Christians and innkeepers
Posted by David Allen Green - 26 January 2011 10:10
Why hotels should not discriminate.
Steven Preddy and his civil partner, Martyn Hall, were refused a double room in 2008. Photo: Getty Images.
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 judgmental, 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 on-going debates on net neutrality.
The duties which 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 which 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.
34 comments from readers
- Jim Lawrence
26 January 2011 at 10:21B&Bs are in essence semi-public spaces, not simply private ones. While one is at liberty to ban whomever one likes, with certain exceptions, from one's home, one cannot do so from a home that also functions as a business. In the public sphere one has to be respectful to fellow citizens under equal protection of the law.
- Matt Flaherty
26 January 2011 at 10:23It would appear that this gays-only hotel is in violation of the Equalities Act and your common law principle. What shall we do?
- Law Think
26 January 2011 at 10:23An interesting addendum to the discrimination point.
- Frank Smith
26 January 2011 at 10:25A gross invasion of the private space by the state. B&Bs are not inns or hotels.
- Heresiarch
26 January 2011 at 10:26"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."
Just like barristers, I suppose. What would happen to a barrister who refused to defend a gay client?
I would however question how you conclude that the sexual teachings that have been upheld by bishops, popes and preachers for most of its history represent a "distorted" version of Christianity. Jesus might not have had much problem with gay people (who knows?) but Paul certainly did. OF course, there's a whole school of thought that holds Paul responsible for "distorting" Christianity right at the start - but if so, he succeeded so well that his Christianity is the historically most valid one. The Bulls are faithful to Christian tradition - though of course that doesn't make it, or them, right.
- Drew Rae
26 January 2011 at 10:29Thanks for this clear explanation David. There's been a lot of commentary about how people should be free to trade with whomever they want, and this is a lovely rebuttal.
- Des Demona
26 January 2011 at 10:30Gay only hotels? Women only hotels? Men only clubs? It's a pickle - what constitutes discrimination and what doesn't?
I'm not defending these particular hoteliers but it is an interesting point.
- Ed West
26 January 2011 at 10:35But they did allow them to stay in their "inn", just not in the same bed.
- Matt Flaherty
26 January 2011 at 10:35Oh sorry. Did I say gays-only? I should have said gay men only. http://www.guyzhotel.com/
- David Allen Green
26 January 2011 at 10:39Ed West
That is why I used the word "couple".
Your point was anticipated...
- Matthew Taylor
26 January 2011 at 10:43@Des Demona: A "gay only" hotel would be as much a breach of the relevant legislation as was the B&B in this case (in fact, as there would be an outright denial of any service on grounds of sexuality, as against the refusal to provide a service in a particular way - a double room).
Given the costs, I can't help but think those funding the defence might have been better advised to try and book various "spinsters of this parish" into hotels advertising themselves as "gay only" - at least the same publicity impact, and a far lower cost.
- Adam
26 January 2011 at 10:43I have mixed feelings about this case.
On the one hand, the B&B owners are clearly disgusting individuals who use religion as a thinly veiled excuse for their outrageous and hideous prejudices. It is truly shocking that anyone in the 21st century should think that there is anything wrong with being gay.
But on the other hand, I am concerned that the state interferes too much with the way people run their businesses as it is. Clearly it's completely daft for the B&B owners to turn away paying guests, but why should the state dictate to them that they can't behave in a daft manner?
I take the point about an ancient tradition of inns being open to all, but surely that dates from a time when it could actually be pretty serious if you were turned away from an inn. In the 21st century, that no longer holds. If you are refused a booking at one Cornish B&B, it's not as if there are not thousands of other places to stay in Cornwall.
Being a libertarian means extending liberties to people whose views are reprehensible as well as to people who hold reasonable views, doesn't it?
- Ed West
26 January 2011 at 10:45David,
Your point was that they were being un-Christian and uncharitable by casting the poor pair out into the cold, like the innkeepers in the Bible. That simply isnt true; they may have been breaking Britain's law but they werent breaking any agreed Christian understanding of charity.
Ed
- Steve Jones
26 January 2011 at 10:57Just a few points. The use of a "distorted form of Christianity" seems to me to be unworthy. It's an interpretation, and it might not accord with modern, liberal, thinking, but I don't think it can be described as any more distorted than any other version. It is mainstream in much of Africa, lots of the US not to mention Orthodox Judaism and most Islamic interpretations. It was also, of course, the mainstream interpretation in Christianity for most of its history.
The common law and ancient tradition for Inns is irrelevant. It wasn't a denial of accommodation, it was a condition placed on a gay couple on the nature of that accommodation.
It's very simple, it's a clash between the Equalities Act and what conditions the owners of a B&B place on their guests based on the interpretation of their religion. To what extent those of religious faith can discriminate is a an interesting point.
