The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The "right" to discriminate? It doesn't exist

You have the right to be homophobic -- but not to put these beliefs into harmful action.

By Frances Ryan Published 19 November 2011 11:15

An Englishman's home is his castle, or so the phrase informs us. That small scrap of land that is ours to do with as we please. However, as Christian guesthouse owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull have found, once said castle is opened up to the public, the rules begin to change. Specifically, if you say you'll rent your rooms to strangers, it's illegal to turn away the ones that are gay.

Nelson Jones wrote this week that "the intimate circumstances of bed-sharing...complicate the situation". I would have to disagree. Banning gay guests from your premises becomes no more legal if the rule "only" applies to those who might end up having sex. Or in this particular case, those who wish to do so in a double room and without one of the couple making a walk of shame to spend the night back in their single bed.

Though some of the issues raised by this trial may be complex, the concept of discrimination is not. Just as it's against the law to run a business and only serve people with white skin, so it's against the law to run a business and only serve people who like to sleep with the opposite sex. That the banned customer could go elsewhere does not, as Nelson suggests, change this. There could be a hundred other guesthouses available to a gay couple but it would have no relevance to whether it was right or legal for one to turn them away.

Everyone (conducting themselves within the law) has the right to be served everywhere, and to say a policy like the Bull's "need not unduly inconvenience gay couples" is to severely reduce what's wrong with discrimination.

When civil partners Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy were denied a double room, the harm didn't simply come from the effort of re-arranging their plans, or even the (at best) embarrassment that such a need would cause. It came from being excluded because of a biologically determined difference, from being banned from doing something because of who they are. The law says this is wrong. That "the God worshipped by the Bulls does not" is, though unfortunate, irrelevant. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it stems from the playground or a Holy Book.

It would be easy to see such a verdict as an attack on freedom, an attempt by the state to take an unpopular belief and make it illegal. This would, though, be inaccurate. This is not a case that judged the right to be homophobic (or "old fashioned" if that is what we wish to call it). It is a case that judged the right to be homophobic and use that belief to hurt someone else.

How hurt is defined is fundamental -- whether we live by the notion that prejudice only hurts its victim if it involves blood and a physical blow. Nelson is right that philosophy can teach that "multiple preferences" are best, provided they don't cause ill-effects, but it can also tell us the point at which these ill-effects mean our actions must stop. Liberal theory -- the ideas we base our laws on -- sets clear restrictions on personal liberty: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." The Bulls have the right to think homosexuality is wrong. If they so wish, they have the right to be repulsed by the thought of two men having sex and even to declare out loud the perils in this sin. They do not have the right to put these beliefs into harmful action, to use them in a way that leads to discrimination.

No one laid a finger on Martyn or Steven. By all accounts, Mr and Mrs Bull were very polite in telling them they were not allowed to share a room with the person who is their partner by law. This does nothing to change the fact this was discrimination. One can't help but wonder whether if their reason had been something other than sexuality, this would even be under contention. There would be unanimous disgust at a guesthouse that held a policy of "No Blacks with Whites Allowed" -- and that it involved "the intimate circumstances of bed-sharing" would evoke little sympathy if inter-race couples were told to take separate rooms.

Such beliefs, in these times, cannot be put into practice. If you open your castle to the public, it's the price you have to pay.

Frances Ryan is a freelance writer and political researcher at the University of Nottingham. She blogs at Different Principles and tweets @frances_ryan

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Frances Ryan

26 comments

Sun, 2011-11-20 19:03 — Nathan (not verified)

Nelson Jones has written a pretty good response to this at his other blog, Heresy Corner.

heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/11/playing-determinism-card.html

(I am not Nelson Jones)

Sat, 2011-11-19 11:52 — Boarderthom (not verified)

Sympathetic joy is when we take delight in the happiness of another instead of begrudging it. Can we allow the lives of others to be different from ours and feel happy for them? Yes. Can we rejoice for them as their happiness grows? Yes. I do not believe that happiness is a limited resource, that the more someone else has, the less there is for me. I do not believe that heterosexuals have a monopoly on love and commitment. If Ellen Degeneres is happy in her same-sex marriage then I am happy for her too. I say, "Love the religious bigot, disagree with the religious bigotry".

Sat, 2011-11-19 12:47 — RoyalHumanist (not verified)

One may dislike homosexuality and still one may not discriminate against any person of this orientation in one's official domain. You cannot, however, force anyone to socialize with people of a particular sexual orienataion as this is not discrimination... However, homosexuals/gays do discriminate againt individuals who do not like homosexuality or speak against this activity (while not discriminating in their official capacity.)

