![[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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:34 pm (UTC)From: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?
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:46 pm (UTC)From: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 :(
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:48 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:58 pm (UTC)From:Sadly, this might only replicate the 'members only' club mentality/solution that prevailed in times before.
no subject
Date: January 10th, 2007 09:51 pm (UTC)From:I was told this story a long time ago in Hebrew School... it may or may not be a Bible story or some tradition passed on in commentary. I have no idea of its truth value, nor do I really care, because it has a lot of power as a story. I think the context I was given was why God punished and/or destroyed these people.
There was a town that would let any people come to it that wanted to. And if the people asked for help, the people would give them money, but they'd give them special marked coins that meant they were outsiders. None of the people would take that money to give them food or shelter. None of the people would give them food or shelter out of charity or kindness. As a result, people would travel to the town, not realizing that they had no ability to again basic resources like water and food, and the visiters would die. One day a child of that town took pity on a child who was with someone traveling and brought the foreign child a jug of water. The local child was punished by being stripped, tied to a tree, covered in honey, and left to be devoured alive by ants. I think it's the latter part that helped me vividly remember the story. This was the final straw, and God destroyed these people, because they were inhospitable, which is a very, very grave sin. Plus their conspiracy of not being willing to trade with outsiders, plus their lack of openness about it, was tantamount to murder.
If you allow systematic prejudice, you will get regions where people in certain minorities cannot acquire necessities. You will get regions that simply won't assist some people. And then you create nightmare scenarios. It may suck to not get invited over to dinner, but you're not being denied the ability to buy groceries or gas so you can leave town.
no subject
Date: January 11th, 2007 12:33 pm (UTC)From: