tinyjo | News browsing

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.

This isn't legislating people's personal opinions, it's legislating the provision of goods and services. I don't care what the hotelier's personal biases are so long as I get a comfortable room to stay in for the night.

Polly Toynbee has a piece on the subject in today's Guardian.

I haven't really poked around the whole Comment is Free thing as much as I might. I'm amused by stuff like this, in a joy-of-slapfights sort of way.

> 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.

so long as I get a comfortable room to stay in for the night.

Why should a hotelier be forced to give you a room if he doesn't want to?

Because he advertised available rooms. Similarly I wouldn't want it to be OK for him to refuse a room to a black person or a Hindu and, in fact, it isn't. Why should there be special provision for discrimiating against gays?

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.

Because he advertised available rooms.

Would it be then be acceptable for him to turn people away if he had advertised rooms subject to conditions (e.g. "vacancies, but only if I like the look of you")?

Why should there be special provision for discrimiating against gays?

Why should there be special provision for anyone?

Anyway, I hope you don't mind these questions. I am interested to understand the reasoning behind your (and

coalescent's) comments on the BBC article.

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?

Would it be then be acceptable for him to turn people away if he had advertised rooms subject to conditions (e.g. "vacancies, but only if I like the look of you")?

Morally, I'd be more comfortable with that. That way everyone knows where they stand and, for example, I could also choose to deliberately withhold my custom even though I personally would be unlikely to be discriminated against (although you never know - possibly he wouldn't like the look of little perky girls :) ). Legally, I have no idea if you're allowed to do that or not.

Why should there be special provision for anyone?

Well, I'm not sure why they don't just make a law saying if you've advertised a service for money and someone can pay for it you have to provide that service (as long as you're otherwise within the law - so you still wouldn't serve drinks to underage kids). You would think that would be easier but I presume there are practical downsides or something of that nature.

Anyway, I hope you don't mind these questions. I am interested to understand the reasoning behind your (and coalescent's) comments on the BBC article.

That's fair enough. I was wondering what the tone of voice was so it's good to know that it's inquistive :) Going back to my original comments then, my primary reaction was sadness because people still react like this; I find it really upsetting. I agree that legislating to change peoples behaviour is fraught with difficulties but I personally feel that it's worth taking the potential short term pain to help force a change of attitudes in the longer term. That judgement is going to be different depending on your feelings about the underlying issue, and how short you think the short term will be but thats the side I come down on.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I feel that they've implicitly agreed to cede that freedom by freely advertising the bed or food with no provisos.

Actually, forcing people who want to not have gay couples in their hotels to state it up front would also be interesting because I think there's a lot more closet homophobia, as it were, than overt. If they had to be public about it, would they actually do it, or would they put up and shut up?

I don't think this is actually the stance of the proposed legislation but I'm finding it hard at this point to get at the details of exactly what that is in the welter of claim and counter claim in the media :(

hurray for leftie liberalism! it depresses me deeply that people are still dumb enough to think it's their religious right to be bigotted bastards...

Because selling goods and services (such as hotel services) is a critical component of an economic system. An economic system is a mechanism designed to distribute resources. I want my economic systems to distribute resources as fairly as possible.

It wouldn't be all that problematic if just one person wanted to refuse to sell just me just one item because they didn't like me personally, or had some obscure personal prejudice against me. But when their prejudice is based on widespread prejudices reinforced in and by the rest of society then their refusal to sell me that item becomes part of a larger pattern where lots of people who are like me in certain ways are refused service by many different vendors in many different circumstances and over an extended period of time. This larger pattern constitutes a societal prejudice that has become systemic (as in, embedded in the overall economic system). Legislation like this is a way of trying to remove that large scale prejudice from the economic system we use to distribute goods and services, not necessarily about changing individuals' personal preferences.

Legally, I have no idea if you're allowed to do that or not.

As far as I am aware there has always been custom/law that providers of services may restrict their use. An example would be a landlord refusing to serve a drunkard or ejecting someone who was causing a disturbance in his pub.
My default assumption is that if goods or services are offered for sale then that is dependent upon the purchaser. Shops sometimes refuse to sell eggs to teenagers on halloween because they think that they might use them to cause a nuisance, and a restaurant might refuse admittance to someone who was not properly dressed even without any sign stating a dress code. So, if I went to a local community centre advertising a room for hire, and asked to hire it for my boxing and knife combat class, then though I would think them small-minded bigots for turning me away I would not think that they should be forced to take my money just because I was the first to apply for the vacant slot.

my primary reaction was sadness because people still react like this;

It is indeed most unfortunate that people do adhere to these strange superstitions.

By the way, I am not getting comment notifications from LJ today, so if I don't reply then it's because I haven't spotted your response.

I think landlords have a legal obligation not to serve people who're already drunk, don't they? It's part of the conditions of the licence or something.

As for the eggs, now that the age discrimiation act is in force, I wonder if that is strictly legal? After all, they don't refuse pensioners, I assume.

I think with the community centre, I feel that basically, they should have to provide a good reason for refusal which wasn't "we just don't like it". So concern for the fixtures and fittings or uncertainty about insurance position would be potentially valid concerns (at least on an initial application). I would expect them to be upfront with you about those concerns as part of their refusal and if you can address them then they should revisit.

I think that you're right about the pub situation, but even if there were no legal requirement it would still be acceptable for them to serve as much or as little as they liked. I have encountered landlords who have threatened to eject people for not buying enough booze!
My opinion on the egg situation was that it was silly, but that there should be no law preventing them selling eggs or forcing them to do so.
As for the community centre, what would your thoughts be if the nature of their concerns were "Your activity is violent and unpleasant and upsets us personally. We don't care that you've shown us valid insurance and references and that your activities are legal (we think they should be banned). You're not coming in!"?

Thanks, that makes your position clear.
I do, of course, completely disagree with all of what you said, but it is still very interesting to read.

"But that's what I would want to happen!"

Even sadder, I thought "But, surely they are already liable for prosecution if they don't do those things?"

I feel so naieve.

It's the home of slapfights and people looking for slapfights to comment on.

:)

I think it would be reasonable to ask that you demonstrate that the violent elements of the activity are consensual and within the law. The other two, I don't see as reasonable objections. If they want it banned they can campaign for it to be banned but I don't think that gives them the right to prevent you from doing it in a hireable hall they run.

On the other hand, I could side with the landlord who threatened to eject you for not buying - after all he's offering the service of a place to drink (or possibly eat) things purchased from him, not a place to sit so that would be at his discretion :)

News browsing

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject