h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From the BBC article:

"He (Lord Morrow) had argued that the rules forced people to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."

Well, stoning people to death for adultery, or wearing the wrong fabrics (or writing a book critical of religion) is illegal - is that an infringement of people's right to be obedient to one or other deity?

*My* newly-invented personal God commands me to do whatever the **** I want to do - should the laws of mere mortals stand in my way?

But it's not impinging on people's beliefs, only their actions.

I manage to juggle the two every day and I'm sure we all do to some extent.

These people can believe what they want about homosexuals, they can also say what they want but they *cannot* act in a prejudicial fashion according to these beliefs.

In this way, it is not as constraining as the racism legislation they are comparing it to. Racism legislation still allows people to think what they want, but people can't say what they think nor can they act in a prejudicial fashion.

I've read a lot of right-wing guff today about the state interfering in the rights of the individual, but I think this is more of a case of the state safeguarding the rights of the individual and I support it.

"I don't think you'd get away with keeping smokers out of your hotel if they weren't smoking at the time, would you?"

But someone did get refused on these grounds - the guest house owner said that they made his bedding and storage areas smell and non-smokers complained.

"Because homosexuals may complain, but they don't have a policy of kicking straight people out of gay bars."

When I was staying in London before Christmas I saw several clubs which had a notice on the door saying - This club has a gay majority policy (or similar) I didn't really thing much about this, until coming back to the hotel late I heard a couple complaining that they were never let in they always said sorry we are maintaining our majority. I'd imagine a night club that put up a sign saying "Our policy is that the majority our clients must be hetro-sexual." would pretty soon be acted against.

"Similarly, atheists may get angry, and sadly we may scorn, heckle and belittle, but I've yet to hear of 'no Christians welcome'." I could say that attitude is prevalent in some threads Most religions proscribe against other groups and individuals, but I deliberatley did not use a religous arguement - I used a personal arguement - this is my home - why can't I choose who I let rooms to.


"Religious freedom means - or SHOULD mean - the right to worship freely IN PRIVATE. It does not, or certainly should not, mean the right to take your repellent opinions into the public domain." - Totally agree - and for me it holds with regard to your sexual preferences as well. If you choose to sleep with members of your own sex IN PRIVATE, that's your choice, but I don't want you doing it in my house.

"Isn't it odd, though, that the UK is perhaps one of the most secular countries in the West, while the one with the clearest separation of church and state (the US) is the most religious?"

I'd say France had the clearest seperation between church and state, but its an interesting point.

"but it can tell its citizen's they can't protest over its actions. << McKay

Care to be more specific about the government saying this?"

I can't believe you haven't heard of Brian Haw. He is holding a protest outside the Houses of PArliament against the Iraq war. The government brought in legislation to get him moved. Which led to Maya Evans who was convicted of breaching the Serious Crime and Police Act by reading aloud a list of British Soldiers killed in Iraq at the Cenotaph. I could go on, John Catt, Walter Wolfgang, et al. This is the act that allows ASBOs to be granted, and under which the government seeks to allow people to be locked up IN CASE they commit a crime.

"As far as I was aware, you can't get cancer through passive homosexuality... " Weeeeeeeeeelllll - suppose I sleep with a woman who's previous partner was a bi-sexual, and who had picked up an HIV infection from sleeping with rent boys. I get HIV from her, and succumb to cancer, thanks to my reduced immune systems ?

"He (Lord Morrow) had argued that the rules forced people to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state." This is an utter crock and happens daily - Christians fighting in the army - people who work in banks. I am not opposing this legislation on religious grounds, but on the grounds that its a law we don't need. Are we so short of guest houses that gay couples can't find accomodation ? - I think not.

"for me it holds with regard to your sexual preferences as well. If you choose to sleep with members of your own sex IN PRIVATE, that's your choice, but I don't want you doing it in my house."

Well, fine. In which case, don't invite me into your house. No problem. Thing is, if you start charging people to sleep in your house, whether you like it or not, it ceases at that moment to be just your house, and becomes your place of business. And that means you have to do a whole bunch of stuff you didn't have to do when it was just your house. Live with it. Or stop charging money.

SoRB

<<"As far as I was aware, you can't get cancer through passive homosexuality... " Weeeeeeeeeelllll - suppose I sleep with a woman who's previous partner was a bi-sexual, and who had picked up an HIV infection from sleeping with rent boys. I get HIV from her, and succumb to cancer, thanks to my reduced immune systems ?>>

Yeah, but it's not cancer is it?

