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

Hmm. Thinking aloud here....
Would you want to stay somewhere run by a homophobe/other bigot? Is it better for bigots to make their views known so that they can be shunned, rather than run the risk of receiving inferior treatment at their hands?

If you were in an area with sparse accommodation & turned up on spec, finding such a sign would certainly not be welcome, but it's a bit risky doing that anyway.

Given that many singletons might share a room rather than pay a 'single supplement' (now there's discrimination too), how will they be viewed?

The use of 'reason' might be a really good starting point. Now I'm sure not all bikers behave badly, but en masse they have been known from time to time, to be a bit naughty and loud and obnoxious, causing upset to other people in cafes in pubs. Novo said he didn't want gays in his B&B, just because he didn't, no reason given. Other people, object to them, so they say, because of some book written years and yaers ago, that supposedly is the word of God. Lots of people object to gays because they are bigots. People have all sorts of objections to blacks, for irrational reasons, although things are improving. And if these irrational prejudices affect people in lots of important areas of their lives, regularly, they deserve to be protected by law.

Knowing the bikers I used to, they took it as a badge of honour and to be discriminated against during sunday rides down to Boxhill or Brighton.

A quick point about discrimination, and what it means in these kind of discussions.

To say that someone has 'discriminating taste' is generally thought of as a compliment - being able to distinguish between what is fine and worthy and what is not. There's nothing wrong in general with 'discriminating', unless it is 'discrimination' on grounds that are irrelevant. So it's okay (IMO) to focus screening and awareness campaigns about (say) sickle cell anaemia on black Britons because they are genetically more susceptible to the disease.

'Discrimination' has become a shorthand for 'discrimination on irrelevant grounds'. So the first question for the bikers example, and for the example of tall thin people being banned from x, is whether the difference in treatment is on relevant grounds or not. It's okay for fairground rides to discriminate on the grounds on height if it's for safety reasons, and it would be okay to exclude a slim person from free diet classes etc on the NHS. Whether there's enough of a link between bikers and disorder for that to be a relevant ground for differential treatment, I'm not sure. Some pubs and restaurants have 'no coach parties without prior arrangement' signs, but that could easily be justified if the facilities to cater for them are not available.

The second question, after whether or not the discrimination is on relevant grounds or not, is how that particular instance of discrimination fits in to a broader pattern of behaviour. It might be wrong for me not to serve someone at my shop just because he has ginger hair, but people with ginger hair (although the subject of some cruel jokes) are not regularly on the receiving end of unfair discrimination - they are not a disadvantaged group. And so we might think that while my anti-gingerism is wrong, gingers do not need special legislative protection because my prejudice is not widespread.

So it's wrong to discriminate against gay people in the provision of goods and services where sexuality is irrelevant. And because prejudice against gays and lesbians is widespread in society (and despite undoubted recent improvements) and discrimination in the provision of goods and services is common, so legislation is justified.

Discrimination (or at least stereotyping) of bikers is or was common throughout society, so there might be some sort of case that could be made. But it would fall under a slightly different heading - discrimination on the grounds of activities or hobbies, rather than discrimination on the grounds of a fact about oneself.

Novo, you make excellent points unfortunately for you they more often than not undermine the position you are attempting to support.

You go on about how unfair those "no bikers" signs were.

The important word in that sentence is *WERE*.

You just dont see them anymore do you. Its because we thankfuly live in more enlightened times where people arent still covering because of the over hyped rucks between a few mods and rockers who did not represent the behaviour of the vast majority of people within those cultural sub-groups.

Here's a question for you Novo have you ever gone into a shop and complained about the "only two school children at a time" signs in the window or on the door? Adults generally dont becuase it doesnt affect them. We dont hear the moral majority complain about bans on hoodies in shopping precints 'till the same rule is applied to an older person this is hypocrisy and unfair discrimination. Both of these examples stink, but who cares?

So what is the reason that we should cling to this uncivilised treatment of people based on the gender of the people they have sex with?

one love

I know several people who have been asked to leave pubs because they were affectionatly 'making out' with someone of the same sex, in an enviroment - on a dancefloor - where straight people were making out all around.

