News browsing

[tinyjo]

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

Comments

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Thanks; I was worried that you might not like me to spout propaganda here.
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.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I would disagree, as in the situation where there is no law and I go elsewhere, then both I and the state would be innocent of any immoral acts, leaving the bigots as the sole villains. I much prefer this outcome.

Re: Can you expand on why you disagree?

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Thanks; I was worried that you might not like me to spout propaganda here.

As long as it stays non-aggressive and respectful of other peoples positions then I'm OK.

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

I love the endless stream of people who read Zoe Williams purely in order to complain that her columns are worthless, and a trivial waste of electrons - which does make you wonder whether they should be getting their kicks elsewhere.

[lady-angelina.livejournal.com]

I think I may be a lefty pinko liberal.

You make that sound like such a bad thing. :D

But yeah, I think their attitude is really shitty. =( I'm still upset at my state for passing Measure 36, which defines marriage as being valid only between a man and a woman. >.< It's like our society has taken one step forward and five steps back with respect to gay acceptance. It's really sad. =(

[leora.livejournal.com]

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?

[leora.livejournal.com]

I think the difference is that one simply means some people lose social opportunities and the other creates a society that actively cripples many people for being different.

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.

[leora.livejournal.com]

The US is not a democracy. The founding fathers considered and rejected a democracy, because democracy allows for "the tyranny of the majority". The idea behind the US was that everyone should be equal under the law, and that the majority should not be able to change that. Thus a Constitution of protections that are difficult to change and protect minorities.

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.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Apologies for the delay in replying, but notifications are playing up. I think that the point you raise with this tale is addressed here (http://knirirr.livejournal.com/255520.html).