The state actually conspires to discriminate in the case of Faith Schools where discrimination via religious selection is not just permitted, but subsidised. Personally I think that's much more damaging to society than a few increasingly out-of-touch oddballs running a B&B.
- Korhomme
26 January 2011 at 11:00More like Old Testament fundamentalism than Christianity?
- Yvonne
26 January 2011 at 11:04I'm a bit disappointed that this piece lacks Mr Allen Green's usual rigour. As I understand it, the owners of the B&B did not turn the couple away and so were not in breach of any principle of common law. They merely refused to let the couple share a double-bedded room. In so doing, they were implementing a guest policy which had been on display on their website and which stated that, because of their beliefs they did not offer a double bedded room to an unmarried couple (presumably they regarded a same-sex civil partnership as not equating to marriage). This was a common practice in many establishments up until the last few decades. (Hence the number of Mr. & Mrs. Smiths who pseudonymously checked in.) Were all such establishments also in breach of the same civil law principle then? If so, I am not aware of any legal challenge ever made against hotels etc..
I do not know if the owners offered this couple separate rooms but if they did then they can hardly be accused of having turned them away. Indeed, given that the B&B's policy was clearly stated on their website, I do wonder why the couple chose to go there in the first place if they expected to share a double-bedded room.
I welcome the appeal being made by the B&B owners - they need to know whether, under more recently implemented anti-discrimination legislation, they can still carry on their business in the way in which they have done in the past, or whether they should give up the business because they cannot fulfil current legal requirements.
- Fat Jacques
26 January 2011 at 11:05Nice to know an all loving god is sat up there, judging B&B owners.
"No, you can't get into heaven. You allowed bumming in one of your B&B rooms"
- Law Think
26 January 2011 at 11:06Very interesting point about the Constatine case. Though my initial thought is whether we can question it as remaining good law, for example a 'right to religious freedom' may have had an effect.
The case also shows the increasingly horizontal effect of rights, which is markedly different to the line which was taken under the HRA:
http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/01/the-hall-and-preddy-case-h...
- Liadnan
26 January 2011 at 11:09@heresiarch @10.26 a barrister who refused to represent a gay client would be hauled over the coals by the BSB for breach of the cab rank rule. This notoriously happened some four years ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-397625/Barrister-ref... (sorry, the only full record of the story I could find when trying to track down my vague recollection of something I read in the Naughty Barrister Reports years ago was in the Mail: so far as I recall it's a reasonable summary).
I imagine it would be ok in many cases to say "Don't think I'm really the right barrister for you". But in that case I think there wasn't time for that. My recollection is that the consequences were serious, though not extending to disbarring.
- Matt Flaherty
26 January 2011 at 11:13@Adam The B&B owners here are not "disgusting individuals" as you assert. That is most unfair. They are religious social conservatives who believe that physical acts of homosexuality are a sin and that by encouraging it they are also sinning. They have the same attitude towards pre-marital hetero sex. Your allusion to their "outrageous and hideous prejudices" is simply projecting your own morals onto a situation that does not involve you.
- Jack Holroyde
26 January 2011 at 11:17I can't understand this 'gay only' hotel being used as a defence?
They're both wrong, saying 'Oh, but everyone else does it' is NOT a defence for breaking the law -
as Illsley and Chaytor found out...
I say the CPS should bring action against gay only hotels as well. Their presence further ghettoises the gay scene and promotes separatism.
- Emily
26 January 2011 at 11:41One thing that isn't mentioned here is that Christians are instructed in the Bible to be law-abiding citizens and be submissive to authorities, insofar as those authorities are not unjust.
Whilst I am torn on this case because on the one hand the Equality Act is quite a solid piece of legislation and equates civil partnership with marriage, on the other it is difficult to reconcile the issues around faith and morality. The Bulls would not have turned them away if they had a twin room, and their policy I do not believe was deliberately homophobic as it applied equally to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Put into context, homosexuality is no greater a sin than lying, gossiping or adultery - there is no hierarchy of sin in the Bible. But Christians are called to love the sinner rather than the sin, so I feel it would be wrong to say that they were not inherently charitable people.
I don't see that the case, based purely on the interpretation of the law, could have gone any other way though.
- Adam
26 January 2011 at 11:47@Matt Flaherty:
"simply projecting your own morals onto a situation that does not involve you"
That, of course, is an excellent description of what the B&B owners were doing. No-one was asking them to join in.
- Matt Flaherty
26 January 2011 at 11:50I bring up gay-only establishments not as a defence of any discrimination but to highlight the double standards of equality. If true equality is the aim, then there should be no discrimination. I felt that this piece lacked balance for having excluded the flip side, which is in fact a much clearer violation.
