More on anti discrimination and sin

David Barratt wrote in response on the socrel list

I don't think anyone suggested the obvious solution to the Christian B&B owner in the Lake District: put twin beds in the bedrooms rather than double beds. That way he'd be giving the opportunity to two straight men, or two straight women, to share a twin room to save money, as probably most of us have done over the years -- or would he quiz them as to their sexual orientation as they stood on his doorstep? (I wonder whether he asks every male-and-female couple whether they are married before allowing them upstairs?) But if he provided twin beds he would be providing both homosexuals and the unmarried with the option of not sinning, surely a thoroughly blessèd thing for him to do.... :-)

To which I responded

Good point David...... you have actually highlighted the point that some evangelical theologians have often made in the past that it is not orientation or sexuality / identity that is the issue it is the behaviour and even as Jesus would have it in the sermon on the mount even the inner heart attitude that is the problem...

It's not that long ago in our culture in situations of poverty that it was commonplace for people of the same sex to share a room and/or a double bed without any suggestion that they were doing anything other than sleeping.

It should be easy enough to understand that it needs neither a double bed, or any bed for any of us to sin in the area of sexual practices... My theology (and experience) would suggest sin is all too possible even for a married couple or a celibate heterosexual. The Christian doctrine of total depravity/ original sin makes it clear that we are all "living in sin" and every aspect of life needs divine grace, redemption and transformation which is not fully achievable this side of heaven.

So if the hotel owner wants to impose morality or holiness on his guests he needs to have a much more rigourous "thought police" approach.

To be fair though I suppose what he is really objecting to is that gay couples who are "out" are acting in a way which he finds offensive to his sense of morality (and of course by denying them a room he is being offensive in return.

But there is the issue that if a hotel or a conference centre is specifically promoted as "christian" there is an implicit assumption of a set of traditional norms that customers will stick to... and the safety of those norms is actually a selling point to potential customers from within the Christian community. Such norms also often include restrictive behaviours around alcohol, drugs, gambling and what activities are permitted on Sunday. And presumably there are Muslim and Hindu conference centres which also cater for a parallel niche market and have their own norms and house rules (dietary, worship and prayer times etc.)

So the difficult question remains as to whether the law should allow a religious community to run institutions of hospitality which are not genuinely open to the public as hotels?