GUEST POST: Rights for Bigots?
Liberal Democrat member Andrew Mayer gives his thoughts on Chris Graylings recent comments:
Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling’s unwise comments on access to Bed and Breakfast accommodation, where he suggested (based on a recent news story) that as private homes, owners were at liberty to bar gay couples, although he did not believe the same was generally true for private businesses in general, shines a much overdue light in this campaign on the differences between liberals and social conservatives. It raises questions about Grayling’s personal judgement. It highlights how much and how little the Cameron has changed the Conservative Party. But it is also a good example of the complexity of the discrimination debate.
For many liberals this is a very easy issue. You don’t have a right to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality, anymore than you do their race, gender, age or any other inherent characteristic of who we are. Your religious views are irrelevant on this matter. Equity trumps opinion and preference. Religious views are choices. There is no difference between allowing Christians to refuse to serve homosexuals than allowing racists to refuse service to minorities. Both are morally reprehensive positions to the vast majority of us who believe in fair treatment. That some social conservatives like Grayling still do not get this, is a timely reminder why there are still many economic liberals who won’t support the Conservatives.
Grayling has made himself look foolish on a number of other counts. He characterises B&B businesses as extensions of private homes. They’re not, they’re public businesses like hotels, only smaller. There is no sensible distinction between the two. Does a man standing to be Home Secretary not understand the law? Second why raise this issue shortly before an election? Surely a front-bench politician understands there is no such thing as a private meeting and that the last thing the Conservative election strategy needs is a debate about their commitment to equal rights?
This is not the first time Grayling has embarrassed his boss. Last October he characterised the appointment of General Dannatt as a Labour election gimmick (yes, but it was a Conservative one), and caused deep irritation. Cameron is well aware how vulnerable he is to accusations that the Tories have not changed, and the more his colleagues allow themselves to look mediocre (Osborne), out of touch (Grayling) the more that narrative will gain traction. Having said that, the Conservative party 30 years ago would have very angry with Grayling for suggesting even private hotels should be forced to take in homosexual guests. In that regard his views are evidence of change, albeit limited.
So a politician of a different political tradition proves fallible and disappointing… plus ca change…
There is thought an underlying issue here that is more difficult and interesting. Most of us are against discrimination in principle, but very few of us are so entirely against all discrimination in all circumstances to the point of calling in the law.
We don’t for example generally believe people should be prosecuted for denying people access to their own homes on the grounds of their own bigotry. For example a homophobic parent refusing to let their son’s boyfriend stay the night, or racists preferring not to invite their black neighbours around for dinner. Such examples of intolerance may make us angry. We may find the behaviour ignorant, and seek to influence it, but we do not see it as a matter requiring prosecution by the state, unless actual harm or incitement to harm is involved.
We tend to hold this view as we can see a difference between the public and private spheres. In the public sphere non-discrimination is an absolute, in the private, providing no other rights or laws are being infringed, it is a choice. Where opinion is highly varied between different moderate traditions is where these spheres begin and end. It makes for interesting dividing lines between conservatives, liberals and libertarians.
Conservative thinking, by which I mean socially conservative, respects tradition, community institutions and deeply held views. The state should not interfere with religious freedom unless to prevent great harm (not getting to sleep in the B&B of your choice would not count as great harm). The collision then between gay rights and the right to practice your religious beliefs can be difficult for many Conservatives, but not all.
In the libertarian tradition the private sphere is large and dominant. Some extend it to all activities by privately owned businesses as well as individuals. The market should be left to judge the rights and wrongs of discriminatory practices, not the law.
In the liberal tradition discrimination is both a form of market failure and an impingement on basic liberties deemed more important than the right to conduct private business in the way you choose. It is a market failure as toleration for bigotry can actively prevent new markets forming. The ‘queer pound’ cannot be exploited if all gay activity if forced underground. Ethnic restaurants cannot flourish if staff cannot get accommodation. Cultures that permit extensive discrimination generally permit sub-cultures of harassment and victimisation against minorities, and worse. It is anti-meritocratic and a waste of human potential. The right to fair treatment matters more than the right to practice private prejudices.
Socialism has a somewhat polarised and inconsistent track record in relation to discrimination. Passionate advocates for equal rights on the one hand, class warriors on the other. Sexist golf clubs, elitist and wrong… working men’s clubs, essential parts of the community. Defend free-speech… but no platform for racists. Individual socialists have done a lot for the progress of human rights legislation, I’m not sure the same can be said generally of socialism.
UK law as it stands favours a liberal interpretation but reflects something of all the traditions.
