tinyjo | News browsing

This, about the Sexual Orientation Regulations, made me really sad. All the examples the opponents of the bill gave, like hoteliers liable to prosecution for refusing a double room to a gay couple, were things that I thought "But that's what I would want to happen!". I think I may be a lefty pinko liberal.

On the other hand, this, about a new random radio station launching in Oxford, sounds quite interesting

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

All the examples the opponents of the bill gave, like hoteliers liable to prosecution for refusing a double room to a gay couple, were things that I thought "But that's what I would want to happen!".

Quite. I have so little time for those protesting it's not even funny.

All the examples the opponents of the bill gave ... were things that I thought "But that's what I would want to happen!"

It would be delightful if people were so pleasant to each other that they would be happy to overlook their own biases, though I fail to see how forcing the appearance of such pleasantry will actually promote the real thing.

It rarely changes the opinions of the current generation but it can have an effect on the next.

But surely, not always for the better? - cf the rise of the BNP, on the back of governmental promotion of race equality/multiculturalism, which they would read as force, causing them to want to kick against it even harder, iyswim.

I can't understand why an hotelier would refuse the money to be made from a double room let to a gay couple; but then, a) would they actually want to stay somewhere where the welcome was so unwelcoming? and b) it'll be the hotelier who loses out on revenue - especially given how fast bad reviews travel on the web these days.

> would they actually want to stay somewhere where the welcome was so unwelcoming?

Sure -- in fact, in the past, there was often little choice. The satisfactions it provides are to do with visibility, promoting tolerance and forcing change. After all, the registry office wasn't a very welcoming place for gay couples up till recently, but this year there's been a stampede in that direction.

I wouldn't want to stay somewhere unwelcoming, but if my choices are:

rule out numerous vacations and chances to visit people because no hotel will put me up

or

deal with some people being mildly rude or disapproving, but get to enjoy my life

then yes, I might stay somewhere that didn't want me.

In fact, I travel places where people don't want me all the time. I'm legally blind, and I tend to make people uncomfortable. Just walking about and living my life I often make drivers highly uncomfortable. They see the cane and panic, often doing stupid things. Just yesterday, I was waiting at a light to cross, not even off of the sidewalk, when a car stopped at a green, waited, it turned yellow, then red, then I crossed. I wish the driver hadn't done that, but there wasn't much I could do. I crossed properly with the light.

Someday I will have a wheelchair. I'll be one of the most difficult combinations for people to wrap their heads around or know how to deal with - a blind female in a wheelchair. There will be places more okay with that and less okay with that, but really, I don't expect anywhere will ~want~ me. But I don't want to let that keep me from living where I want to live or let that keep me from going places. I'm sorry that my existence makes others uncomfortable, even when they wouldn't need to act any differently because of me, but I'd rather they learn to deal than I constantly limit my options to cater to their discomfort. I'd have to seriously warp my life and give up on so many things people take for granted to do that, and I would imagine the same is true of a homosexual couple. And why should they?

The adjustment of attitudes over one or more generations is an interesting point. Do you think that the use of legal force to achieve that adjustment is more effective (presumably quicker) than social pressure without the legal force?

I think that it's often quicker although it can also be more painful during the transitional period; it's a case of balancing up those things.

Thanks.
Do you think there is any difference between this matter and freedom of association? For example, most people would probably agree that it is up to a homeowner to decide who they would invite to their home to stay or for a dinner party, and who they would not. Why should this freedom not be allowed if money changes hands for the bed or the food?

News browsing

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags

Style Credit