![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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
On the other hand, this, about a new random radio station launching in Oxford, sounds quite interesting
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 01:15 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:17 pm (UTC)From:Why should a hotelier be forced to give you a room if he doesn't want to?
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:19 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:22 pm (UTC)From: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
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:36 pm (UTC)From: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
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.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:03 pm (UTC)From: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.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:18 pm (UTC)From: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.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:33 pm (UTC)From: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!"?
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:41 pm (UTC)From: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 :)
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:55 pm (UTC)From:I think it would be reasonable to ask that you demonstrate that the violent elements of the activity are consensual and within the law
This is, of course, quite reasonable. It would be bizarre for there to be a law to force people to allow others to use their property for breaking the law.
I don't think that gives them the right to prevent you from doing it in a hireable hall they run.
What, then, do you think should happen when we have got to this stage? Should I be permitted to call the authorities and have them allow me to gain entry to the premises by force?
By the way, I picked this example as it is does not involve religion but does involve an activity that many people do have a prejudice against.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 04:09 pm (UTC)From:No, I'd go for a more administrative solution! I think you should have the right to make a complaint to the authorities and have the hall management prosecuted for refusing to provide you with a service they have previously advertised. I assume this would be punishable by a fine or something of that nature and an order to allow you to hire the premises
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 04:04 pm (UTC)From: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.
The principle seems simply enough. What worries me is how this permissible method can evolve to the next stage of organisation (sorry, no gays/blacks/muslims/Hindus/etc. in this district, because all hotels here have made a collaborative decision). Welcome apartheid, friends.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 04:13 pm (UTC)From:In the case of majority prejudices, it's much less workable. It also puts one in a tricky position democratically - should a government legislate against a majority opinion? You can (and I would) argue that they still have an obligation to govern for all of the electorate so in the case of things like discrimination then yes, but it's definitely something you have to be careful with.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 04:15 pm (UTC)From:"We are (all) only doing as well as the least of us."
no subject
Date: January 10th, 2007 10:15 pm (UTC)From:I personally prefer this system to a democracy. Yes, those protections can be whittled away, and the founding fathers were worried about that. But if you can keep a system of protections in place that allow for reasonable levels of freedom and fairness, then I think it's a better system than just the majority getting whatever it wants.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:02 pm (UTC)From: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.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:37 pm (UTC)From:I do, of course, completely disagree with all of what you said, but it is still very interesting to read.
Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:56 pm (UTC)From:Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 04:14 pm (UTC)From:I will probably get around to posting on this soon, but meanwhile the political FAQ linked to on my userinfo explains exactly how much of a dastardly fellow I am...
Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 04:23 pm (UTC)From:Everyone else has responded to your questions here, and it would seem polite to answer their questions here, too.
Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 09:29 pm (UTC)From:Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 09:48 pm (UTC)From:Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 10:03 pm (UTC)From:There's not much more I can say other that what I've already mentioned. As I mentioned on another thread, where I would support a law preventing people from expressing their bigotry would be when it legislated against taking the bigotry to the target. For example, it should be fine to blackguard a particular religion in the privacy of one's own home, or on the internet, but to stand outside their place of worship and harangue believers would be unreasonable and grounds for arrest (breach of the peace). In this case there is no need to have a specific law naming favoured groups, one may simply say that hassling anyone is naughty.
Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
From:Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 04:45 pm (UTC)From:Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?
Date: January 9th, 2007 09:32 pm (UTC)From:My position can indeed be summed up by this (http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B2).