If the B&B in question had defined themselves as a private member’s club for Bible-believing Christians and they had more than 25 ‘members’ they could not have discriminated against a gay couple wishing to use the club services by residing there. 25 or less and they could. If they had defined themselves as a religious retreat they could have discriminated regardless of numbers.
Such distinctions would not apply if the discrimination were racial, that is not permitted.
If the B&B were only for women or only for men that would be permitted, if it allowed both but let men have special treatments denied to the women, without reasonable grounds that would not.
The law in that regard is complex and evolving. The latest Equality Bill, should it pass into law, will tighten up what constitutes disability discrimination. But this article is about the principle. How far should the private sphere be permitted to extend?
Personally, with a bias towards the liberal arguments set out above, I favour quite a small private sphere in this matter, but also a degree of pragmatism. In the B&B case the owners can be tried under the law, and that law is right. But I would have little problem with the owners advertising their B&B as “run by Bible-believing Christians according to God’s teaching”, in which case the incident might not have occurred… Or activists would be checking in every week to make a point and test the mattress springs, but that is the owner’s risk if they want to bring their exclusive preferences into their work.
Such passive signals of prejudice, preference, or pragmatism exist already, whether union jacks on pubs, rainbow flags on clubs, or the ratio of cubicles to urinals in football stadiums. So should we care if the result of this case is a crop of cross symbols next to the stars across a number of B&B businesses in the south? I suspect not, but we’d care deeply if “no dogs, no gays” signs were erected. And that would be illegal under current law .
Further to make bigot rights a matter of pure property rights is I think a libertarian blind-spot, and bad economics given the opportunity cost. All markets have rules, and non-discrimination in service provision strikes me as doing more good than harm.
Are the troubling nuances in this liberal position? Yes. Would I be happy for example if some B&B’s started advertising themselves as for “admirers of David Duke”, and decorating their bedrooms with iconography of the KKK. No I’d be profoundly uncomfortable. But no act of discrimination has actually taken place unless someone non-white checks in and is treated differently and badly. Preventative actions, like the successful attempt to force the BNP to accept non-white members don’t I think do much to prevent discrimination, but do create perceptions of victimisation, which can be counter-productive.
In conclusion Grayling’s political judgement was off, religion is not an excuse for discrimination, and nor is living in your place of public business. As a contribution to the Conservative’s electoral strategy, it’s been about as helpful as a Unite strike to Labour, or the NUT praising our education policies to us. Cameron again looks vulnerable in his choice of a top team.
Is the law as clear and consistent as it could be, no, but it’s better than it used to be, and it’s clear in this case. Are there any great principles at stake that should encourage Liberal Democrats to wish to tighten the law further or enlarge the private sphere. I don’t think there are, and in this case our best contribution would be to encourage, if possible, pragmatic reconciliation and understanding between aggrieved parties. That ultimately is the path to tolerance, not rights for bigots.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Whats wrong with prejudice,bigotry,hatred, exclusion,
intimidation,dismissal and segregation, as a smoker I
get them all the time with Government approval.
Gays, Gypsies ,Jews, Disabled,Blacks,Browns,Dwarfs,Lepers,
Immigrants..come and join us…Lab-Con-Lib have voted
social division in with a big majority.
ENJOY and stop bleating.
April 7th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
a) in what meaningful way is a house different from a hotel,
b) in what meaningful way is a hotel ‘public’ but a house not public,
c) is there no right to refuse to give a service? nobody loses out in this non-transaction, unless, of course, you’re advocating a form of indirect slavery and don’t care much for freedom of association.
d) does the right to demand service only apply to special interest minority groups, or to everybody?
e) your use of ‘liberal’ is extremely suspect
April 7th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I say ‘meaningful’, really I’m asking for a fuller explanation, because logically your position does not make a lot of sense.
April 7th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
The ‘queer pound’ couldn’t jolly well exist if discrimination were illegal. Your use of the phrase suggests you’re all in favour of discrimination, it’s just you think some forms of discrimination ought to be illegal and others ought to be legal.
One of the worries I think the anti-discrimination campaigners have is that if we made this legal, then there would all of a sudden be no way for certain kinds of people to obtain food and lodgings. I have a little more faith in the UK’s population than that.
April 7th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
#Philip Walker
Discrimination exists all the time – it’s what we all do. The liberal aim is to minimise its consequences, consistent with maximising freedom. That very aim embodies a conflict between two priorities, so anybody seeking a clear open-and-shut answer that works in every case is going to be disappointed. I think Andy’s analysis above identifies very clearly the approach that liberals, and Liberal Democrats, should take.
April 7th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Funny, I’d say the liberal position would be to leave well alone.
It is morally wrong to discriminate on irrelevant characteristics, but that doesn’t lead to an argument for government action.
