red herring” that the religious defense offered?