On one occasion, I remarked to the manageress that a customer I had just served was especially camp in his manner and I was quite shocked to hear her say, "Don't serve him again."
I questioned her about whether that was even allowed (this was the early 90's before the Equalities legislation was passed by Blair's Labour government) and she pointed to one of the signs which were displayed prominently behind both bars:
"The management reserves the right to refuse service."
She went on to say that I did not have to serve anyone I did not want to serve and that no reason need be provided; just a firm "no."
I continued to serve this man and found the thought of refusing to serve him appalling. I couldn't bring myself to treat anyone that way.
I worked in several pubs over the next six or seven years and the only time I ever refused anyone service was when the customer was obviously the worse for wear.
I often thought of those signs though. While I personally had no problem serving anyone who came in, was it right that staff in pubs, clubs, restaurants and shops could refuse service for any reason if they wished?
I was on the receiving end of this in the mid-90's when I turned up in Fort William one early evening while travelling around the Highlands. I'd been on the road most of the day and went to a B&B to ask for a room.
The very respectable looking lady who answered the door asked how she could help and the conversation went something like this:
"Can I have a room?"
"I'm sorry, we only have a double room left."
"That's okay, I don't mind a double."
"Oh but you don't want to be paying for a double room son, it's £40 for the night."
"That's okay, I've got the money. I don't mind paying it."
"Oh no son, it's too much. There are other B&B's in the town that are cheaper. You'd be better off going to one of those."
I tried to tell her I really didn't mind paying but she was most insistent and eventually I got the message and went away.
When I eventually found a room and looked in the mirror, it was easy to work out the landlady's problem - to be honest I was looking a bit rough. Scruffily dressed, unshaven, early 20's - she probably thought I was a real lout and didn't want me anywhere near her respectable B&B. I'd frighten the other customers no doubt.
While I was annoyed (and rightly so I think; I'm a very nice man), I had to accept that the B&B was her home and that she was well within her rights to not want me in it, regardless of whether it is a business or not. Why should the law force her to enter into a business transaction with anyone who comes calling? Surely she should be free to decide who she wants to do business with? It strikes me as very totalitarian for the state to compel people to do this.
Of course times have changed and "Equality" now trumps all so it was depressingly predictable that Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland would lose their case today over the so-called, "gay cake."
The owners of the bakery are Christian and refused to make a cake for a customer that was to include the message, "Support Gay Marriage."
Now I know what the law says - you cannot discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality and other assorted protected characteristics. I've no problem with that, but the problem inherent in this law is the wide interpretation of the word, "discriminate."
The bakers did not refuse to serve the customer. Neither did they refuse to make the cake because he was gay and say they had no idea he was.
Their problem was with the political message the customer wanted on the cake. Presumably there are other bakers in Northern Ireland who would be more than willing to take the money to make the "gay cake," just as there were other B&B's in Fort William happy to relieve a scruffy looking traveller of £40 in return for a bed for the night. But are you really being oppressed if you cannot find a baker willing to write a political slogan on a cake for you?
Today's judgement confirms that people who provide a public service can be forced to act against their conscience. Against their deepest held religious beliefs. Simply by virtue of the fact they provide a "public service." The judge has ruled that to refuse to write a slogan you profoundly disagree with on a cake; to refuse to publicly help and support a cause you do not agree with; constitutes discrimination.
I wonder if the Equalities Commission would support my taking a legal case against a baker who refused to make me a cake displaying the message, "Oppose Gay Marriage?" Somehow I doubt it.
Freedom of religion is important because it is the basis of every other freedom. It's existence is an acknowledgement by the state that maybe, just maybe, a higher power than the state exists. When that possibility is denied, there is no higher power than the state. The state arrogates the position of God to itself and the state is not your friend.
Today's judgement is confirmation that the state can compel people to act against their consciences and that is something that should concern us all. Like every battle fought in the culture wars, each victory for the "progressives" increases the power of the state over its citizens.
To many people, today's news will be good news. Equality trumps all. But when the state can compel people to act against their consciences, let's be honest about the situation. Religious freedom is all but dead.
