Cancellation of Theater Rental for Queer Film Festival Constitutes Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
- Recommendation to the President of the Respondent University to Establish Measures to Prevent Recurrence -
□ On June 29, 2026, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (Chairperson Ahn Chang-ho, hereinafter "the Commission") determined that the cancellation of a theater rental for the Queer Film Festival, which occurred when University A (hereinafter "the Respondent University"), the owner of the theater, requested that the theater cancel the rental during the course of rental negotiations, constituted an act of discrimination based on sexual orientation, and recommended that the president of the university establish and implement measures to prevent recurrence.
□ The Executive Director of the Queer Film Festival, operating under the Seoul Queer Culture Festival Organizing Committee (hereinafter "the Victim"), had, since March 2025, been in discussions with the theater located on the campus of the Respondent University regarding the rental schedule for the Korea Queer Film Festival. And by April 28, the Victim had received the contract from the theater, with only the final signing remaining. However, on April 30 of the same year, the Respondent University sent an official letter to the theater operator requesting cancellation of the rental, stating that the Queer Film Festival was inconsistent with the university's founding philosophy and educational purposes, that it raised concerns about conflict and division on campus, and that all rental and screening activities related to the film festival were prohibited. In response, the theater notified the Victim of the rental cancellation on May 2. The Secretary-General of the Seoul Queer Culture Festival Organizing Committee subsequently filed a complaint with the Commission in May 2025.
□ The Respondent University responded that the request to cancel the rental had been unavoidable for the sake of order and safety on campus, given the numerous complaints it had received regarding the Korea Queer Film Festival and the fact that a petition opposing the event had gathered more than 5,000 signatures, and amid expectations of numerous conflicts.
□ The Commission's Committee on Discrimination Remedy (Subcommittee Chair: Standing Commissioner Lee Sook-jin) determined that the cancellation of the rental for the Victim constituted an act of discrimination based on sexual orientation in relation to the use of a commercial facility, considering that the theater had rarely denied rental applications for reasons other than schedule conflicts, and that the Respondent University had not been directly involved in the theater's operations or rental process.
□ The Commission also found that, while the founding philosophy of a religiously affiliated school and the autonomy of a university must be respected, such autonomy cannot be exercised as a means of unjustly restricting the fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of expression, of members of the university community or outside parties, or of justifying the exclusion of or discrimination against social minorities.
○ In particular, the Commission found that the film festival in question was not an event directly related to the university's curriculum or religious education activities, but rather an external cultural and artistic event independently operated by a theater that had entered into a lease agreement with the university, and that restricting the rental solely on the ground that the event differed from the university's founding philosophy could not be justified.
□ The Commission determined that, even taking safety concerns into account, it was difficult to conclude that such risk had been specifically, realistically, and clearly demonstrated in this case, and that although alternative safety measures, such as requesting police protection for the facility or deploying security personnel, could have been considered, the immediate request to cancel the rental, thereby depriving the Victim and others of the opportunity to express their views through a cultural event, constituted an excessive restriction on the freedom of expression.
○ While diverse opinions may emerge regarding LGBTIQ+ people's rights, the Commission also found that restricting the use of a space solely on the ground that dissenting opinions or complaints exist is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of the right to equality and the freedom of expression.
□ Accordingly, the Commission recommended that the President of the Respondent University, who had exercised substantial influence to bring about the cancellation of the theater rental for the screening of the Queer Film Festival, establish and implement measures to prevent recurrence, so that the prohibition or cancellation of the substance of a contract that had effectively been finalized, on the grounds of particular values or sexual orientation, would not occur again in the operation of rental facilities.
