Wow. Is it me or are we all getting just a bit angrier, just a bit more literally outraged, a little less tolerant? Or too tolerant? Or less tolerant at more tolerance or... well... there you are. It's that kind of time. Doesn't it make you want to scream?In recent months there's been a ton of controversies in the press. Some relatively small scale stoies, some decidedly bigger, some totally manufactured, some more organic. But in a lot of cases it feels like rather than the issues being debated, discussed and any common ground even being attempted, it's more like a boxing ring or school playground where particpants call each other names and then return to the corners bloody and unbowed. It's not what you say, it's how loud you shout. It's telling people what to think rather than giving ALL the information with which to do so. No discussions... more pre-emptive strikes, snarks, indignancy and buzzwords designed not to engage but to carve a niche for those already convinced. We just seem to all be more... angry and more inclined to rage rather than engage.
For example.....
In the US the health bill has created the kind of fervour that defies logic. Wherever you are on the actual issue itself, it's almost impossible to have missed the fact that any dicussion comes down to some ridiculous accusations. If you're for the Health Bill, then be prepared to be a socialist, marxist, baby-killing nigger-loving progressive liberal who should move to Russia. If you think the Bill shouldn't have been passed you're an Ivy-League elitist, gun-hording, CEO, bank-bonus hogging TEA-partying redneck whoring yourself to the insurance companies. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the middle who think there are flaws and successes in the Bill, but they are all too often drowned out by the loud, more rabid voices. It has to be said, those voices have mainly been Republican... the likes of Rush (' I'm not being racist, but what race will the President be putting on his census?') Limbaugh, Glenn ('It's all the fault of the Progressives who are trying to DESTROY this country with their secret agenda!') Beck and Sarah ('Hopey-Changey') Palin. The Left isn't guiltless, but the average person is finding harder and harder to separate fact from sound-bytes that are repeated across the air-waves that want a controversy, not a compromise. To hell with rationality, let's strike fear into people!
The latest UK headlines today are screaming about Chris Grayling (Conservative MP) and the "disgraceful" opinions he has over another recent story. Background: A couple of weeks ago a gay couple arrived at a Brighton B&B and when the owner found they were homosexual she said that as a devout Christian she felt she couldn't let them stay in the same bed under her roof. The owner was immediately called a bigot and has been the subject of a hate-campaign. Now Grayling has said - in an audio tape secretly recorded by a Sunday paper without his knowledge - that he has some sympathies with the B&B owners as, while he has no problem with gay marriages etc, he does think a person has the right to decide what happens in their home without government interference.
Personally, I'm conflicted on this one. Certainly this story does demonstrate an anti-gay prejudice and clear homophobia. Denying someone a room simply because they were black would be astonishing in this day and age and I'd hoped that the subject of someone's sexuality behind a closed door would be just as non-issue. I feel sympathy for the two men who had done nothing wrong and had their holiday ruined by someone who, I feel, is probably rather selective about what they take away from the Bible. ( I love Christians but even with the 'devout' variety there does seem to a big pick-and-choose when it comes to its literal meaning, lessons and teachings when its in/convenient). I don't think they should have been turned away and if I was them I'd be rightly furious. THEN AGAIN, I also value highly the notion that goverment has NO place in the privacy of one's home and that should stay out of the kitchen, bedroom, hallway or closet when only consenting adults are involved. Like anyone I have the right to decide what I want under my own roof. I might criticise others extreme or stupid choices or lack of tolerance, but its their house and their rules.
The problem here is that the private home was ALSO a small place of business. I think when you open a business, you have to abide by the laws of the land - including those relating to discrimination. However, this incident does create an inherrent conflict and I think Chris Grayling, rather than being stunningly vilified, has simply put his finger on the nub of the problem. It's clear from his record and interviews that he has no 'anti gay' agenda and has been happy to vote for same-sex marriage etc, but sees this particular issue as a layered one given both the faith/rights angle. Instead, SKY and the likes are talking about the other parties howling for his resignation and about his innate bigotry. C'mon guys... he isn't a stupid BNP supporter out to cause trouble...he's a politician who - and this is a rarity - is stating this can't be reduced to a simple sound-byte or headline, so let's discuss that rather than merely lynch the messenger. Equally, the woman who runs the B&B isn't a rabid Klu Klux Klan or BNP member, she apparently she just felt the one-bed arrangement conflicted with her religious beliefs and felt she'd bea hypocrite to allow it under hr own roof. Debatable logic aside, to polarise it even more actually does more to help the bigots rather than the devout.
These are just two examples of where the media is alsmost dictating the rules of engagement rather than the argument. Both situations would benefit from people acknowleding the real conflicts involved even if they can't agree.
So, perhaps here's a rule of thumb: just for a second, however passionate you are about where you already stand and how confident you are in that... don't merely trash those who disagree with you. Disagree the position but don't disrespect the person. Convince, rather than annihilate. The world is not black and white. The truth about anything is never as brief as a sound-byte and there's no point of view that can't be strengthened by questioning it, accepting not everyone thinks the same and genuinely enagaging those who disagree.
And anyone who disagrees with that is an idiot.
Hmmm. Well, Grayling's comments have also been jumped on because of Cameron's terrible interview last week with Popplewell on gay rights. I think people are naturally - and correctly - concerned, given the Tories' notorious record on these matters. Cameron could and should have acted quickly on Grayling ... but he didn't. And so it's hard not to conclude a calculation's been made. That 'no comment', as opposed to a straightforward denial, will play better with the kind of people who ultimately butter the Tory bread.
In all honesty, I don't get your point about the B&B issue. You start off by saying it demonstrates clear homophobia, and you're right. The woman isn't a raving BNP skinhead, but that's an extreme case of homophobia and racism, whereas, in reality, these things are more subtle and insidious, and this woman embodies that. She's not the Devil. But her attitudes are still unacceptable, and the fact they're based on 'faith' has no bearing on anything. Faith deserves no more respect than any other explanation for prejudice.
Even so, I don't get what the faith/rights angle is? If someone can refuse access to their business to a gay couple then the gay couple are clearly being discriminated against because of their sexuality. They're being placed in an inferior position: that's obviously wrong. Whereas, as things stand, the Christian B&B owner is in exactly the same position as everyone else is. An atheist can't refuse to treat gay people equally either. And nor could a gay B&B owner refuse to accommodate a Christian. Everybody is on an equal footing. There's just no obvious equivalent or argument there, surely?
It's the business vs personal angle. You're quite right, they are running a business and therefore should abide by the laws of the land about non-discrimination. On that level, no argument.
The thing is, while I'm wholly for non-discrimination, I'm also wary of the angle of trying to stop prejudice merely by forcing someone to do something (that they feel is) against their deeply-held belief system, especially in their own home and when its passive reinforcement, rather than agressive. It's the same way that while I support gay marriage, I'm not in favour of a church ever being forced to marry two people if it feels it's against its remit. I think the only way you get rid of prejudice is to convince people to change their minds rather than force them to accept something they still feel is inherently wrong but are forced to comply with - at least in THIS particular example.
In the B&B case, a woman with deep religious convictions said she simply couldn't endorse a lifestyle that her religion told her was wrong. She wasn't calling for homosexuals to be rounded up, killed, deported - she simply told them she felt she couldn't let them sleep in the same bed under own roof. I think I'm right that she didn't refuse them accomodation, merely a double room. (In an admittedly lesser way, should Muslim or Jewish B&B owners be forced to include food on their menu they find unclean; can B&B owners legally refuse a hetrosexual couple sleeping in a double room if not married?) These could both be considered faith issues restrictions and yet we generally don't find them more than naive or irritating.
Of course, the best thing to do is not run a business if you have any strong religious beliefs in case you offend your clientelle. The alternative would be to advise if you do feel you can't deliver certains services - the catch is that legally, a B&B can't even advertise if the owners do have certain religious beliefs, as that would be illegal.
Agreed, I think the B&B owners in this case were perhaps the thin end of an unpleasant, intolerant wedge, however I'm not sure Grayling was doing anything else than making a comment on the dimensions of the wedge and the options of acingt on it. Telling people the limitations of how they are allowed to apply and practise their true religious beliefs is necessary in a society of different beliefs, but it too can be a wedge if handled too bluntly.
But religious beliefs are no more valid or important than any other belief, and should be treated no differently and accorded no more respect or weight. The personal/business angle is obviously important here - and there's no grey area at all. You're free not to invite gay people into your home on a personal level. If you turn your home into a business, you're obliged to provide the same provision to gay people as you would straight people. A belief doesn't give you a get-out clause from your most basic responsibilities to society. Many people have a deep-seated objection to paying tax.
"I think the only way you get rid of prejudice is to convince people to change their minds rather than force them to accept something they still feel is inherently wrong but are forced to comply with - at least in THIS particular example."