If a B&B owner wishes to deny themselves custom by discriminating against some customers then let them – they’ll lose the business of those of us who believe they are wrong too.
Its not like there’s a B&B monopoly and no action would deny access to an entire industry.
Perhaps its because I don’t share the statist fear that humans are irredeemably bad and need to be bullied into behaving in social manner.
April 7th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
# Tristan
If everybody was motivated purely by money, and if everybody made economically rational decisions, amd nobody was affected in their actions by the actions of others, then you might be right. In the real world, however, there are women and ethnic minorities with noticeably lower incomes and employment prospects: if liberals are determined that nobody should be oppressed by conformity, should they not seek to address this?
April 7th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
This is why I can’t Liberal Democrat: they are not liberal enough, they favour too much regulation. I’m gay but I still believe in freedom of choice. The B&B owners should be at liberty to refuse anyone they wish without an inquisition from the state. This talk of bigots and discrimination is emotive nonsense: people can be bigoted and discriminative on all manner of issues such as eye colour, hair style, accent, fashion-sense, political opinions, etc. But when it happens to be on this issue, which is a matter of conscience for this couple, they are not allowed to practise their beliefs, however profoundly mistaken they are to me. The idea that these people could be prosecuted for this is monstrous and shows just how far this country has gone from being free.
Plus, this just seems like party point-scoring to me.
April 7th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Ben: I hope you agree people’s homes are private spaces unless they choose to make them more public by selling or offering access. How public a space they then become, and what rights or not that grants to those permitted access, and who decides, is where the piece draws distinctions between different political traditions.
I disagree with your point that no one loses out when a transaction is refused. Denial of access to opportunity is a problem in most political traditions. Where denial of access is unusual and other options exist as in this case it can seem trivial.
But discrimination doesn’t have to be particularly widespread to be both a serious imposition for the those concerned and to encourage general discrimination. Sexual harassment in the workplace is a good example. Richard also makes a number of good points on this, and I think this speaks to Tristan’s point.
The answer to your d) is everybody, with some notable and often pragmatic exceptions, disabled access for example is not considered a right by law if the cost of enabling it is considered prohibitive.
Philip, I’m not sure I understand your point, what forms of discrimination do you think the piece claims should be legal?
Nicholas I think there is a difference between practising your beliefs and imposing them on others through differential treatment on the grounds of who they are.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Andy, well written and persuasive post. I have been sitting on the fence a bit on this but I guess when you turn your “home” into a “business,” ergo they should of been admitted.
My only point is that within the gay community there are “gay only” hotels. This one in Blackpool has been doing the rounds in the blogosphere.
“If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment.”
“Guyz Hotel has been run as a gay hotel for the past 24 years…..for gay couples, singles and groups.”
So if you are heterosexual you appear to excluded. Also if I went to a muslim run hotel could I insist that the meat was non Halal, the animals have their throats slit without being stunned of course?
Double standards and hypocrisy if we allow all these things to happen.
“http://www.guyzhotel.com/
April 7th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Andy: I do not believe that because a home, or any building, becomes a B&B it therefore stops being private and becomes a public space. It it still not run by the state and as a business should be free from interference from the state as much as possible. It would be different if the state owned a chain of B&Bs: then it would be right that it should not discriminate as it is funded by all the people and run on their behalf. But the B&B in question is a private company and therefore should be allowed to turn away whoever they wish.
These people are not imposing their beliefs on other people as they are not the only B&B and therefore there is a choice of others. I would accept state interference if there was a company which had a monopoly on B&Bs as that would deny freedom of choice, a fundamental liberal principle. But this is not the case. Denying that they should be able to discriminate against potential customers “on the grounds of who they are” is terribly vague and could include practically anything about a person. That principle, if enshrined in law, allows the state to dictate to B&B owners anything it wishes to.
April 8th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Thanks David, the branded gay hotel point is well made, it would though only be a legal matter of discrimination if they actively excluded a straight couple who wished to reside there. As you say they “appear to be excluded”, they are not actually excluded until they are.
On a forum discussing the issue I suggested Christian establishments with certain preferences for clientele might wish to follow the gay movement by specifically advertising their establishments as such. The church already has a rather powerful easily understood brand mark, even more so than the rainbow flag.
I’m not sure of the law on the provision of meals, but I assume you are not obliged to provide such options, any more than a compulsory vegetarian option. So you might argue that discrimination is implicit against those with food preferences.
However there is a crucial difference. If you don’t like or can’t eat certain foods, there is usually always some alternative that you can eat, and usually people with specific needs agree exclusions and special treatment with places in advance. You get food, albeit not the same food, but you can eat, and having the same treatment is not possible by dearth of your preference, not a deliberate act to refuse you a service freely provided to others.