I think I was soundly out-manuevered there...

I was interested that a hotel owner said he'd be quite happy to let two separate rooms to a gay couple, but not a double room. I guess he felt unable to openly condone an act which was contrary to the morals of his belief system. Not sure how he might react to finding them in bed in the same room in that case. I'm sure there have been many instances of two rooms booked by couples (hetero or homo) but only one used for at least part of the night!

On a local thought, I'm involved with running our local village hall. We have aletting policy which states that the management committe can refuse any booking without giving a reason. That's to cater for e.g. refusing someone who's been known to cause problems with previous hire.
I wonder if we are still legally entitled to say that. We'd have to be very careful if we did ever refuse someone that we couldn't be accused under any anti-dsicrimination legislation.

"Live with it. Or stop charging money."

This extends beyond small individuals, perhaps supplementing a pension income with letting rooms. What about voluntary organisations, many of which are run by churches, who have policies like - no letting to non-married couples, let alone same sex partners. Some churches even have a no alcohol rule.

Now you are saying that sexual inclination is beyond ones personal control - well maybe it is - but actively engaging in that activity is a matter of choice. Like monogamy or marriage, surely homosexual couples can resist in indulging in sex for one night ? Or are all the stories true ?

Why should people change their perfectly legal and acceptable behaviour because of the unpleasant prejudices of a minority?

Would a more general no sex policy not be appropriate?

This law is about the rights of a minority, homosexuals. A vociferous minority, but a very small one - and its possibly going to affect accomodation for a majority - the financially deprived. Because big business neither knows or cares about whose money it takes, but small individual concerns do.

>>Or are all the stories true ?<<

What stories are those McKay that you have been filling your over active imagination with? You know what they say about men who do that don't you?

"This law is about the rights of a minority, homosexuals. A vociferous minority, but a very small one - and its possibly going to affect accomodation for a majority - the financially deprived"

The financial concerns of some people should never trump the rights of anyone.

How does this legislation "affect accomodation" for the financially deprived?

Ste

Let's face it, if someone is running a very small B&B, and is perpetually haunted by visions of gay sex but doesn't want to see an appropriate mental health professional, and their prime motivation is to avoid gay sex happening in their business premises (whilst quite possibly they are happily ignoring much adultery, and unmarried straight sex), it probably isn't too hard to find some way round the legislation.

If they advertise a 'Christian B&B' in appropriately narrow-minded publications, stick up a 'No Vacancies' sign in the window, and only actually admit they have spaces to on-spec callers who they deem suitable, they can probably keep their business gay-sex-free at little risk.

Likewise, if someone is paranoid about a song they have written being used to advertise a gay club or event, they can publically state that they don't want to allow the song to be used in *any* advertising, and then choose to relax their blanket ban if some suggested usage they really approve of comes up.

The downside for them in either case is that they may miss out on income they would otherwise have got due to people they would approve of being put off, but that's the price for intolerance and bigotry.

I love the image that brings to mind of someone crouched in a dark corner of their office, wringing their hands and moaning "Oh dear lord they might be having gay sex upstairs!!!"

Morning all,

There is possibly some feeling that the current preoccupation with passing laws on behalf of minorities, but at the expense of the majority , is in the end unworthy.

By all means enact a law which prohibits discrimination against a minority group. All right and proper. But when it extends into who you may allow into a bed in 'your' house it is just getting ridiculous.

There have been other examples of the knock on effect for village halls etc.

The argument that a B&B is a business is a false one too, for many years ( and I don't think it has changed) a shop owner or a pub landlord has had the right to refuse to serve someone, and in the latter case , to eject them from the pub. Any 'business' should have the right to choose whom they serve. If a financial loss is incurred by such a refusal, that is the loss for the owner, it should not be a matter for lawyers.

Perhaps Shakespeare had a point in Henry V!,Act 4 Scene 2 " ....The first thing we do is kill ( hang ) all the lawyers....."

Novo

Novo, I've got a little sympathy for the idea that the owner of a business should have the right to choose who they wish to serve on libertarian grounds, but the net effect of allowing this may to be perpetuate discrimination and make certain goods and services unavailable to certain sections of the population.

An analogy that has been drawn more than once already is with racism. If I am a racist businessman, should I be allowed to put a sign in the window saying "No blacks, no Irish"? If we think that discrimination would be wrong in this case, I don't see how it can't also be wrong in other cases.

