The recent case of a gay couple turned away by traditionalist Christians illustrates well how values are clashing in our pluralist culture. But morally, who is right?

For a discussion of this case go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mgnYhn4Srs

In this case two pieces of legislation come into collision. The Human Rights Act (2000) states clearly in Article 9 that religious believers have the right to exercise their beliefs and practices free from interference by the State, and yet the Equality Act (2007) also states that it is an offence to discriminate against gay people in the provision of goods and services. So which is right?

First of all, there is no such thing as an absolute right. The Human Rights Act states clearly that such rights are subject to limitations – for example, that you do not harm others. This is in line with utilitarian ethics (where unhappiness is a key feature in the moral equation) and Kantian ethics (where we should never treat people in any way that does not respect their rights, dignity and freedom to choose, always “as an end in themselves”). The question is, has the Christian couple done the gay couple harm?

They could have gone elsewhere, and also, the Christian owners did offer them two separate rooms. The harm was in the fact that they had been denied a double bed. The Christian couple felt they had the right to disallow certain sexual practices in their own hotel – the practice of sex (homosexual or heterosexual) outside marriage.

Interestingly, this implies that if I was to turn up with an unmarried female partner, then I too would be denied access. Presumably I would have the choice to lie and say I was married, or to produce my marriage certificate to prove it. As long as the Christians are being consistent then the discrimination is not against gays, but against the unmarried – a rather different point.
The Judge took the view that it was the fact that the premises was licensed that made all the difference. I c an discriminate in my own home and not break the Equality Act, but not if I had applied to the Local Authority for a licence and presumably signed up to obeying the law on equality by so doing. In this case the right to private conscience becomes irrelevant – they should keep out of that sort of business in much the same way as a racist should keep out of youth work in Brixton.

None of this makes any difference to the ethics of the matter because law is different from ethics. The ethical judgement that some people’s private lives are sinful, and so they should be excluded from something on these grounds, seems to me to be unacceptable in a liberal society – unless their private behaviour has public effects (noise, disturbance etc). In this sense I side with the gay couple.