A
room with a view
An apparently landmark judgement on matters of
equality takes the focus away from some fundamental matters of law and justice
that made the case historic.
A gay male couple had booked a room at the Chymorvah Private
Hotel in Cornwall in England and when booking the room they made enquiries
about whether they could bring their dog.
As it transpired, dogs were not allowed and I believe
the men made arrangements for their dog to be cared for whilst they went for
their break in Cornwall.
A
hotel with bad views
When they arrived at the hotel, the proprietors of the
establishment on realising they were a couple refused them accommodation and
the men were left with no alternative arrangement for their break in Cornwall.
It was a clear case of prejudice and discrimination
based on the religious beliefs of the proprietors and no one should begrudge
them their faith and how they decide to project that. In fact, they would also
not offer any accommodation to unmarried couples and that again is their prerogative.
In the first instance, the proprietors could probably
have saved themselves the confrontation of doorstep intolerance by clearly
publishing their beliefs as part of their commercials or advertisements and
when bookings were being made on the phone they could have gone down a list of
intrusive busy-body questions pertaining to relationships, sexuality, sexual
preferences, religious allegiances, political influences and whatever else
defines the narrow-minded view of the world they might have, they didn’t.
Expressing
outmoded views
It is still unfortunate that people conflate sexuality
with sex and feel that unmarried couples regardless of their kind of commitment
are adulterers or fornicators; homosexuals get a worse rap from the unspeakable
thoughts of what people might think they get up to, to rabid sexual addicts
ready to bonk anything that breathes – the reality is quite different.
These guests would have had their rooms and whatever
they get up to behind their closed doors should really have been no business of
the hotel proprietors apart from where the guests are wrecking the rooms.
Courting
an alternative view
In any event the gay couple who are by law also civil
partners decided to make a case of this matter and they took the hotel to court
claiming they were discriminated against supported by the Equality
and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
At which point, bleeding hearts have come out in
support of the Christian proprietors who now had to find the legal grounds that
allowed them discriminate against this gay couple.
The first defence they offered was that they were
concerned about sex and not sexual orientation, throwing in the matter of this
also applying to unmarried heterosexual couples – why it is their business
whether their guests have sex or not escapes me.
Homosexuals might come to stay and not as much as kiss
each other whilst heterosexuals might visit in the middle of the deepest rift
between the partners that they would hardly look at each other – it stretches
the imagination as to whether the hotel offers a sex haven to get the hormones
in overdrive that they would only want “traditional” couples to enjoy. Absurd.
A
view in the wallet
However it is the points of law that he stated that
makes the judgement of more significance and beyond the narrow constrains of
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
At first, “the hotel had directly discriminated against
the couple on the grounds of their sexual orientation,” indicating that
direct and overt discrimination where provisions of extant law provides for the
promotion of equality can lead to sanctions if the offended seek redress.
The judge said the right of the defendants to manifest
their religion is not absolute and “can be limited to protect the rights and
freedoms of the claimants,” this is important; because it means the
freedom of religious thought and practice is confined to the practitioners as
long as they do not interact with others and use their freedoms to abridge the
rights of others.
Protecting
the view of the weak
This can very well become a vehicle for the protection
of the rights of a child, ward or person who naturally would have certain
rights but find that they have been infringed by the influence of others who
presume to manifest their religious views in absolute indifference, that which
the law provides to protect the person or that which those whose expert opinion
should override the religious influence of those who exercise such power.
He described the sexual orientation regulations as a “necessary
and proportionate intervention by the state to protect the rights of others,”
we can only be happy that such safeguards exist where egregious intolerant,
bigoted and discriminatory action can be assessed and adjudged by the state.
It calls for people who have found themselves on the
wrong side of this kind of behaviour to seek the protection of the state that
can and will intervene allowing for redress.
How
their choices adjusted the view
“When Mr and Mrs Bull chose to open their
home as a hotel, their private home became a commercial enterprise. This
decision means that community standards, not private ones, must be upheld.”
This is the clincher that derives from the judgement
of the County Court, Mr and Mrs Bull had a home, it was a private home, they
had the choice to keep their home private and they had strong Christian beliefs
which they must have known would have conflicted with many other belief systems
and brought uncomfortable confrontations as they stood their ground where those
said beliefs were challenged by the lifestyles and views of others.
They should have been rational in appreciating that
certain circumstances might arise where common-sense should prevail of
narrow-minded religious sentiment manifesting as unreasonable and
un-persuadable.
John
Bull’s views are off
This cocoon of choice to keep their home private was
cracked open when this private home became a hotel and by that it had become a
commercial enterprise where private standards had to give way to community
standards that are protected by law.
Such community standards which define a person as a
member of society can be guided by private belief systems but they cannot
override the roles of civil interaction that arise when a formerly private
place becomes a public and community space.
In other words a hotel is a commercial place governed
by community standards, they had taken the choice to give up their home and the
privacy it confers with the private standards that derive from their religious
beliefs.
Mr and Mrs Bull had better not have a son named John
because Great Britain is changing and they had better catch up with the times,
part of which is paying for the lessons that bring them that full knowledge of
the changed times – the GBP 3,600 they have to pay.
Source
