Background
The question relates to the court ruling by Judge Rutherford 18 Jan 2011 (BBC News, 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368), relating to homosexual civil partnerships having the same rights as heterosexual marriage. Judge Rutherford ruled that homosexual couples should not be discriminated against, and to do so would be in contravention of the Equality Act (Regulation 4) (Equality act, 2007, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1263/regulation/3/made).
This leads us to a problem, Christians also have rights of belief protected under article 2, and rights of privacy under article 12, of the universal human declaration of human rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml).
Under Christian doctrine, homosexuality is expressly forbidden, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18%3A22&version=KJV).
Viewpoints and arguments
From the viewpoint of the homosexual couple, the hoteliers had unfairly treated them. Their rights had been infringed by the simple act of denial of a service, that others who were not homosexual would have not been denied. The Judge found for them, but how did he come to this decision? Judge Rutherford stated that ‘a homosexual civil partnership must be treated in the same way as marriage when it comes to providing goods, facilities or services.’ He went on to say that the denial ‘is an act of direct discrimination of grounds of sexual orientation.’ (BBC Will and Testament, 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/02/lord_mackay_defends_christian.html).
When looking at the Christians point of view, it is very easy to use the unequal impact argument in order to justify their perspective. Although the law applies equally to everybody it could be argued that it has a heavier impact on Christians who run Hotels. Since they will have to permit acts of homosexuality within their property, which goes against their religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Therefore if the law prohibits their ‘discrimination’ they are in fact being discriminated against. Hence Lord Mackay’s statement that ‘Christians should not be forced to act against their beliefs by equality laws’, (BBC Will & Testament, 2011,http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/02/lord_mackay_defends_christian.html).
So on the one hand, we have a clear act of discrimination, and on the other a clear ‘unequal impact’ argument. This is a difficult one to address. Can we justify discrimination, by enacting another perceived discrimination? Let us look first at the argument that the Christians might make, They might state that not only is the law impacting them unequally, but also is infringing their human rights by insisting something can occur within their private address that they do not want to permit (namely homosexual intercourse). On the surface this might stand up. However when we consider that their private address is a hotel, which by its very nature is in fact a public space, but privately owned, we can soon dispel this line of argument. The homosexual couples viewpoint might be just that. That the hotel is a public space, and that under the law of this country, to discriminate against them within this space would be against the law. The judge found for them, and this therefore settles that argument. However what remains unclear is how this law could be interpreted within a private address, which was not a public space? It is initially quite difficult to find a suitable analogy, since if we accept that homosexual’s are not homosexual out of choice, but are homosexual due to genetics. Equally valid is that Christians could argue, that they are not Christian out of choice but through means of indoctrination and tradition passed down from parent to child over generations.
If instead we look at the unequal impact argument from the point of view of the homosexual I think it becomes much clearer. The act of not having a double bed since they are homosexual is the root cause of this. In so doing, the hotelier made an open statement that he/she did not want to promote the idea of the homosexual men from having sexual intercourse. In so doing, he/she is preventing the rights of a group of people who are possibly genetically different. If we exchange the word ‘homosexual’ for ‘black’ or for ‘Jew’ then I think the argument becomes much clearer. If the hotelier was saying to a Jewish couple, that we don’t want to promote sexual contact between two Jews under ‘our roof’ then I think there would be universal condemnation about this clear discrimination, since you cannot help being black or being a Jew, these are predetermined positions by accident of birth not through choice. What this leads me to conclude is that ‘homosexuality’ as a practice is still not considered by Christians to be something that is an accident of birth (you could argue ‘God’s Choice’), but a conscious choice on the part of the individual.
To conclude then, if you take the unequal impact argument from both points of view, and look at the proportional impact to each group, and ask which group would have greatest impact by this discrimination? It becomes clear that the threat to the status of civil partnerships would have had the greater negative impact, and when we use an analogy of the Jewish couple it quickly becomes clear what is ethical and what is not. Whilst the Christian viewpoint is allowable, it is at odds with the idea of liberal thought, which holds that every human being is of equal moral worth. Therefore, the viewpoint might well be ‘Christian’ but it is also ‘unethical’.