Download case study_homosexuality ppt

Gay couple takes Christian B
and B owners to court for
discrimination
Aims of this lesson:
 To understand different viewpoints on the issue of
homosexuality in today’s society.
 To apply our key ethical theories to the facts of one
particular case.
 To think critically about arguments presented by each
side.
Chymorvah Bed and Breakfast
 Peter and Hazelmary Bull have run their B &B in
Cornwall for 25 years.
 The website says it’s a “family-run business run for
families”, and “ we have few rules but please note out of
a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double
accommodation to heterosexual married couples
only”.
 Steven Preddy and Andrew Hall attempt to book a
room and are turned away.
Now view the Christian defence
 The Christian defence is given by a spokesman on Sky
News. The interview is available on Youtube.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mgnYhn4Srs
Issue 1: Is there one Christian
view?
 Traditionalist view quotes Leviticus 20 v 13 or Romans 1
v 32, which says that if a man lies (has sex) with a man
he deserves death.
 Liberal view points to Jesus putting love above the law,
by touching the unclean leper (Mark 2 v 41), calling
the unclean woman “daughter” (Mark 5 v 34), and
pardoning the adulteress (John 8).
 The official Roman Catholic view follows natural law
theory in arguing that homosexual sex breaks the
primary precept linking sex to reproduction and so is
“intrinisically disordered” (Humanae Vitae).
Issue 3: Gay orientation or gay sex?
 We always need to distinguish between gay orientation
and gay sexual practice because no Christian would
condemn you on the grounds of orientation.
 Are the Christian couple making an assumption that
gay sex will occur on their premises? Suppose two
straight men ask to share a room, would they be
denied because they might be gay? In which case are
you discriminating against them, or against an idea of
gayness?
Issue 2: Is “law the same as
“morality”?
 On one level discrimination appears to break the law,
but the Equality Act 2007 needs to be interpreted. It
depends what is meant by “discrimination”.
 Are the Christian couple discriminating against gay
people, or against promiscuity (ie sex outside of
marriage)?
 Does it make any difference that the gay couple are in a
legal civil partnership equivalent (arguably) to
marriage?
 Would you feel equally “damaged” if as a heterosexual
non-married couple you had been turned away?
Issue 4: Conscience opt-outs
 A doctor can opt out of abortions on the grounds of an
Islamic or Christian or other conscience. Is this case
the same?
 Is one difference that the gay couple can argue they are
harmed by this action? Shouldn’t rights be always
conditional upon no-one being harmed by their
exercise? For example, we have the right to free
speech but not to say racist or sexist things.
 Suppose the Christian couple offered them a room in a
friend’s B & B next door. Would this be morally
acceptable?
The verdict: £1,600 compensation
to be paid to the gay couple
 Judge Rutherford argued that laws had changed to reflect
society’s attitudes (is he therefore a relativist?).
 It was inevitable that modern and traditional views will
come into conflict.
 He agreed that both sides could claim the Human Rights
Act was on their side – the right to protection against
discrimination (Article 14) v the right to practise your own
beliefs (Article 9). See link below.
 He ruled that it makes a difference that this is a licensed
hotel, not a private house.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm
Article 9: Human Rights Act 2000
Article 9: Freedom of conscience
 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
practice and observance.
 (2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law
and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
public safety, for the protection of public order, health or
morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.
Evaluating perspectives
 Kantian perspective (universalisability and “treat




people as ends”).
Natural Law perspective (primary precepts and their
application in secondary precepts).
Utilitarian perspectives (Bentham and Mill).
Virtue Ethical perspectives
Situational and Divine Command perspectives (which,
with natural law, gives us a variety of Christian views).
Which is “most useful” and why?
Write down
 Something you’ve learnt.
 A point from one of your ethical theories which has
helped cast light on this issue.
 A question you still have.
Finally: Here is another thought-provoking clip where
Stephen Fry challenges the Roman Catholic natural law
position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk