In light of this story coming out of England where a gay couple successfully prosecuted discriminatory hotel owners for their refusal to accommodate them in their establishment because they found it offensive to their Christian faith, I am left with a lot to think about.
Are bigots entitled to their stupidity?
Will fines, prison time, public scorn etc diminish or embolden their hatred?
I'm not so sure anymore.
In the words of the judge who presided over the case, Andrew Rutherford:
"It is clearly, in my view, the case that each side hold perfectly honourable and respectable, albeit wholly contrary, views."
As you can see even the judge who committed to uphold the law in respect of the protection of the rights of the vulnerable and fostering the development of an inclusive society, struggled with the facts of this case.
Is the Christian couple entitled to their bigotry?
I believe so, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another. But, in this instance where their prejudice is obviously contrary to the laws of the land as they explicitly preclude a class of people (non-christian heathens I suppose) from using the service they offer, how do they rationalize their right to discriminate (yes it is their RIGHT afterall) with the law against homophobia?
Discrimination in and of itself is not immoral or unlawful for that matter. It is simply telling like from unlike, and we all do it every day of our lives.
The issue arises where one's dislike for a particular thing, or person, leads to mean-spirited acts or ill will.
Now that this couple has won the battle, how will the war turn out?
I fear a Pyrrhic victory where the movement succeeds in getting the rights its constituents deserve but in the wake of this overwhelming success will be a deap-seated resentment that will linger for years to come.
The militancy of the rights movement may be its most unfortunate legacy.
I sympathize with the Christian hotel owners. They are certainly naively pious in their views, as they say they also refuse men who want to rent rooms with their mistresses, as well as young heterosexual fornicators, so to their credit they are at least equal opportunity bigots.
Their argument is that they live in the hotel as well and as such they have the right to refuse entry to anyone into their private abode. A reasonable argument in as much as I find it repugnant.
If someone wants nothing to do with me, that offers little motivation for me to force myself upon them. I'd much rather leave them to their puerile devices and find someone more accommodating.
But I wonder if this move to prosecuting the homophobes, as altruistic as it is, will be for the general greater good of LGBT people worldwide, or if it will build on the resentment heterosexual people have for the movement.
How do you win?
Subscribe in a reader
3 comments:
You have to remember that England is a very secular society as compared with Jamaica. It's not such an incendiary issue there. I don't think it will have a huge impact, unless some of the right wing press tries to turn them into martyrs.
Indeed, how do you win? I find it interesting that though you concede that the Christian owners actually presented reasonable arguments in refusing entry to the homosexual couple, you outrightly rebuked them. You also claim sympathy for them in one instance, but in the same breath you chastise them and call them bigots (among other things.) What’s more, the judge adjudicating in the case commented that both sides had perfectly honourable and respectable views…quite different from the tendentious nature of your argument. It seems to me that this is bigotry, in reverse.
Have we considered that this is not the way to foster comity and inclusiveness in a society where each person is entitled to his own views? Why the strong arm tactics by the homosexuals and why would the judge rule in favour of them? What was his reason for doing so? I reckon it makes the job that much harder for the LGBTI community to gain acceptance when it attempts to force its version of tolerance down others’ throats. Like foul tasting medicine, it’s bound to come rushing up…like violent projectile vomitus. So I agree that it might just be a Pyrrhic victory because there is bound to be fungating resentment on the part of the couple that is only trying to uphold their religious views in the same way that the homosexuals are trying to uphold theirs.
Thanks for that Jirmz. I really respect your view as I must admit that I share some of them with you (albeit latently)
I was struggling to talk from both sides of my brain and not from both sides of my mouth so bear with me LOL
It will be a struggle to find a means of peaceful coercion so that we can live in a future of genuine acceptance. We still haven't found a way unfortunately.
Post a Comment