Peter and Hazel Bull refused to allow Martyn Hall and his civil partner, Steven Preddy, to stay in a double room at their hotel in Marazion, Cornwall.
He said the Bulls believed that "unmarried sexual behaviour was wrong" but were not prejudiced against gay people.
"[Their] beliefs may be considered outdated, uneconomic for those operating a private hotel, but, we respectfully submit, they are entitled to manifest those beliefs."
He said: "[The Bulls] have prevented hundreds of unmarried couples sharing double beds.
He said the Bulls had an "absolute right" to believe that "unmarried sexual behaviour is wrong" and a "qualified right" to "manifest that belief".
On one side, the Christan hotel owners think best not to allow their joint to be a hitch up place for unmarried couples. Regardless if you agree or not, they should be allowed to rent their rooms to people of their choice, right?
If not, I suspect the argument goes something like this: "That's discrimination. They are discriminating against those who want to have sex before marriage". Should the view have merit, would the opposite view not be equally valid? "That's discrimination against the Christians. You are discriminating against those who don't want people in their hotel rooms who practice sex before marriage". It's the same logic. Why does one often pass, but not the other?
When one group is discriminated* against, typically I see that we crush another groups beliefs...which is also discrimination. It's kinda like this: "All the people who wear blue go to the penalty box." Then, those who wear blue reply, "All those who don't wear blue go to the penalty box." Who wins? Blue or not-blue? The problem with many of today's discrimination laws is it picks either blue or not-blue and the one they don't pick is automatically branded the group that discriminates. Arbitrary at best.
How is it legitimate for a group to claim discrimination and yet discriminate against the values of another? Who cares if the Christian beliefs are passe or wrong...the issue is, it's their belief. Where is 'tolerence for the Christan hotel owners'?
What if in the broadly logical sense, the homosexual couple was morally correct? Should the hotel owners be obliged to comply because their views are morally wrong? If yes, then would it not follow that if (again in the broadly logical sense) the Christian couple was morally correct, then by that logic, they can oblige their potential clients to respect their wishes? My point is not the homosexual or Christan couple is morally superior therefore they get to choose. My point is that the debate is not a moral argument. I.E whoever can prove first their moral superiority gets to either stay or not stay at the hotel. It seems this is a legal argument. In which case, the issue is not discrimination, but the obeying of a law or by law: despite putting a moral 'tone' on the law by using words like discrimination. Legal or moral? The difference is significant.
The reality is that discrimination is a moral imperative often supported by a legal framework. This poses a problem for either the Christian couple, or the gay couple. If a legal framework is protecting people on a moral basis, then that moral basis needs to be: discussed and agreed upon. Is morality good and acceptable based on a transcendent rule (God says), majority population rule (man thinks and vote, dictator thinks and acts)?
Tolerance and discrimination are strong words. Few if any want to be branded 'intolerant'. No company wants to be one that discriminates. The strong words are supported by a murky, ill-defined, cloudy set of standards. If discrimination went up for a 'morality debate', it would be caught in at least 2 fatal self-contradicting positions.
It's tough to drop intolerance bombs and discrimination accusations when the definition is often self contradicting. In order to be discriminated against, I need to discriminate against you...but my type is cool...yours is evil...uh, says my big brother.
I observe that "moral relativism" partners with special interest groups to often create a selective and narrow (intolerant at that) set of standards for what constitutes an act of discrimination. No wonder we see it practiced as an incompatible term.
*I value all people as equal. I do not think we should place the value of one individual as higher then another. My argument is against the use of a bizarre, arbitrary term...not against loving people. Disagreeing with the use/practice of discrimination does not mean I don't love people equally. It means I disagree with an arbitrary use of a relative, self contradicting term.
Thought on the post:
ReplyDelete"Should the view have merit, would the opposite view not be equally valid? "That's discrimination against the Christians. You are discriminating against those who don't want people in their hotel rooms who practice sex before marriage". It's the same logic. Why does one often pass, but not the other?"
I don't think it is the same. I think that one is deemed intolerance and not the other because one is withholding services. Is it a hotel advertised for "Christians only?" I am not sure how they have been able to operate this long. Is this example any different than a pharmacist failing to fill prescriptions for contraception? Or someone whose beliefs dictate that they cannot accept people of different races. Should a hotel owner be allowed to refuse service to someone because of their race? If we condemn this person are we then intolerant of the racist and is this necessarily wrong?
