Public Equality vs Personal Conscience

Ever since the implementation of the bill making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, numerous debates have ensued. Inevitably the same questions have been banded around: what about the rights of the religious believer? Whose rights matter more? Do people's consciences not matter? And, on the other side of the discussion - how can we ever attain equality? How far is discrimination acceptable?

I have decided, albeit hesitantly, to at least explore this issue. My stimulus is the news that Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, stated that, in his view: "if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home".

When he puts it like that, it seems reasonable. However - the fact is, these people have chosen to operate a business in their home. As a corollary, their home, as the premises of the business, must surely be treated as the premises of any other business? Grayling himself claims that it would not be reasonable to allow a hotel to discriminate on who they allowed to stay in the 21st century. Why is a B&B different simply because it is run from the couple's home? If they know they are going to find it difficult to admit up to 10% of potential guests, is it really wise to set up such a business in the first place?

As Christ himself said: "‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s" (Matt 20:21). In an age where equality is the goal, it cannot be acceptable for any business owner to pick and choose to whom they provide a service. Otherwise we must ask where the cut-off point is. Are Christian shopkeepers allowed to choose not to serve divorcees? (Incidentally, Jesus had a lot more to say about divorce than he did about homosexuality). Or perhaps atheist B&B owners who find Christian beliefs offensive should be allowed to ban them as guests? Maybe homophobic pub owners should be allowed to refrain from selling alcohol to homosexuals?

Some Christians interpret the Bible to mean that God doesn't like gay people. They therefore find homosexuals offensive. But our society, which aims for people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, political and religious views to be able to live in harmony with one another, finds such discrimination offensive.

For Christians who would struggle as the B&B owners to admit gay couples, or Muslims, or atheists, or anyone else whose beliefs/lifestyles offend them, perhaps they ought to consider that (1) setting up a business in an egalitarian society isn't the best idea; (2) If their convictions really are correct, will Jesus really condemn them for simply allowing them to stay in their B&B? They're not exactly joining in(!)

An Interesting Day

What an interesting day of headlines. Two major news stories have been reported with regards to the relationship between the Church and the homosexual community.

Firstly, I was delighted to read that the Catholic Church has, at long last, praised the work of the late and truly great Oscar Wilde. One of the true literary geniuses, and indeed prominent characters in all of time, Wilde has long been 'taboo' for the Catholic Church - for he was, as most will know, also a notorious homosexual. Being gay even now is a rather dodgy issue for many - but in the nineteenth century it was literally criminal.

The Catholic Church have applied reason and have clearly agreed that maybe praising a man's genius isn't condoning his lifestyle after all. Irrespective of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, the man contributed much to the world and actually converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. Had Shakespeare been gay, would the Catholic Church have harboured the same attitude towards him?

And the second item of news is, rather surprisingly, that at the Episcopal convention of Bishops in Anaheim, California, the US bishops' vote was an astonishing 104-30 in favour of the proposition to "collect and develop theological resources and liturgies" for blessing same-gender relationships, to be considered at the next convention in 2012. This will inevitably widen the gap between conservative Christians and liberal Christians. Will it inevitably lead to schism?

To me, we are already dividing ourselves by insisting on calling ourselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'. Why can't we find a middle ground? Why do conservatives have to be Bible-bashing anti-rationalists who interpret the entire Bible literally, and liberals be wishy-washy intellectuals who believe the entire thing is a metaphor? Can it not be that the Bible, being a complex library of 66 books crafted by numerous different authors across hundreds of years, is in fact an intricate combination of literal doctrine, cultural laws, allegory and historical accounts?

It is such a shame that we cannot simply agree as a Church that our centre is Jesus Christ, and that interpretations of other matters will inevitably differ - that is a fact of life. It is a shame also that we cannot focus on more pressing issues. The Bible is far more vocal in its commands to love others and feed the poor than it is on whether two people of the same gender can love one another. Jesus himself seems to be silent on the matter of homosexuality, and yet talks repeatedly about loving and serving others. If as a Church we began to focus more on such issues and less on comparatively insignificant matters, there might in fact be little to divide us after all.