The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against two Christians who withheld their services to same-sex couples will likely go down as a landmark in the history of LGBT equality. Predictably though, some see the losers in this case - Islington marriage registrar Lilian Ladele and Relate relationship therapist Gary McFarlane - as the victims. The Daily Telegraph, for instance, claimed in its leader comment that the verdict marginalises Christians with traditional views on sexuality: 'gay rights trump religious rights'. The verdict, claims the article, reflects a secular society that is intolerant because it misses 'toleration' - the ability to tolerate beliefs of which we do not approve.
Such an accusation is a little far-fetched. Neither Ladele nor McFarlane were penalised because of their beliefs. In affirming the gay couple's right to equal treatment, the Strasbourg ruling does not call into question the devout Christians' right of conscience. In either applying for their positions or carrying out their functions, the Christian employees are neither tested nor forced to recant their beliefs about either homosexuality or the morality of their gay customers. They have, rightly, the freedom and full protection of the law to express and promote that belief in a private capacity, as many street preachers do on high-streets at weekends to bewildered passers-by. They have freedom to associate with others who hold similar beliefs in any religious organisation of their choosing. Ms Ladele, as a civil marriage registrar, has the additional satisfaction of knowing the couple is not married in the eyes of god, let alone her God. This must be a deliverance for the couple in question too, no doubt. Ladele and McFarlane chose their professions and were under contractual obligations to offer their services to the general public. They have the liberty, like anyone else, to say 'no' to the job if the terms and conditions do not meet their liking.
Tolerance cannot be a free for all though. We have to determine the boundaries of tolerance, and for the consequences that acting on those beliefs has for others. As philosopher AC Grayling noted in his treatise on the defence of Enlightenment values, Liberty in the Age of Terror, tolerance only works if is reciprocated. A tolerant society must not tolerate intolerance if it is to protect itself. That does not make tolerance in breach of itself: at its heart is an ethical demand that everyone should respect everyone else's rights and liberties. In a tolerant society, where the individual's liberty is respected, there is no free licence of behaviour that threatens the rights of others. The limit of tolerance, then, is tolerance of anything that causes harm.
Ms Ladele's defence claims that because other registrars are able and willing to officiate for gay couples, no harm is done. But allowing her unwillingness to fulfil her obligations arguably causes harm within her workplace and in society at large.It costs her council and her colleagues extra time and money, the bill for which is passed ultimately to the taxpayer. It means inconvenience in scheduling and holiday arrangements. Suppose there were not just one registrar wishing to object, but all? In the Netherlands until recently, that has been exactly the scenario. In the country's Calvinist bible belt, some local municipalities had to go to great efforts to ensure a single registrar willing to marry gay couples, years after the enactment of equal marriage legislation.
The societal implications are more serious. A verdict in favour of Ladele could have rendered worthless the protections for LGBT people in the equality legislation, potentially enshrining second-class status of LGBT people into law. It is naive to think this would only concern marriages and hotels. A furniture shop could on the same grounds refuse to sell a double bed; a bank manager might refuse to sell a mortgage or life insurance or open a joint account for the same reasons. It would be devastating for the dignity of LGBT people, for whom the humiliation of rejection would be expected and legally acceptable. One could then go a step further and ask, why is it necessary to sincerely object to gay couples just on religious grounds? The Family Education Trust, an organisation closely involved with the 'Coalition for Marriage', says anyone, whether they are religious or not, should be able to deny services to LGBT people if they oppose homosexuality.
A manifestly anti-gay victim narrative?
The Christian Legal Centre, active in many of these cases, play the victim narrative, pleading for sympathy because of their clients' 'sincerely held beliefs'. The sincerity of the belief is in no doubt; but questions remain about the sincerity of the motivation.