It's illegal for B&B owners to discriminate on racial grounds about who they allow into 'their house', so the principle already exists in law. So opponents of the new rules have to show that either (a) the principle is wrong, and that a B&B owner *should* be allowed to put up a 'No blacks, no Irish' sign or (b) that discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the irrelevant grounds of race is somehow different to discrimination on the irrelevant grounds of sexual orientation.

And I think many opponents are actually arguing for b above - that it's wrong to discriminate on racial grounds, but discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is okay. But the argument as to *why* is never made clear. If discrimination on irrelevant grounds is wrong sometimes, why isn't it wrong always?

On the topic of village halls. It's actually not the case that religious groups would be obliged to hire out halls to the imaginary hoards of gays and lesbians who presumably would prefer to hire a church hall for an event rather than a hotel or a club. The legislation is actually very clear on this point, but many opponents (and the Daily Hate) either haven't read it, don't understand it, or are scaremongering.

"I think many opponents are actually arguing [...] that it's wrong to discriminate on racial grounds, but discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is okay. But the argument as to *why* is never made clear."



It's been made abundantly clear. These people regard it as OK to discriminate against homosexuals because the voice in their head says homosexuality is morally wrong. Other people with voices in their head wrote that down in a book 2000 years ago, and they believe their right to their particular superstitions, and their obligations to the voice in their heads, is more important than the rights of real people not to suffer discrimination.

The argument is clear, unambiguous, and very, very stupid.

SoRB

Novo can speak for himself, of course, but from memory I don't think he's an active Christian of the kind that opposed the recent Lords bill. Hence my question.

(And it's worth remembering, btw, that a great many Christians did *not* oppose the bill - it's the evangelicals and the fundies who opposed it).

>>"There is possibly some feeling that the current preoccupation with passing laws on behalf of minorities, but at the expense of the majority, is in the end unworthy."

What 'expense of the majority'? Is the majority really that homophobic?

The 'religious grounds' argument seems thoroughly bogus.
Anyone picking and choosing which bits of Leviticus to follow is really just too great a coward to explain they have a *personal* problem with the idea of gay sex.
Deep down they know their views aren't really defensible by rational argument, so they just use a selective reading of scripture to support their personal problems with homosexuality, whilst likely ignoring or conveniently explaining away all kinds of other divine commands.

If the law really annoys people like that, I'm all in favour of it even if it doesn't actually achieve much in the way of advancing equality.

Arent we all in minorities?

Men.

Northerners.

Scottish.

Balck.

Disabled.

Children.

All of you.

Even if you are an able-bodied, white female of working age from the South of England, that group is a minority as they make up less than half the population.

Most people arent so stupid and evil that they imagine and act on a prejudiced reason for discriminating against such people, except for a few where pay and employment are concerned.

So more than a majority need protection from unfair discrimination we all do. Most of us just dont notice but there are people willing to act in an egregious way that can affect ALL of us on petty minded and fanciful pretexts. Maybe we dont notice because its nothing more than a=occasinal tardy service or a slightly unpleasant welcome that distinguishes the way we get treated from the way that everyone else gets treated.

To be honest Im probably not in the first instance as nice to kids from round here in ManU, Chelski, Liverpool or Arsenal shirts as I am to Kids in West Bromwich Albion shirts. I give stick (mild verbal teasing) to kids in Villa and Wolves shirs but I actually hold a grudging admiration for people who support local clubs, but I dont throw kids out of the session, make them wait till last for a a go at drills, humiliate any of them by calling them mean names or wipe balls clean after they have touched them in a deluded fear of contamination based on superficial reasons. People do those kinds of things when you are black in this country, they do it when you are gay. The reason doesnt matter, damn there is no actual *reason* involved it is mindless, unthinking, mean spirited and hateful bigotry at work in such cases.

Thankfully such actions are and should remain outlawed and acted against.

In your home if you don not want to invite people in for your own reasons then do so (or do not as the case maybe) but if you want to be part of civillised society then try being civillised.

If you want to run a business observe the relevant laws be they health and safety, tax or anti-discrminatino or go to a mindless hateful country that revels in uncivillised treatment of people.

Unforunately for such people the US has banned the colour bar and apartheied has gone in R.S.A., so apart from places like Zimbabwe your strugling for places where discrminatino is an open national policy.


Novo, your example is fine (in that it does not affect you) but what if you were disabled and were unfortunate enough to have booked a room in place run by strict fundamentalist Hindus. You might think that you deserve decent treament but they show you to the coal bunker because their religion says your disability shows you have sinned in a previous life and do not deserve the same treatment as decent people.

one love