Christians and innkeepers

Why hotels should not discriminate.

Two Christians are to appeal for the right to turn couples away from inns. It is reported that in making this appeal they are being supported by the Christian Institute.

On one level this is all quite bizarre. One would perhaps expect Christians to be rather less judgemental, in accordance with the recorded liberal and inclusive teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, he was welcoming to sex workers and even tax collectors. But, then again, how the many Christians who believe Mary being impregnated by a "god" is somehow more normal than gay sex has always been quite beyond me.

However, the contentions of the hoteliers in this case are troubling regardless of any seeming conflict between homosexuality and a distorted form of Christianity. Indeed, there is a very basic legal principle at stake.

It is a great and ancient English legal tradition that any hotel is in principle open to any guest. Inns, like toll bridges and ferries, should be open to all comers who are able to pay their way.

As a legal tradition, this predates the Victorian legal invention of extreme freedom of contract doctrine. It was simply not open to the innkeeper, the tollhouse, or the ferryman to refuse to enter into a contract on a whim. There was always a greater public interest than selfish contractual autonomy.

This area of law, aspects of which are called "common carriage", is still highly relevant today. Modern telecommunications and utilities law is to a large extent premised on such rules of "common carriage". It also informs the ongoing debates on net neutrality.

The duties that one owes to strangers are central to any developed system of law, as they are to any sensible system of ethics. In both legal and ethical contexts, there is long tradition of valuing the hospitality to be given to travellers and guests.

So it is saddening that some followers of the very religion that gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan appear now to be completely unaware of this.


David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.