Sat, 2011-11-19 13:17 — Philby Ramone (not verified)

The Christian owners have a right to their beliefs. They could have told Adam and Steve that there was simply no room at the inn. "Booked out, darlings. Sorry"

Christians maintain beliefs, gays are not offended, State laws are seen to be intact as Adam and Steve find another inn.

Sat, 2011-11-19 13:23 — RoyalHumanist (not verified)

While in this case, the discrimination was religiously motivated and was aimed at homosexual couple as well as unmarried normal-sex male-female couple, this case becomes rather restricted in view.
If someone had discriminated only against a male homosexual couple for the reason that anal-sex practice predisposes such a couple with an incidence of AIDS and sexually diseases 20-40 imes higher than normal-sex couple; Would this still be called "Legal discrimination" ?

Sat, 2011-11-19 13:48 — Daniele1

Excellent aricle on the topic. It is a very clear cut breaking of the law.Nelson jones is just very muddled (he usually is)with his interpretation of the law.
@Royalhumanist, the answer to your question is YES, what has the incidence of aids got to do with the principle involved?
NS why or why can't you get rid of the commercial spam on this site. I thought the new maths test was supposed to do just that?

Sat, 2011-11-19 13:50 — RoyalHumanist (not verified)

B.Small: Your comments about going to a Muslim Bed & Breakfast for a double bed room for a homosexual couple are hypothetical; only if such an incident happened that you could have the right to vent your anger ...!

Sat, 2011-11-19 14:09 — liberal sceptic (not verified)

I'm sorry but " biologically determined difference"? What evidence do you have to support that statement? The jury is still out on way people are gay. The evidence isn't conclusive that its biologically determined. The fact is people in the western world have only started to categorised people as straight or gay or bisexual very recently. These ideas are not universal. The ancient Greek famously practiced homosexuality but they never seemed to consider it a natural biologically determined preference. The Aka tribe in Africa have no concept of homosexuality, even the practice. There has never been conclusive evidence to say that gay people are born gay. Personally I'm in totally in favour of gay rights, but assuming that the cultural ideas of your society are rules of nature is just chauvinism. Please don't make statements like that unless you have evidence to support them, and please direct me to the evidence if they have categorically proven the existence of a "gay gene" and it just happened not to make it to the news for some reason.

Sat, 2011-11-19 14:37 — Ian5

As a campaphobic anti thesist, who tries his best not to discriminate I'm being stuffed by this case. Do I side with religious freedom or sexual freedom. Damn this fence is getting uncomfortable. Heck ban them both and I can sleep nights...Would both communities not be better served by giving the tolerance both seek. I think the Bulls should have made their stance obvious before this couple arrived.... In future advertising with the phrase "we cater mainly for Christian/Gay even Gay Christian guests" might solve a few problems and a few lesss ruffled feathers. No damn it that leaves race and colour still unaccounted for. Back to my fence.

Sat, 2011-11-19 14:46 — Trajan (not verified)

@RoyalDimwit

Well, yeah, actually. And please explain to me just the fuck is a 'normal-sex couple'. Surely not heterosexuals who have anal sex.

Sat, 2011-11-19 14:47 — Chir0n

Frances Ryan has it spot on: You can harbour whatever vile prejudices you want, but it’s another thing entirely to act on them.

What I can't understand is why people, such as the Bulls, who are not only prejudiced but whose prejudice is prescribed by their religion (or at least by their interpretation of it) would put themselves in a position where the requirements of their belief system cannot possibly be balanced against the requirements of law. They could either allow Mr Hall and Mr Preddy to share a room and thereby compromise their beliefs but adhere to the law, or vice versa.

Did the Bulls seriously never foresee a day when running a guesthouse would force this dilemma upon them?

Surely, common sense dictates that if you don’t like gays, lesbians, Asian, Africans, Afro-Caribbeans or whoever, and you can’t put your prejudice to one side, you shouldn’t go into the hospitality business.

Sat, 2011-11-19 15:02 — A. Cole (not verified)

The right to discriminate DOES exist.

Under a law of authenticity Chinese and Indian restaurants are allowed to employ only staff who match these ethnic backgrounds.

