Based on the provided facts, we find for the appellant that the appeal is allowed. The court finds that the appellants suffered general damage form the situation explained in regard to this case. The evidence for the appellant’s general damage is based on their decision to seek legal redress based on the injury caused to their feelings and dignity that was a result of the respondent’s treatment to them. The general damage was as a result of the discrimination shown towards the appellants by the respondents when they sought their services and were declined based on their sexual discrimination. It is to be noted that the B&B religious affiliations does not offer protection in this case as there are religions that currently accept same-sex marriages and failing to identify their religion affiliations, therefore, indicates that the services were offered to all religious spiritual groups. Therefore, the declining of the services to the appellants was a discrimination which caused general damage to the appellants. Discrimination causes a wide-range of harm, but as for the appellants, the act of being treated differently affected their feelings and they felt that their integrity was compromised. The court therefore, finds the respondents responsible for discrimination against the appellants which caused them general damage.
The Canadian jurisdictions in British Columbia offer an exception to discrimination charges in cases of owner-occupied tenancies. Based on the provided information, the respondents were living within the premises of their B&B services that they offered. This therefore, provides the respondents protection against discriminative actions as they have the right to refuse services to people that they feel will compromise their current living situation. It therefore indicates that the respondents were right to deny the appellants their services due to their sexual orientation as they found it going against their religious beliefs. This clause would not have been considered if the respondents were not living within the same premises of their B&B services. Therefore, in regard to this exception, the respondent’s denial of services was performed with their rights and the law and the discrimination charge is to be dismissed as in regard to the case. It is however, to be noted that the appellants suffered damage based on the respondent’s lack to specify their services and who they were meant for. And for this, the respondents are to pay the appellants a sum of $1000 for the damages caused to them.