Anonym,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post; good thoughts.
Let's say any couple screamed really really really loud, causing a disturbance. Then the issue for 'removing them from the hotel' would not be an issue of 'refusing them a service' but being a disturbance to desired conduct. So, the matter at hand is, is it okay to refuse entry for disturbing the desired conduct within the hotel? Screaming, premarital sex are both disturbances in the opinion of the said hotel owner. What allows a hotel owner to legitimately view one disturbance as legit and the other not legit? It's arbitrary. In the examples you mention, I think the free market would expose and 'fire' (bankrupt) the owners who would be so vile...it should not be a government enforced thing. Let the free market weed the weirdo's out. With your last example...that's just what the kkk does...and look how poorly they are viewed and unpopular they are. Let the free market expose hate and not give their services. With respect to your question...that is my point...it's arbitrary. Says who? What if the stupid racist argues he is right and deserves to be tolerated? Let the free market sort him out, not fines and laws. P.S, I agree that your examples demonstrate a sad side of humanity...I am not giving them a pass, but indicating 'discrimination' is a relative term...(so yes, in your example the racist is being discriminated against…although I personally would, because his acts of being a racist are terrible and are causing harm to others…so me, and millions of others would likely bankrupt his operations) and your examples further showed it. Because the racists could by the same logic claim they are discriminated against, and they are. So let the market sort it out and people…not big brother. Hope this helps.
Ryan Jantzi
"Should a hotel owner be allowed to refuse service to someone because of their race?"
ReplyDeleteMy point of view: yes. Individuals should be able to choose who to work for, who to sell their products or services to, who to hire.
This is as fundamental as having the right to choose who to invite to a party at your house.
The hotel is private property and belongs to the hotel owner. If he does not want someone in his hotel then that decision is up to him.
Try flipping it around the other way too. Should hotel customers be able to choose which hotel they want to "hire" based on race?
Next time don't bother with the "we-believe-their-behavior-is-wrong" angle.
ReplyDeleteThis is Canada. They are gay. You are Christian. They always will be right. You always will be wrong. - PERIOD. When you understand those facts you can proceed.
The next time make noise at 2am. Shut off the heat and hot water to thier room & don't tell them about it. Leave a vial of horrible smelling substance outside thier door.
The next day when they complain, express mock but completely ineffective concern, refund their money when they demand it and cheerfully say "come again!".
They won't.
20:30 - Racism is wrong whether it be the owner or the customer.
ReplyDelete7:25 - Seriously? Is that really how you think you should treat other human beings?
It is because of opinions like these that we need anti-discriminatory laws. Sad.
09:56 - so help me understand this.
ReplyDeleteImagine someone was choosing a doctor, and they found two talented doctors, A and B.
Imagine they think doctor A is slightly better, but doctor B makes them more comfortable due to either their sex/race/religion, so they choose doctor B.
You're arguing this is wrong, and that we should force the patient to either compensate doctor A for their lost business, or force the patient to use the doctor they are less comfortable with?
Note - I do not like racism, I hope I am never racist.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe it is a fundamental right that people should be able to choose who they hire, who they buy from, who they sell to, who they invite into their home, and that no one else has any say into those choices.
I hope that if business owners who are racist/sexist/religious-is go out of business, but I do not presume to tell them who they can do business with.
Noirs,
ReplyDeleteI hear you. Thanks for confirming what we thought. Regards, Ryan Jantzi
Civil Rights are a fundamental Right. Civil Rights protect patrons from being refused service because of their race, religion, sexual orientation etc.
ReplyDeleteA California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.
A restaurant, a hotel, doctor or a school etc. that refused to serve someone because of their race would be violating their civil rights. The laws are necessary because there are too many crazies out there. If we did not have civil rights laws and anti-discriminatory laws it would be like the wild west. "We don't serve your kind around here" I hope that we are more civilized than that. How would you like to be the consumer who has no idea whether or not they will be accepted at a certain establishment ?- inhumane. Not to mention that before we had these laws and policies we had institutionalized prejudice - a shameful time in history. By your "free market will take care of it" logic, child labour laws would not be necessary. Surely we all agree that the practice of child labour is not far from slavery. Despite the campaigns to the contrary, people still shop at the millions of chains that offer low prices at the expense of the lives of children in some other country. It is well known that these chains profit from child labourers and yet consumers do not stop them. Laws would. I hope that these (no good word to place here that is not impolite) go out of business and I want to live in a society that does not permit them to treat people like that in the first place. There are countries that do not have strong civil rights laws or anti-discrimination laws. Of course they also have some of the worst records of human rights abuses.
Also, although I think that race, sexual orientation etc. should not be a consideration when choosing a doctor (this is prejudice), I do see a difference between the person offering a service and the consumer. If my child wants to play soccer but the convener is racist and says no on that basis - that is a violation. If I am racist (vile!) and I want my child to play soccer the responsibility rests on me to find another league. Both are disgusting, but there is a difference and certainly one can more easily be controlled by law.
Hi 11:46, I think your description of how the laws work is accurate.
ReplyDeleteThey're just inconsistent. There is no difference between one individual refusing to sell a service to someone based on sex/race/religion and another person refusing to buy a service from someone based on sex/race/religion.
The reason there is no difference is both are trades, not purchases and sales, e.g. from the hotel owner's perspective he trades a hotel room for USD, and from the hotel customer's perspective he trades USD for a hotel room.
Certainly racism/sexism/religious-ism seems unfair, and cruel, but its not wrong.
ReplyDeleteIts just personal preference. If you think its wrong then you'd have to believe:
- All the restaurant owners need to be fined for hiring attractive hostesses
- Anyone living in an area of town like say China town has committed a crime, e.g. discriminating against house owners selling in other neighbourhoods
- Anyone who has more friends of one race than another is discriminating
Whats wrong is using laws and threat-of jail to control how others live their lives.
If someone wants to choose a doctor based on a reason that makes them comfortable, who are you to force them not to?
If a doctor refuses to serve a patient because of some reason that makes them uncomfortable, who are you to force them not to?
Consider if we say its "wrong" for individual A to refuse to offer a service to individual B based on some arbitrary reason.
ReplyDeleteWhat we really mean is that individual B has the right for individual A to provide them that service whether or not they want to. It means he has the right to FORCE individual A to provide him that service (or, use threat-of-force to receive some compenstation).
This seems a bizarre view of human rights, that people have the right to force others to provide them services against their will.
Heh, one last comment. I think discrimination by public services is wrong, because everyone has paid for them, and has no choice but to pay for them.
ReplyDeleteIt would be clearly unjust for the government to take your tax dollars and then refuse you service based on an arbitrary reason.
Noirs,
ReplyDeleteThis comes full circle to my point: discrimination is arbitrary and based on 'the pick of the day'.
11:46, well thought out, however the reality is that a man's heart being right does a much better job then forced laws. We would not be like other countries because most of us strive to follow the Christian God who teaches us to love. So it is not laws that separate us, but a Christian structure of loving others. This is why we can leave it to the free market, because we ought to be led by a clean conscious. In order for your point to be valid, you would have to show that the absence of law would result in chaos u describe. Difficult when 70%+ claim to love God and desire peace and good will to man. I think you are obviously referring to either Muslim countries, atheist countries or other foreign religions where human rights mean nothing. Thus, free market works when you function in love to others.
p.s I get the whole, 'christians sometimes suck too thing...got it.' That being true does not detract from my point.
Ryan Jantzi
Noirs,
ReplyDelete12:09...I get the idea...but even that is subject to problems...i.e should the gov.immigration minister then not discriminate against the "jihad group of the east" (for example) who's mission is to kill every Canadian?
I hope the government would discriminate against such...? thoughts?
Ryan Jantzi
Hey Ryan, the context of my comment was "governments providing services to taxpayers".
ReplyDeleteAny taxpayers who's mission is to kill other Canadians should presumably be put in jail :)
context noted; oops...
ReplyDeleteRyan Jantzi
"The reality is that a man's heart being right does a much better job then forced laws." Can you cite an example of where your assertion "The reality is" has worked on a large scale? It might be true for some individuals doing the giving (i.e. I will do this because it is right and not because the law tells me to) but it is not true for the masses who suffer. Leaving to chance that every person's "heart is right" is ineffective and people get hurt i.e. my example of child labour.
ReplyDeleteThe average consumer takes the fastest, most convenient, cheapest route regardless of the consequences. How then does the free market work to weed out businesses with unjust practices? Again, my example of child labour. There is nothing that prohibits these companies from using products made by child labourers or from trafficked humans. Therefore, your assertion that the free market and consumers would right this wrong fails. These companies thrive because there is no such law.