Sat, 2011-11-19 15:28 — Ian5

A,Cole Then they should be sued under Trades Descriptions Act, as they resemble authentic Chinese and Indian Cuisine, like Birmingham resembles Venice... Thought this had been closed under new immigration regs, recall Bangladeshi businesses complaining.

Sat, 2011-11-19 17:25 — michaelpetek

Mr and Mrs Bull were being asked to aid and abet sexual acts they found unconscionable. They were non-consenting adults in relation to a homosexual act. The gay couple were welcome to eat in the restaurant and use the other facilities at the guest house. Including the lavatory.

Sat, 2011-11-19 17:27 — C Baker

I thought that when you went to stay somewhere sex was a private matter.

If they are so obsessed with what type of sex and how it is going on in their rooms, maybe they should run either a brothel or a nunnery.

If only the religious folks would worry more about poverty and less about people's bedroom habits.

Do they listen in or something? Have they a sexometer of acceptable fornication?

Sad, sad, people. Religion has 'screwed' their mind. This is worse then the motel in psycho.

Fri, 2011-11-25 18:02 — Rohan (not verified)

It is my sincerely held religious belief that anyone who looks like Hazelmary Bull should not be allowed to share a bed with anyone.

But seriously, there have been unmarried heterosexual witnesses come forward claiming to have been allowed to share a double bed in the same hotel without ever being asked if they were married. This is about sexuality, not marriage.

Furthermore, what about married couples of the Bull's age group? Clearly they're past having children, so why would they ever need to ever share a double bed again? If they wanted to be true to their supposedly religious convictions, they would bar everyone except married couples trying to concieve from sharing a double bed in their hotel. The reality is that they believe sharing a double bed is OK within a marriage, probably even sex is OK within a marriage, even in a situation where no child can result from it. Their problem is with the thought of two gay people having sex. Their religion is a red herring.

Sat, 2011-11-19 18:48 — A. Cole (not verified)

You would think human survival depended on homosexuality given all the fuss that is made over the interests of this minority.

Sat, 2011-11-19 18:51 — V: Britain's Gr...

Why are my posts being thrown out? I wanted to propose a "third way" (to coin a phrase) that would defend the homosexual couple and re-assure (and perhaps reform) some homophobes. Anyway, I've got my own blogs elsewhere, so ask me about it on there if you want to.

Sat, 2011-11-19 19:59 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

A Cole, what a curious thing to say. Try 'You would think human survival depended on freedom of speech/ democratic government/ equality under the law depending on blah blah blah'.

Mon, 2011-11-21 14:11 — Jeremy Poynton (not verified)

This was a stitch-up. There a many gay-friendly and well advertised as such B&Bs in the same area. Should it not also be illegal to single out people in this way? Frankly, the couple that did this should be ashamed of themselves.

Sun, 2011-11-20 01:46 — Anon (not verified)

Funnily enough. Though it wasn't at the time. A girlfriend and i got turned away from a castle in scotland, on loch awe, at 10 pm because we were smokers. Not planning to smoke in the room. But smokers. So many potential issues with this case, facts and interpretations, the lawyers must have had a field day. Who paid for claimants, and why? Still, good case to be heard and easy to have simple opinion about. No other legal decision would have been possible. Whither the faith schools and private clubs.

Sun, 2011-11-20 05:29 — historybuff

And the same rule should apply to places of worship, and the services they perform, including marriage, whether they be Churches, synaogues or mosques, if these receive charitable status which gives them effectively financial subsidies by the state and therefore the public.

If they wish to opt out of this system and public subsidies, they are welcome to do so.

Sun, 2011-11-20 05:34 — historybuff

Good point Trajan!
Most people are unaware that sodomy also includes so-called 'unnatural' acts by heterosexual couples, including oral and anal sex.

Sun, 2011-11-20 09:52 — Natacha Kennedy (not verified)

Unfortunately the same cannot be said about transgender people. You have a right to be transphobia, AND you have the right to put that transphobia into practice. This is something which was enshrined in law by the last Labour government's Equality Act, which actually rolled back rights previuously won by trans people. The EA permits a wide range of instances of transphobic discrimination and gives greater weight to "protecting" the rights of non-trans people by trans people.

Sun, 2011-11-20 10:21 — jankaas (not verified)

@A Cole

"You would think human survival depended on homosexuality given all the fuss that is made over the interests of this minority."

what an intellectually corrupt notion; minorities don't require protecting, especially if A Cole thinks "enough fuss already".....

now read this 100 times you naughty boy;

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me