From here:
The Christian owners of a seaside guesthouse acted unlawfully by refusing to let a gay couple share a double bed, a judge has ruled in a landmark case.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull did not allow civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy to use a double room in their Cornwall B&B because it would be “an affront to their faith”.
However, a judge at Bristol County Court said the couple were breaking the law by denying the men a room.
Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were each awarded £1,800 in damages.
So how will this affect Christian B&B owners – before all Christians are driven out of the UK, of course?
Like this:
Not that long ago that mixed-race married couples would have been denied rooms in Christian establishments in much of the US South. Do you support that as well?
You appear to be suggesting that being opposed to same-sex marriage is equivalent to being opposed to mixed race marriage. It isn’t.
Or, perhaps, that the fact that some Christians once might have opposed mixed race marriage means that I can’t oppose same-sex marriage while not opposing mixed race marriage. Illogical nonsense.
A few weeks ago, I mentioned an interesting discussion I had with a Christian gentleman on Christmas day who I would characterize as a hard-line American conservative but who self identifies as a libertarian and an “American exceptionalist”. Although he and I agreed on few things, I respected his honesty and willingness to face head on the logical outcome of his views. He was quite forthright in saying that, if a business wished to deny service to someone of colour, the government had no right to interfere; that the natural outworking of the free marketplace would act as a corrective (i.e., the business would lose potential revenue and would feel pressure to change its policies). He also said that, if the person being denied service didn’t like it, they could move to a different state that had laws governing this sort of discrimination. I don’t believe that this gentleman personally would act in a discriminating way, but he was willing to subordinate his personal view in favour of his belief in small government.
Whether government should poke its nose into that issue, while not being particularly pertinent to this one, is nevertheless instructive in that it is an example of government legislated morality that would win the applause of liberals who would not hesitate to screech their outrage when threatened with similarly legislated morality that infringes on their own – usually sexual – predilections.
I don’t think I understand what you said.
No, you’re apparently upholding the right not to do business with people for discriminatory causes. I just wanted to know which grounds you feel it is right to discriminate on and which if any you feel are wrong.
To drag in your other favorite hobby horse, (tag clouds are so revealing), is it right for a Christian B&B owner to refuse a room to a Muslim? vice versa?
Obviously I’m upholding the right of a merchant not to do business with someone he does not think it right to do business with – for what you are calling “discriminatory causes”.
I doubt that anyone would argue against not selling guns to known criminals or fireworks to a four-year old.
So the issue is one of which – to use your loaded word – discrimination is legitimate and which isn’t; I think the B&B owners were quite justified. When, in my youth, I was roaming around with my then girlfriend, we didn’t initiate a moronic lawsuit when turned away from a prim and proper bed and breakfast because of an absence of wedding rings – we found another one. But those were saner times.
On the Muslim point: as you are no doubt aware, some Muslim cab drivers in the UK have refused to take passengers with seeing-eye dogs. As idiotic as I think this is, I – rather like Warren’s acquaintance – would not be unhappy with a free market solution.
I’m delighted that you find my tag cloud enlightening.
David, if you would be willing to move to more of a theological plane for a moment, would you argue that it is biblical for a Christian businessman to refuse to do business with a “sinner”, or are you just arguing that the government should not have the right to require him to do such transactions?
And I appreciate the fact that you’re not blaming me for it.
Warren,
It wouldn’t be very practical since there would be no-one to do business with.
And that’s not what happened in this case: the two gentlemen were offered separate rooms, but they refused them. They insisted on the same room for one simple reason: to compel tacit complicity from the owners in what was to take place in the room.
The owners’ refusal to go along with this was very different from refusing to do business with someone simple because of what they are.
I agree – we’re all sinners; but some sins seem to evoke reactions that others don’t. I appreciate that there aren’t too many other sins where a concerted effort is being made to turn them into a virtue, but, can any more of a biblical argument be made for refusing to serve someone who you believe may commit a homosexual act than refusing to serve someone you believe may become drunk (e.g., have a few beers in the room)? I already get it that, from a political perspective, you probably believe that the state has no right to intefere with the decision of the proprietor in either case.
I’m not sure what else you’re after. You seem to be implying that agreeing to be implicated in something that is Biblically forbidden isn’t intrinsically “un-Biblical”.
It’s more innocent than that – really. I struggle in my own mind with issues of church and state and am much less certain than many Christians seem to be in terms of demanding “rights” as a Christian in a society that is secular and increasingly hostile to Christianity. In some cases it probably is correct to demand that my rights be respected, whereas in other cases I suspect that I should accept persecution as an expected by product of being a follower of Christ (taking up my cross and all that). I have no doubt that God can work miracles and change even nations, but I suspect that Christians, struggling in their own strength to protect or change laws that are increasingly out of step with the mores of the society in which they live, are often fighting a futile – or even counterproductive – battle. Unless the hearts of their neighbours and colleagues are transformed by God’s grace, their efforts will be increasingly met with hostility and suspicion.
I guess I’m trying to find the right balance between truly loving my neighbour and standing up against evil. I don’t doubt their sincerity, but I’m uncomfortable that many Christians are more enthusiastic about standing up against evil than they are about loving their neighbours.
I’m not trying to evoke a response, and probably won’t post again to this thread. Thank you for providing a forum where I can air views like this.
I’m not sure I can find too much to disagree with in that. Let me sleep on it 🙂
I’m putting the lie to my comment about probably not posting again to this thread, but I just stumbled across a reference to this book on another blog and it looked like it could have relevance to some of us who comment on this blog (I include myself):
http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3309
I don’t know anything about Richard Mouw, but his book sounds interesting. Have you heard of him?
No, I am not familiar with him.
It would be interesting to know if the B and B owner would do the same thing when confronted with a straight couple who had no wedding rings on.
Yes, that was their policy.
The gay couple in question are civilly partnered under UK law and therefore legally equivalent to married.
(As my wife and I use different last names, I usually have a copy of the marriage certificate in my travel papers. Occasionally someone asks to see it.) The B&B’s bookign form now makes their policy visible.
If they conform to that, divorced and remarried persons whose first spouse is still living would not be welcome either. I doubt they check.
Your point, I presume, is that since the owners were unable to apply their rules to meet your standard of consistency, they are not entitled to apply them at all.
And while we’re on the subject, since some burglars manage to elude the law, there isn’t much point in trying to catch any because it would be so unfair to those who are apprehended.
No, actually, that they are consistent in setting themselves above the civil law.