With the B&B case the rule was that heterosexuals could have intimate relations in their rooms, homosexuals could not. That is absolutely discriminatory and it’s not really something people should really have to share with strangers in advance. It is also unrelated to the service of board for the night offered.
April 8th, 2010 at 12:16 am
Hi Nicholas, I’m reading from that, that you’re taking a traditional libertarian big private sphere view, that includes most private business activities. I hope I captured that tradition in the article and why I don’t agree with it.
Excluding people on the grounds of who they are can I agree sound vague, but does have fairly clear definition in law. But if I could turn that vagueness point around on you, you say that there is no imposition on the couple in the B&B case as there were many alternatives, if there were a monopoly you would accept intervention to ensure real choice.
But… does that mean you believe non-discrimination laws should contain a ‘convenient alternative’ test, such that had the couple arrived near midnight in a small village discrimination would have occurred, but early evening in a city it would not. Surely discrimination is predominately a behavioural act of unequal and unfair treatment not a reflection of prevailing market conditions?
April 8th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Hi Andy,
I would not accept a ‘convenient alternative’ clause as I believe it would be too vague and leave the law open to uncertainty (how ‘small’ is a ‘small village’, etc). If I was part of a gay couple I would not just assume that a B&B would take us in as I know there are homophobic people. Surely the sensible solution would be for gay couples to check with the owners of B&Bs to see if they would be allowed to stay there.
I agree that discriminating against gay people is unfair but homophobic people obviously disagree and I do not think one person’s sense of what is or is not fair should prevail over other people if this means coercing them, as is it is in this case where the law tells people who they can or cannot let into their B&Bs. There are some people who find homosexuality abhorrent: I respect that as I believe we should live in a country where people can believe what they like. I would like everyone to be accepting of homosexuality but I do not believe this should be enforced by the state. I think talk of enforcing ‘fairness’ all too easily leads us into the ‘mirage of social justice’, as Hayek called it.
April 8th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Hi Nicholas,
There are numerous things different people find abhorrent, picking your nose, slurping soup, wigs, being overweight and wearing a crop-top. The hotel market would surely be entirely unworkable if people had to volunteer in advance anything a stranger might dislike in order to be sure that their purchase would be honoured?
And more to the point, if your views are libertarian, it can hardly be considered freedom from coercion if, in order to ensure they enjoy the same expectation of service as a straight couple, a gay couple are obliged to inform hoteliers in advance of their sexual preferences. How much detail do you think they should be obliged to provide?
April 8th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
“How much detail do you think they should be obliged to provide?”
I do not believe they should have to inform them in advance, I just thought it would be wise, knowing that some people hold the views they do, to do so. Just in the same as parents might ring and check if the holiday resort they wished to stay at was child-friendly before staying there. It would avoid situations like this one, where a couple were turned away. But if they don’t wish to inform them, as is their choice, they should be prepared to be be turned away as people should be allowed to do what they will with their property as much as possible.
April 8th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Some interesting points on both sides.
@Andy: should B&B proprietors be allowed to exclude couples with children?
April 8th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Jack, good question, and the short answer is yes, children are not who you are, they’re who you’re with, and the services required to cater for a couple with children are different to the services required to cater for a couple alone, and sometimes can’t mix. It’s not then similar to the gay couple case where their needs were the same as a straight couple.
It is a harder comparison with disability discrimination. Some disabilities do require special treatment and the current law tries to get a balance between fair access and access that would be cripplingly expensive to offer. Some properties cannot offer full disabled access due to historic design. Being disabled though is about who you are not who you’re with. Personally, and speaking as a self-interested occasional pram-pusher I’m relieved the law changed and that most public and private organisations try to comply.
April 12th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
“Jack, good question, and the short answer is yes, children are not who you are, they’re who you’re with, and the services required to cater for a couple with children are different to the services required to cater for a couple alone, and sometimes can’t mix. It’s not then similar to the gay couple case where their needs were the same as a straight couple.”
Ehh really? the needs of people in wheelchairs are different to those not in wheelchairs.
I’m a parent, I’d like to go somewhere my family is welcome, I’d not like there to be a law forcing grumpy child haters to let us stay in their b and b.
May 10th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
You should definitely check out the free $50 bonus being offered at our new Bet Phoenix Casino. Only available now at: Bet Phoenix. Good luck!
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I Entirely realize what your position in this issue is. While I might disagree on a few of the smaller details, I believe you did an astounding job outlining it. Sure beats trying to study it by myself. Thanks.