Why would a civil marriage registrar single out homosexuality, when there are a whole galaxy of biblical transgressions of which virtually everyone will have committed at least a handful? In the last six years, there have been several such 'conscience' cases involving gay couples. This is curious, because the same hardline lobby groups who have been championing these cases, despite all all their finances and connections, have never publicised the case of a devout Christian refusing to marry or offer relationship advice to an unmarried cohabiting couple, a divorcee, or a couple who had had sex before marriage. Yet the vast majority of couples in this country must fit into at least one of these categories, while gay couples make up only a few percent of the population. The odds are, then, hundreds to one that the cases are chosen because of the social group they are up against. There wouldn't be much PR mileage out of a civil registrar pushing a victimisation narrative for refusing to marry a couple who weren't virgins on the Big Day. If they were to abide by their faith consistently with respect to the Christian view of marriage and discriminate in these cases too, they would be derided by even the Daily Mail, whose popularity is driven to a great extent by kiss-and-tell stories. Lobbyists are more likely to get a sympathetic ear in the case of gay couples because there is a deep well of homophobic prejudice to tap into. Though society is becoming more accepting, about a quarter of the population, including about a fifth of young people, thinks sexual relations between adults of the same sex is 'always wrong'.
The slippery slope of intolerance
It might sound cynical for a gay rights activist to rush for Prof. Grayling's definition of a tolerant society rather than, say, Dr. George Carey's one where Christian judges would be appointed to deal with cases like these, on the basis that 'we are a Christian country'. But that assertion is debatable in multi-cultural Britain. Just imagine the chaos that would have been caused in all areas of society if the European Court rulings found in the favour of McFarlane and Ladele, and an exception were granted. All faiths have among their followers a small minority of loud lobbyists equally determined to eke out privileges in law. A torrent of requests would flow to be exempted from handling, serving, selling or even promoting alcohol. Conscientious objections may arise to serving or handling pork, shrimp or beef, or working on any number of holy days, including Saturdays and Sundays. Life would be pretty unpleasant for all.The same applies to a fundamentalist hotelier, who might refuse services to guests who prayed to other gods or none during their stay, to prevent blasphemy from occurring under his or her roof.
This is not just an alarmist hunch. In 2005, after the Labour government passed the Equality Act, one Home Office official noted that the scores of indignant correspondents writing to protest at the matter, had more than sexual orientation on their minds:
'We've had a lot of correspondence from Christian B&B operators who don't want to be forced to accept Satanists, Muslims, gays and even unmarried couples as guests... Protestants have been writing in saying they shouldn't have to admit Catholics because they have an issue with their religion, Catholics saying they didn't want Jews under their roof and objections from followers of other types of faith.'
Tolerance is a two-way street
The toleration requested by the Christian lobbyists in these cases only works one way. The secular approach, where religious freedoms of personal belief and association are balanced by respecting the freedom of others to enjoy equal treatment under the law is the fairest solution for getting on together and cooperating in a society of widely differing interests, tastes, cultures, aspirations and ideas. The emphasis, then, falls on protecting people, rather than beliefs. Even here, the fundamentalist Christian can take consolation from the fact that their beliefs are subject to the same standards of testing as any other. If they are found wanting, by the test of logic, evidence or their propensity to cause harm, then there can be no business for the state to privilege or protect those beliefs.
In fact, most Christians are astonished that such cases have come so far in the first place. But they were driven on by extreme religious groups who attempt to carve out exceptions from the law to become, as it were, a law unto themselves, and the right-wing press that prints their news releases verbatim, without considering the true extremist ambitions harboured by those very groups.
PS: Maybe the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail at least should think twice about championing such conscience causes and think how they could have affected them, in time? Newspaper printing operations are slick affairs; only a couple of people are needed to watch over multi-million pound machines the size of battleships that produce all this guff at over 80,000 copies an hour. Might it not be a very expensive affair if, say, a press operator refused to handle the plate for the page on the alcoholic drinks promotion, or any number of pages sensationalising sexual immodesty, promiscuity and even, some argue, prostitution in all but name? Perish the thought....
(This article was also published on Pink News and is available to read here: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/23/comment-the-boundaries-of-tolerance/)
No comments:
Post a Comment