- Matt Flaherty
26 January 2011 at 11:53@Adam, Heresiarch last year wrote a wonderful piece about this that captures my views very well:
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/04/should-gay-hotel-ow...
The belief that homosexuality (the act) is wrong or sinful should not bear the label of bigotry.
- Daniel Kelly
26 January 2011 at 11:59See the post of Jack Holroyde above.
Gay only venues are just as bad. You can't on the one hand complain about discrimination and then actively discriminate yourself. You also can't create a united community by promoting division.
I agree with the ruling of this case but think something needs to be done across the board to stop discrimination of all kinds and from all sides.
- Gordon Rae
26 January 2011 at 12:03I am surprised that no other commenter has addressed the true nature of the hoteliers' offence: they refused to allow two men to sleep in a double bed.
Traditional Christianity condemns homosexual acts, but it doesn't recognise the existence of homosexul people; they are a modern, secular invention. A 'gay couple' are no different from two straight men, or brothers.
If the hotel is happy to allow two men to share a twin room, that seems to contradict Matt Flaherty's
point about encouraging sin. If you have privacy, you can have sex. You don't need a double bed.
The idea that sharing a double bed has a sexual meaning is not traditional either. Thirty years ago, it was commonplace and unremarkable for straight men, and it's only since gays have become visible in society that straight men have become less comfortable with it.
I conclude the hoteliers refused accommodation on the basis of secular, modern beliefs, not traditional, Christian ones.
- Nicola Holt
26 January 2011 at 12:12Great article, one glaring flaw.
These people are not implementing a 'distorted' form of Christianity at all. Christianity is not, and has never been, based on tolerance. Quite the opposite. The Bible instructs followers to murder those who worship other gods (and kill everyone else in the town); to murder women who commit adultery (but not men); and to murder Pagans. It also condones torture, genocide, slavery and rape. Those who don't agree to follow god's every bizarre, trivial and often unethical command are condemned to an eternity of torture.
The B&B homophobia is perfectly in line with the teachings of the Bible, which instructs followers to discriminate, often violently. It is the kinder, modern Christian who cherry-picks the positive messages from the Bible and implements the 'distorted' version. You're being far too generous to a religion which is based on hatred and intolerance.
The point of state interference in a private business is an interesting one, but taking that freedom to the extreme would allow Tesco to turn people away for being gay, black, female, ginger or whatever particular brand of bigotry the manager happened to hold. They've already started on the Jedi ;-)
- Michael
26 January 2011 at 12:13The couple assume that everyone who gets into bed with someone is there purely for the purpose of sex. Maybe they are projecting their own randy nature onto gay or unmarried clientele.
I hope the pyjamas and sheets at the B&B aren't poly/cotton as that breaks Deuteronomy 22:11
- Keir
26 January 2011 at 12:13Let's get two things straight, if you'll excuse the pun. The 'impregnation' of Mary, as internet desperados like to call it, is not supposed to be normal. It's supposed to be as abnormal as rising from the dead. Ok?
And any calling themselves Christians who tell others how to behave- on abortion, sexual matters, burning books etc. are not Christians. Got that? They are working against Christianity, whether they mean to or not. What Christians do is tell people that Jesus died for them, and leave the rest, how they deal with that, to them.
Now if that reduces the target for atheists and skeptics, it's perhaps inconvenient, but maybe it's good to have one's mind concentrated onto what is genuine rather than jump on one's steed to tilt at windmills.
- Marcus Green
26 January 2011 at 12:20I wonder where do the B&B owners draw the line. Would they withdraw a double bed from a room if they discovered that a heterosexual couple engaged in anal (or oral) sex. I am curious to know if the objection is to which orifice the entry is made or to which gender that orifice belongs.
I wonder if the bible makes this clear or the Christian Institute has clear policy on this matter.
- Mark Jones
26 January 2011 at 12:50It's surprising this needs to be said, but the gay hotel is analogous only if a straight couple turned up and were refused a double room. In that case an offence has occurred.
The B & B owners injunction is plainly silly; as others have pointed out, the Bulls seem rather too concerned about the private habits of others for their own good. Would they deny a latter day Morecambe and Wise double act the last room available, if it were a double room?
- Fat Jacques
26 January 2011 at 12:57It's a good job that sex, homosexual or straight, is not possible in a hotel room with two single beds.
- iain rae
26 January 2011 at 13:02Crikey ! Dogs welcome ,but not Gays,Arabs, or Stenhousemuir supporters . Ah ,the religious mind revealed in all its mystery. Why do they often look so misserable ,when everlasting bliss awaits in the afterlife?
Post your comment
Wednesday 26 January 2011
New Statesman - Christians and innkeepers
via newstatesman.com
