![[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 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?
Date: January 9th, 2007 10:12 pm (UTC)From:As long as it stays non-aggressive and respectful of other peoples positions then I'm OK.
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).