I was not referring to a religion at all. There are a lot of abuses in Latin America and it is populated predominantly by Christians.
14:31: What do you think it is that enables laws to work this "magic" that cannot be achieved without laws?
ReplyDeleteI never assumed that it "magically" makes people non-prejudice. Clearly there are still (insert impolite word here) out there. However, the laws are there to protect people and they come with a punishment. So although, the crazies can believe whatever twisted logic they believe, they are not permitted to act on them in our society. If they do, there are consequences. Thus, people can feel safe that they can visit a place of business or purchase a product without feeling discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the laws are not necessary because there are logical free market consequences do not hold weight for me when I see consumers continue to support businesses who support abuses. Even though the consumers might feel strongly against said abuses. However, if there was a law prohibiting the company from abusing or from selling products that support abuses the company would be out of business if they did not change their practices. Therefore, fewer people are hurt.
I repeat my question: How does the free market work to weed out businesses with unjust practices? I have not seen it work on any kind of large and significant scale without protective laws.
Personally, although I hope the free market will weed out businesses who discriminate, and I am optimistic it can and will, it doesn't need to.
ReplyDeleteAlthough everyone tells us the contrary, there is nothing wrong with choosing not to trade (buy or sell) with someone for any particular reason.
Its just personal preference.
To argue the opposite is to say that people do not have the right to choose who to trade (buy/sell) with.
What would you say to someone, who offers haircuts in their own house, who chose not to cut a particular person's hair for a reason you didn't agree with? (e.g. sex, religion, race, appearance, attitude)
Challenge:
ReplyDeleteTo those who think it is immoral for people to choose who to trade with (e.g. buy/sell products/services) for arbitrary reasons...
Can you:
1. propose the moral rule that we could use to determine which scenarios are moral and which are immoral, that could be applied consistently and universally?
2. back up why these scenarios are immoral?
I've proposed its perfectly moral to chose not to trade with someone for an arbitrary reason, because to argue oppositely would mean people have the right to force others to trade with them (unless they have a non-arbitrary reason not to).
Forcing someone to trade against their will would require coercion.
14:55, thanks for comments: direct answer: it's not the free markets job to govern morality. It's their job to generate wealth.
ReplyDeleteGov. put laws in place to procted people from harm.
15:10 - what harm comes to someone when someone else chooses not to trade (buy/sell with/from) them for an arbitrary reason?
ReplyDeleteIf its true that by choosing not to trade with someone for an arbitrary reason I cause them harm, then don't we all cause harm every day? When we make arbitrary choices based on how we feel, based on our gut about other people, stores, and services?
My thoughts on the free market were a response to:
ReplyDelete"In the examples you mention, I think the free market would expose and 'fire' (bankrupt) the owners who would be so vile...it should not be a government enforced thing. Let the free market weed the weirdo's out. With your last example...that's just what the kkk does...and look how poorly they are viewed and unpopular they are. Let the free market expose hate and not give their services. With respect to your question...that is my point...it's arbitrary. Says who? What if the stupid racist argues he is right and deserves to be tolerated? Let the free market sort him out, not fines and laws. P.S, I agree that your examples demonstrate a sad side of humanity...I am not giving them a pass, but indicating 'discrimination' is a relative term...(so yes, in your example the racist is being discriminated against…although I personally would, because his acts of being a racist are terrible and are causing harm to others…so me, and millions of others would likely bankrupt his operations) and your examples further showed it. Because the racists could by the same logic claim they are discriminated against, and they are. So let the market sort it out and people…not big brother. Hope this helps."
I agree it is not the free market's job to sort it out. It is the government's job to enforce the laws to protect people.
Response to "noir" withholding service because you are prejudice is hurtful and can be controlled to a certain extent by laws. Choosing who will provide you said service or product based on prejudice ideas is also hurtful but cannot be reasonably controlled by law and the responsibility is on the consumer to find a new provider because of their own prejudice ideas. How are these hoteliers being hurt by the customers? I would argue that being blocked service is hurtful and can have long lasting effects. On the other hand, if someone boycotts their hotel (without of course an unjust smear campaign - there are laws about that) because they are prejudiced against Christians, how would they even know about it? Still not acceptable but difficult to control legally. If they did know about it, then it would have had to been made public- again, there are laws protecting them to some extent. In the end, I don't want to live in a society that accepts prejudice plain and simple. What we allow in our laws is what we as a society accept and that is something that thankfully we can vote for in our democratic process.
"How are these hoteliers being hurt by the customers? I would argue that being blocked service is hurtful and can have long lasting effects"
ReplyDeleteSame question again, how is this harm?
"On the other hand, if someone boycotts their hotel because they are prejudiced against Christians, how would they even know about it?"
Again, how is their harm? To believe that choosing not to trade for an arbitrary reason causes harm you need a consistent guideline/rule that works, and can be applied to many situations to determine if harm is being done.
If I choose not to use some grocery store any more for an arbitrary reason, are you saying I've harmed them?
If it is because of prejudice yes. This is tied to a person's identity and self-worth. You are not worthy because you look a certain way etc. It is very damaging.
ReplyDeleteSo, you think you'd be right in forcing me to use the store, or pay the store compensation?
ReplyDeleteNo, however if you publicly damaged them with prejudiced comments then you should be sued because you hurt them, and yes they would be compensated. I would also be right in forcing you to allow all customers regardless of race, sexual orientation etc. into your store or you would be hurting the customer and therefore punished by law. As a society we either do something about it or we allow it to happen. I vote to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteYou previously answered "If it is because of prejudice yes" to this same question. Here you've answered "No...".
ReplyDeleteAlso, can you clarify, what rule/guideline distinguishes the two situations:
a) someone choosing arbitrarily which store to trade with ($ for goods)
b) someone choosing arbitrarily which customer to trade with ($ for goods)
Such that you can say they are different, and that b) deserves punishment and a) does not.
16:32, so now that you feel everyone should be in the store, please help me understand what you as an owner would do in this situation:
ReplyDelete10 people in the "I hate people who wear blue" camp are in your store...and 10 people in the "I hate people who hate blue" camp waltz into the store. Foreseeing a potential fight the store owner does what?
A) exercises his right to his property and demands both parties leave (after all, lots of his products would be damaged if a fight ensued)
B) hold to your theory on "everyone allowed in, regardless of position".
I say A. Do you hold to B still? if so, please explain...that to me is odd to foresee a fight and not feel you have the right to exercise your authority over your property to remove a threat.
(not saying race = legit threat…limited analogy in that owner either has right over his property or does not. If he does not, then he suffers the damage???)
Ryan Jantzi
Noirs,
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1 - If I choose not to use some grocery store any more for an arbitrary reason, are you saying I've harmed them?
Response - If it is because of prejudice yes.
Question #2 - So, you think you'd be right in forcing me to use the store, or pay the store compensation?
Response - No, however if you publicly damaged them with prejudiced comments then you should be sued because you hurt them, and yes they would be compensated.
I don't think those are the same questions. Also, we are talking about prejudice not just any arbitrary reason (like I don't like the colour scheme of the store)
Also, I did not say one did not deserve punishment. I said one can be reasonably controlled by the law.
16:42 - The example has no bearing on the argument. Everyone allowed in regardless of race, sexual orientation etc - of course. If a fight begins - remove people of course. Call the police - they are breaking the law. Why would you assume a fight unless there is actually a fight or at least an argument? Not sure what threat is reduced from withholding service or product because of prejudice.
I really don't understand how anyone can argue to accept prejudice. A huge step backwards in my mind. Clearly we disagree.
22:30
ReplyDelete1. I think you're being inconsistent then. Whether something can be reasonably controlled by law or not is not the issue. The issue or not the hotel customer was harmed, or said differently if the hotel customer has some legitimate claim for some recourse against the hotel owner.
If you propose that the hotel customer deserves compensation, but the store does not deserve compensation (when I chose not to buy something there for a reason you'd define as prejudice), then thats inconsistent.
Unless: you can define a general rule that differentiates the two.
2. You're essentially proposing:
a) If person A chooses not to trade with person B for reason ABC (that is not prejudice) then person B is not harmed
b) If person B chooses not to trade with person b for reason XYZ (that is prejudice) then person B is harmed.
The problem is that in both cases person B is the same afterwards, no harm has come to them.
Related to 2: What you're proposing is that by thinking different thoughts (e.g. reason XYZ) someone can harm someone else.
ReplyDelete