Can Christian businesses discriminate?

Having shared my thoughts on the cases involving Christian owners of Bed & Breakfasts who were fighting in court that they should be able to turn away LGBT customers in this blog post (http://vicaringroo.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/my-thoughts-on-cases-involving.html), I'm sad to see another business owned by Christians in the press today, for denying service to someone that doesn't fit within their expression of faith.

This time the controversy surrounds Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland, who turned away a customer who'd ordered a celebration cake with an image of the fictional characters Bert & Ernie from Sesame Street, with the wording "Celebrate Gay Marriage" and the logo of Queerspace, a volunteer-led LGBT campaign group.  Their reasoning was their Biblical values.

The BBC news story is here, and the Pink News article is here.

It saddens me to see this happening again, because it seems that people just aren't learning that you can't use your views to discriminate against others, no matter how important those beliefs are to you. If that was allowed, we would fall over the precipice to the place where service providers and businesses could refuse to serve people of other cultures or faiths, or refuse to serve people who don't live a life that they approve of. Where does that stop ... could we see a shop owner refusing to serve an unmarried mother because she had premarital sex, or refusing to welcome a person from another faith tradition because they believe that 2 Corinthians 6:14 calls them to not mix with non-believers?

2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?" [NRSV].

It also saddens me to see that the Christian Institute have picked up the fight and are turning this into more than it needs to be, because this is such a senseless waste of money, fighting against people, when those time and money resources could be put to serious use in addressing issues of poverty, hunger, malnourishment ... so many other things that are serious issues that would seriously promote Christian values of good works, loving their neighbour, sharing the GOOD NEWS of Jesus. This does feel more like trying to fight against the LGBT community for the sake of it.

In the case of Ashers, Daniel MacArthur seems like a nice guy. He seems like a guy that's really convinced he's doing the right thing, and sticking by his beliefs, which are absolutely infallible, something he feels he needs to take a stand on. However, he needs to learn that his actions and views are based on a biased and discriminatory reading of Scripture, one which encourages discrimination. Those views are enforcing a particular brand of Christianity, but not representative of all Christianity.

It's interesting that he mentions specifically that they couldn't complete the order because it was "in contradiction with what the Bible teaches," as he's contradicting Leviticus 19:27 ("Do not trim off the hair on your temples or trim your beards."), and as a bakery they are directly disobeying a number of Scripture verses;

• He's sat in front of two posters advertising savoury sausage rolls and chilli sausage rolls, when Leviticus 11 clearly forbids using pork.
• In fact, Leviticus 3:17 forbids eating any fat ... bit of a tricky one for a bakery. 
• Leviticus 19:9 forbids reaping to the very edge of your fields ... I wonder if they strictly check their flour suppliers for adherence to this code.

Running a bakery by what the Bible teaches is a particularly tricky business, when so much is written about foodstuffs.

I suspect they and their supporters would say that these verses are now irrelevant, and they follow other verses ... which is probably the whole crux of the matter ... they choose which verses apply to them.

They may claim that those are all Old Testament laws, and - as Christians - they live under the new covenant sealed with the blood of Jesus.  However, they will happily quote from the Old Testament code when arguing against Equal Marriage.

However, the New Testament also says some fairly atrocious things, such as women should remain silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) ... which some of the anti-LGBT Christian charities seem to completely unaware of, while heaping restrictions on others. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 speaks clearly against divorce and the remarriage of divorced wives ... I wonder if Ashers ask for proof that it's the first marriage when baking wedding cakes? 

It may be worth a few Christian business owners reading the equality law properly, and realising that having a faith doesn't give them the right to discriminate. If they want the freedom to discriminate, then they need to change their business model so that they function as a religious organisation (in the case of the B&B owners, this may mean considering running a Christian retreat house instead), as commercial organisations do not qualify for exemptions from the prohibition on discrimination.

Of particular relevance in cases like this are the words in the New Testament, in 1 Peter 2:13-14 , which call for obedience to the law ... "13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Considering that there are laws that they're willing to ignore and others they're willing to enforce when it comes to others, it would seem it's not so much about living or working by Biblical standards, it's about using the Bible selectively to enforce their own viewpoints. It's not they who serve Scripture, but Scripture that serves them.

It may also be worth their while meditating on the words of Matthew 23:3-33 as a warning against being too sure and proud in religiosity.

May the God of love and of all creation continue to change hearts of stone into hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26 - A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh).

My thoughts on cases involving Christian B&B owners ...

I often get asked for my opinion on the legal cases involving Christian business owners & equality legislation. I think it's a sort of spiritual litmus test that the askers (sometimes students, sometimes strangers, sometimes Christian, sometimes not) use to gauge my theological views, without directly asking me if I'm gay, or pro-gay.

There has been much publicity around the case of Peter & Hazelmary Bull, the Christian B&B owners who turned away Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, a gay couple who are in a Civil Partnership, because they didn't allow unmarried couples to share a room (for eg., here are links in the Huffington Post & the Pink News). There was also a lot of publicity around the case of Susanne Wilkinson, a B&B owner in Berkshire who turned away, Michael Black and John Morgan, a gay couple on the basis of their sexuality.

Susanne Wilkinson's case happened about a year before the Bulls', so I'll focus more on the Bulls, as their case is more recent. The Bulls argued that they turned Steven & Martyn away because they have a policy of not allowing unmarried couples to share a room in their B&B, and Steven & Martyn weren't married, therefore were turned away.  The problem with that is that that in itself is illegal ... you can't turn away unmarried couples if you run a B&B, but even more so, because Steven & Martyn were as married as they could legally be at the time as a gay couple. They were a legally committed couple, in a monogamous relationship, and yet were still turned away.  This suggests that they were turned away for being gay, which is also illegal.

The case presents an interesting dilemma for Conservative Evangelical Christians who argued that there was no need for Equal Marriage, because Civil Partnerships offered the same privileges and protections as marriage.  If that was true (Which it isn't! This video explains the differences!), then Peter & Hazelmary Bull should've permitted Steven & Martyn to stay in the room they'd booked, as they were in a committed Civil Partnership, which Conservative Evangelicals argued was the legal equivalent of marriage. The fact that Peter & Hazelmary Bull made a distinction between Civil Partnerships & Marriage shows exactly why the right of Marriage had to be extended to all, regardless of gender preference or gender identity, to prevent committed gay couples from treated as second class citizens.

As a result of the legal findings, there has been an outcry from Conservative Christian groups in defence of the Bulls, stating that they should be allowed to choose who stays in 'their home', without having their faith attacked.

The problem is this ... a B&B is NOT your home. It's a hospitality business, and - as such - has to adhere to equality legislation which protects the public against discrimination. It was also not the Bulls' faith which was under attack, but their decision to use their faith to discriminate against someone for being who they are.  The Bulls (& any other person of faith who runs a business - hospitality or otherwise) can believe whatever they want. Their beliefs can influence their own lives, and even guide their moral code, but they absolutely cannot use that turn away people, just on the basis of who they are, whether that be gay, bi, trans, White, Black, Asian, British, foreign, Muslim, Sikh, or anything else that may not fit with their belief system.

If the Bulls are legally allowed to turn away gay couples from their B&B, it opens the doors for business owners everywhere to use their faith to deny services or products to innocent people.  That means that we could end up with conservative people of various faiths refusing to serve people of another faith, gender or race group on the basis of their faith, using historic scriptures about gender laws, dress codes, faith battles, unclean people, chosen races, mixing with unbelievers, etc., etc.. Why stop there? If we allow believers to exclude customers who don't fit their belief system, why shouldn't we allow business owners from conservative political groups to refuse to sell to foreigners or non-whites, because they sincerely believe these groups are not good for their country (even if it is mistaken, misinformed and bigoted, it could be a belief as firm as any faith)?

The answer is, of course, 'no' ... Peter & Hazelmary Bull and Susanne Wilkinson and their contemporaries have to adhere to the law and offer the same services and products to all members of the public, regardless of faith, gender, gender orientation, relationship status, age, race, language, etc., etc..

If the Bulls & Mrs Wilkinson and any other Christian B&B owners want to be able to use their faith to turn people away, then the only way I can think that they may be able to do that, is to re-brand their business as a retreat house serving only Christians (They would have to limit themselves even more to only serving Conservative, Evangelical Christians, at that, because there are plenty of Christian business owners who believe in inclusion & equality). If they do that, then they cannot advertise themselves as a B&B.  If they do advertise themselves as a B&B, then that B&B is not your personal family home. You may happen to live on the premises, but the only bit that is actually your home is the private apartment bit you live in, separated from the public bedrooms ... The rest is a place of business.

I'm sure the Bulls are a lovely couple, who are acting with the best of intentions, but their actions are being informed by a Conservative Evangelical Christian agenda that is often more concerned about power and political control than about faith, often spending big money influencing & lobbying politicians in the USA, UK & abroad, in an attempt to control policy makers.  Hundreds of thousands are spent lobbying and fighting equality, often using fear-mongering to gather support (for eg. watch this Human Rights Commission video about the US group National Organization for Marriage, or this film exploring the relationship between American Conservative Christians & Africa)

In their own words, the UK's Christian Institute has paid the legal fees for Mrs Wilkinson & the Bulls ("Mrs Wilkinson’s legal defence was paid for by The Christian Institute, a national charity that protects the civil liberty of Christians," & "The Bulls’ appeal to the UK Supreme Court, to be heard next month, is supported by The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund."). Wouldn't it be a much better use of time and money, if the same resources were spent fighting to protect the lives & freedom of LGBT people in places like Russia, Uganda or Nigeria, or do they not deserve life because they identify as LGBT?

In my opinion, I don't think this is solely about religious freedom; It's couched in arguments about religious freedom, but this is more likely about powerful lobbying organisations fighting to gain and/or retain money, influence and power.  It's sad to see how much hatred the conservative evangelical camp has towards the LGBT community.  They may say they 'love the sinner, hate the sin', but that's misguided & impossible ... gay people are not straight people with an addiction to same-sex intimacy, they are people only capable of same-sex intimacy ... it's how they were born. To deny them any intimacy with someone of the same sex is to deny them the hope of companionship, a relationship and a family. To expect them to conform to that kind of miserable, lonely existence, in order to be a part of your worshipping community is not acceptance, it's a sentence.  It's also a double standard ... they expect chastity from the LGBT community, but will put up with sexual & marriage indiscretion and infidelity from straight members of their communities.

I wish the Bulls & the Wilkinsons all the best, but their future should not involve Bed & Breakfasts, unless they offer hospitality to all.  They should consider seeking some other form of income, or open retreat houses (of which there are already plenty).  As business owners, they should absolutely be held professionally and legally accountable for their discrimination.

However, they should not victimised or become victims of hate crimes, but they should also not be the pawns of large lobbying groups, seeking to use their lives to gather publicity and gain control.