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

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

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.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

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.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

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.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

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.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

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!"?

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

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 :)

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Actually, the pub ejection was not for not buying, but for not buying enough drinks. Landlords who complain of patrons “nursing their pints” are well-known. ;-)


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.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Should I be permitted to call the authorities and have them allow me to gain entry to the premises by force?

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

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

Interesting.
It's the "order" that I wonder about, as that would essentially be using the threat of violence to force people to support an activity of which they disapprove (if they don't comply they will have their money taken or will be arrested and jailed). Do you think that at all immoral?

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

I would question whether or not being forced to provide their service for money is the same as being forced to support something. I certainly wouldn't assume that the people who run the community centre support in a moral sense all the groups that use the hall - apart from anything else there's every chance that would be quite contradictory.

[knirirr.livejournal.com]

What I meant by “being forced to support” is that entering into a contract with me to supply training space at an agreed time in exchange for money does assist me in my aim of training people in, and therefore promoting, an activity of which they disapprove. Without their room, particularly if it were the best or only location available for my purposes, my plans to train people in violent skills would be retarded. So, the support is in the logistical rather than the moral sense.
In the end it will come down to force, for if the state insists that I must use the room and the owners try to prevent me, perhaps with a sit-down strike, then physical force would be required for me to be able to continue. This would make all parties villainous in my opinion.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

This would make all parties villainous in my opinion.

True. My sympathies would be much more with you and the state than the refuseniks though given this set up.

[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.

[applez.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's a solution that works better on a minority prejudice, I think because then you can generate activism in the majority population who disapprove hopefully allowing attitude changes to be pushed by social pressure.

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.

[applez.livejournal.com]

should a government legislate against a majority opinion?

"We are (all) only doing as well as the least of us."

[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.