But it's not about changing anyone's mind. The B&B owner is entitled to her opinion; I don't care what she thinks about gay people. The point is that actual, real-life human rights trump opinions, and a gay person has the basic right not to be treated as a lesser person in society. They shouldn't have to mention their sexuality when they make a booking. They shouldn't, when they arrive miles away from home, be turned away or made to feel inferior or treated as inferior as a result of it. It is not a basis for discrimination.
That is what the B&B owner was doing: treating them as lesser citizens by refusing to provide the same level of service. She was turning their sexuality into the equivalent of a disability. Whereas the law as it stands doesn't do that to her. She is treated exactly the same as every other B&B owner. There is no conflict there; there is no wedge. What she wants, effectively, is extra rights at the expense of someone else's most basic ones.
(I don't know about the legality of the 'not-married sharing a room' thing. But that wouldn't be discrimination in the same way because people can get married whereas gay people are gay. On a personal level, I'd say I had no problem with it, so long as the approach was consistent - ie straight marriages and gay civil partnerships treated the same.)
Like I said, I DO support the conclusion that this was unfair to the two gay men and they have every right to be pissed off and complain.
I'm just also suggesting that I happen to personally believe that there is a difference between a stance made out of malice and hate and one made out of a non-violent belief-system that is probably not adopted lightly or without thought and then practised passively. The 'preference' versus 'prejudice' debate. I'm not saying it's right, but I AM saying I'm wary of throwing around words of contempt and revulsion, rather than words of disappointment in the attitude.
To be honest, I think the 'not-married people could get married, so it's NOT discriminatory in the same way' argument is a bit of a weak get-out. It would still be an immediate stance that excluded potential guests/members of society at the intial point of contact because of the B&B owner's moral stance and could only be rectified by the potential guests later changing their status to suit. The fact that a gay person CAN'T change their sexual status (and, no, shouldn't have to) is irrelevent to the original prejudice/refusal displayed.
You either have to say a B&B owner can refuse accomodation based on their belief-system or they can't. You can't fairly say that some passive religious/moral stances are more worthy than others. And once we start having a sliding scale of prejudices, then there goes the high ground.
I'd be genuinely interested in how the law stands on certain wider issues of what B&B owners etc ARE allowed to restrict. Can B&B owners refuse to offer certain foods, can a guest demand certain food; if some hotels can advertise they are friendly for various sexualities, faiths etc, can another B&B lay-out honestly its more reserved practises?
Again, I'm for a level playing field for all reagrdless of sexuality, race, creed or beleif system - but I can't help noticing that the more you scrutinise a situation, the more you're likely to see people demanding that other people should behave how they expect them to and that's a double-edged sword for BOTH sides.
Yeah, I agree with your second paragraph. Like I said, I don't think these people are 'evil'. I do find their beliefs contemptible, but they're welcome to them so long as they don't enact them in business.
-- "To be honest, I think the 'not-married people could get married, so it's NOT discriminatory in the same way' argument is a bit of a weak get-out."
It's not really a get-out; I don't even know the law. I just said that it's a different type of discrimination and doesn't personally bother me. Much the same as a nightclub saying "no trainers" doesn't concern me, but a nightclub saying "no Blacks" would. Let me try to explain what I'm getting at.
-- "You either have to say a B&B owner can refuse accomodation based on their belief-system or they can't. You can't fairly say that some passive religious/moral stances are more worthy than others. And once we start having a sliding scale of prejudices, then there goes the high ground."
As I see it, it's society's job to do precisely that - to negotiate that problem. At the most basic level, every citizen should be equal and have the same rights. They might behave in such a way that we remove some of those rights later, but simply being something - disabled, gay, an ethnic minority, female, etc - is irrelevant to how they should be treated. In their equivalent dealings with the state, and the apparatus of the state (including businesses, either as a customer or an employee), those characteristics must effectively be invisible. Or else those people become second-class citizens because of who they are.
We have certain anti-discrimination laws because, historically, certain characteristics have not been invisible and certain groups have been treated very much as second-class, and some people would continue to do so if allowed. Those laws recognise and address that. By saying to the B&B owner "sorry - you can't discriminate against gay people" we are making sure that gay people's basic right to be treated the same isn't violated, as it has been in the past.
And in doing so, none of her rights are affected: she still has exactly the same ones as everyone else. She is still equal. She is literally just being prevented from treating another human being as less than another.
Rights trump beliefs. There is no basic right for sausages to be on the menu or to be able to wear trainers whenever you want. I'd also say there's no right to share a bed with your partner - but there is a right not to be treated differently because of being gay, which is why I said I was okay with that policy so long as it was applied without regard to sexuality.
And yeah - of course we demand people behave as we expect them to. That’s how law works in a democracy.