Joe is right.
It was about an issue, not equality.
...
Their first response to Lee's claim was they were not discriminating against Lee as a gay man; indeed, they had no knowledge of his sexual orientation.

The judge did not believe that. Also from the Guardian -


The judge added: "I believe the defendants did have the knowledge that the plaintiff was gay."

Outlining her reasons why this was a case of discrimination, Brownlie said: "The defendants are not a religious organisation. They conduct a business for profit. As much as I acknowledge their religious beliefs, this is a business to provide service to all. The law says they must do that."

In the absence of any evidence that the judge was wrong I will believe her. She is an expert in the field. We are not.