The Right to Discriminate

I often need to get things published and printed, especially for various Christian activities. On one occasion I contacted a printing company and received a quote for some materials. When I sent them over to be checked they returned them with an apology and said that because they were Jehovah’s Witnesses they were not able to print Christian materials for other groups.  In my response to them I commended them on having such principles, even though it meant that they would be losing business.

Now perhaps I could have taken them to court, and sued them under various hate crime or discrimination laws, but in fact I was entirely supportive of their stance. I could imagine how I might feel if I were a printer and were forced to print materials supportive of Islamic jihad, or gay “marriage”, or pornography, or even some of the loonier instances of modern Christianity.

In our present anti-freedom age we are encouraged to be afraid to discriminate in such a manner, which is why I found the attitude of the Jehovah’s Witness printing company so refreshing. They are still willing to risk going to court for their principles, even those I disagree with. That in itself is worthy of commendation.

Of course we still allow businesses to discriminate. A night club might insist on smart casual dress, with no trainers or jeans, and can refuse entry to those who are too scruffy, drunk or likely to cause trouble. Likewise a shopping centre might insist that bare-chested men be refused entry. Most banks and jewellery shops are likely to prohibit customers wearing a crash helmet. While a well known hotel chain makes a selling point of the fact that children are not permitted to stay in any of their properties.

Since we do allow such discrimination, it is noteworthy that others forms are forbidden by law. There is surely no good reason for this, save for the fact that the law is framed and used to the advantage of certain pressure groups determined to subvert our British traditions and freedoms at any cost. Those most likely to complain of discrimination are members of minority ethnic communities (how hollow that phrase sounds now that white British people are just such a minority ethnic group in London and other cities now), homosexuals and Muslims.

Recent cases are too numerous and well known to require rehearsing. But it is interesting and disturbing that certain pressure groups have been able to criminalise the behaviour that is entirely accepted in other cases. A motor-cycle helmet clad man will be refused entry to many public spaces, and would certainly not be permitted to pass through immigration control and security at an Airport, but a burqa clad woman (or man in some cases) can do so with impunity because to require them to submit to the same rules as others is cast as discrimination.

A hotel can refuse to allow bookings with children because they wish to service a certain sector of the community (those that don’t want to spend time with screaming children), but if a small bed and breakfast establishment wishes to cater for those who do not wish to holiday with homosexuals then it becomes a criminal matter.

I know personally of no Christians who have been given time off to attend additional Church services during Lent or Holy Week, and if they wish to do so then they have always been required to use their own holiday allowance, but I know plenty of Muslims who have been able to come to work late and leave early during the season of Ramadan, or will implicitly threaten legal action for discrimination.

There is certainly discrimination, but it is for the benefit of certain protected groups, and all at the expense of the majority. In fact discrimination is necessary to a free society. But what we see in these cases is not properly a healthy discrimination exercised freely rather it is the privileging of some at the cost of the freedom to discriminate of others. Were this a matter of social and peer pressure then that can be a good thing. There is a reason why young people would have been expected to give up their seats on a bus to the elderly, infirm or pregnant, and such privileging behaviour used to be enforced by society at large who would not be slow to tell a youth to stand up. But when certain behaviours are imposed on the majority and others are forbidden for the privilege of a minority then an erosion of freedom has taken place and it is never easily restored.

But that is always the intention.

Why is it permitted to refuse to serve people who are dressed in jeans and t-shirts, but not to refuse to serve those clad in a burqa? Why should the owner of a business have to explain himself? It might be the case that he is an outright racist, although Islam is not a race, but it might be also be that he has had negative experience of Muslims in the past, or simply does not agree with the increasing domination of Muslims and Islam in parts of the country. Why should he have to explain himself?

There are necessary rules against abuse, and these should apply universally, including to a business owner. But if he wishes to limit his market to those, for instance, who do not go shopping with their faces covered, then why should he be criminalised, as he undoubtedly would be at the present time. If my clergy friends went for a meal and were politely informed by a Muslim proprietor of a restaurant, “I am sorry but we do not serve Christian clergy dressed in clerical clothing”, then it would perhaps be inconvenient, but there could surely be no proper demand made that they be served or the police would be called.  A Muslim run hotel would surely be within its rights, those common sense rights we used to recognise, to refuse to host a Christian or homosexual house party.

Such discrimination need not be perpetrated in an offensive manner. In a properly ordered society it would be accepted generously even when meant unkindly. It is better to have such open discrimination with freedom, than to criminalise it and make slaves of the population, uncertain how to speak without causing further offense.

There are reasonable limits. It makes sense for a privately owned company or partnership to represent the views and even prejudices of its proprietors. They immediately feel the effect of their discrimination. It costs them money to stand by their opinions. But those that are owned by shareholders who have no such direct relation to the day to day business might well be expected to operate more neutrally. It could be considered reasonable that a hotel chain not concern itself with the sexuality of its guests, but the couple whose small hotel is their life and their home should equally reasonably have absolute control over those accepted as guests, whatever the discrimination they might choose to apply.

I would feel rather more confident of the future of our country if I were refused custom by an atheist landlord, in a polite manner, because I was a Christian, than served in an unpleasant manner simply because he feared prosecution. It’s his pub, it’s his rules. If there were a sign outside saying “No Christian served here” then I’d find custom elsewhere and he would lose mine – the direct cost of discrimination.

Why should he not also be freely allowed to limit his custom by advertising “No Migrants served here”, or “No Burqas allowed here”. What is the greater offence? That people face the fact that we all have discriminatory views and opinions (I don’t much enjoy being classed as a kaffir), or that freedom to express those views politely in a business context be forbidden with the force of law in the case of a few privileged  lobby groups?

I might not enjoy being discriminated against, but in the realm of private business I will absolutely defend the right of anyone to discriminate against me, if it means that all are free to discriminate politely as they choose.