![[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 12:40 pm (UTC)From:Quite. I have so little time for those protesting it's not even funny.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 12:57 pm (UTC)From:It would be delightful if people were so pleasant to each other that they would be happy to overlook their own biases, though I fail to see how forcing the appearance of such pleasantry will actually promote the real thing.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 01:00 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 01:09 pm (UTC)From:I can't understand why an hotelier would refuse the money to be made from a double room let to a gay couple; but then, a) would they actually want to stay somewhere where the welcome was so unwelcoming? and b) it'll be the hotelier who loses out on revenue - especially given how fast bad reviews travel on the web these days.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 01:15 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 01:25 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:06 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:14 pm (UTC)From:Sure -- in fact, in the past, there was often little choice. The satisfactions it provides are to do with visibility, promoting tolerance and forcing change. After all, the registry office wasn't a very welcoming place for gay couples up till recently, but this year there's been a stampede in that direction.
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 02:20 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 02:21 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 02:34 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 02:36 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 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 02:50 pm (UTC)From: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 03:03 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 03:37 pm (UTC)From:I do, of course, completely disagree with all of what you said, but it is still very interesting to read.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:38 pm (UTC)From:Even sadder, I thought "But, surely they are already liable for prosecution if they don't do those things?"
I feel so naieve.
no subject
Date: January 9th, 2007 03:41 pm (UTC)From::)
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 :)