Foreign Perspectives

Christian beliefs and the law came into conflict back in 2008 when an openly gay couple turned up to stay at a B&B in Cornwall and were turned away because they were gay and the owners did not believe in unmarried couples sharing a bed. To complicate it a little more the couple were in a registered partnership which, supposedly, is equivalent to marriage however that aside the beliefs of the owners wouldn’t have counted that as a marriage anyway.

They lost their case today but have leave to appeal essentially because there’s quite a conflict between the gay couple’s right to stay and the owners right to their religious beliefs. This is merely the first round. In one corner we have the Equality Commission and in the other, the Christian movement around the world.

The problem in this case is that both the couple and the owners are “right”.

The couple are right legally in that it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and morally right as it seems wrong and intrusive to be enquiring about one’s sexual orientation. Do they ask the marital status of everyone checking in? After all, many heterosexual couples who’ve been living together for a long time would come across as being married so it wouldn’t be as simple as picking out a gay couple as opposed to two male friends who were travelling around together.

The owners are right both legally and morally too though. After all, article 9 of the human rights convention is very clear about one’s right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Morally they seem to be right too in that clearly a gay couple in a bed was a major conflict with their own beliefs.

Given that they’re both right it would have obviously been better if the conflict between them hadn’t arisen. There are a great number of gay friendly establishments for the couple to have stayed with and likewise there are a large number of married couples to have stayed at the B&B. What needed to be cleared was that the establishment was a Christian owned one (there’s nothing on their website to indicate that) although I suspect that they could do little more than that: a “no unmarried couples” policy would probably be illegal.

This is one case that we’ll likely hear a lot more of in the years to come as it trundles along to the highest courts.