I also have been out with some lesbians friends and denied entrance into a pub by a bouncer because she 'looked like a dyke'.

These examples were all recently within the last 5 years..

Discrimination (we need a better word, its use is ambigious in these kinda things), against any person on any irrational grounds should be shunned and prevented. Its just unfortunate that in this day and age we need laws to help protect individuals rights to equality of oppertunity, rather than us having reached the stage of ridding society of those who deny individuals such freedom of oppertunity. I really find some of the comments in this thread very very odd... Where people (and sorry for not having copied and pasted the comments to this mpost), have written things along the lines of ... 'have nothing against homosexuality'.... In teh same post as saying something along the lines of ... ' woulnd't want a homosexual couple sharing a room if I owned a B&B...' Lets get a few things straight here, previous government legistation has* made a differnce on unequality in the trement of individuals, from my own experiance I can give examples from the Disability Discrimination act (origionally ammendments to SENDA),; E.G., when I applied to university One University wrote to my sixth form college saying 'We do not wish to offer a place to this student as they will lower the grades for our department....' The second University made it very very obvious to me at interview that they didn't want me there... ONly the third one I applied to (who were of great importance in setting up a lot of the support systems since nationally adopted), were great... I got a first class hons, (I'm totally blind BTW) The DDA legistation has made a great differnce in this now and provision at universitys (almost* universially in the UK), is providing true equality of service to all attending university (from admishions process through to graduation and post grad too)...
As a blind person if I book into a hotel I just turn up, I don't let em know beforehand its not of any necessity to do so as it really woulnd't make a differnce if they knew beforehand or not.. Simularly If I'm booking into a double room with another guy or with another woman, I wouldn't say it was with a man as opposed to a woman unless they specially asked or, E.G., asked for the names of both (in which case they'd probably be able to figure it out)... So to some people they'd find it horrifying the idea of two men in one of their bedrooms, behind closed doors, having sex.... So, I guess in future I would be best off booking in with a woman instead, ensuring of course I've got handcuffs, ankle cuffs, whips paddles, blindfolds gags etc for the evenigns fun...

LMHO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6322075.stm

Saw that a few days ago.
*Assuming* it's not just someone looking for free publicity for their hotel, either his worries will be justified or they won't.

Possibly he would lose some business if either
a) some gay customers who couldn't stand being in a mixed hotel would not go to hotels at all
b) some customers previously worried about staying anywhere other than a gay-only hotel may now stay elsewhere.

Considering case a) If the hotel is advertised and/or decorated in such a way that it's obvious who the main clientele are, I doubt that too many homophobes would want to stay there. More gay guests would have to leave than straight guests arrive to do his business harm. If he just *wants* his hotel to be gay-only, that's no different to someone wanting his hotel to be straight-only or white-only.

If case b) came to pass to any extent, that would just be tough - if customers want to go somewhere else, that's business.

I imagine you're right, Potholer, in your guess that he's just looking for free publicity.

TRiG.

Hi Blicky,

Did I say the No Bikers signs were unfair? I don't think so, I remarked that they existed , and we just rode on to where our money was welcomed. I agree that was 10 years ago, and I said that at the time. I was merely illustrating another form of 'prejudice'

I had not noticed a sign in a shop referring to numbers of chidren until you mentioned it. Then I did , so I 'mentioned' it to the owner.
From his decription of what happens with large groups in his shop, it is more about protecting his merchandise than discriminating against childre per se.

Thieves perhaps, but not children.

Novo

Just to turn this discrimination discussion round a bit,

It might be possible to see that the most discriminated aginst, in the sense that there is no legal protection, (in employment law especially perhaps), and no legislation preventing it elswhere is a white, British born male, who is single and is healthy.

Odd that?
Novo

Correct, but that will be countered with the comment that 'we' have always had the advantage which is why all these non-discriminatory laws have come into force.

It does seem to me as 'one of those' that I can bugger all from the government when the government are bending over backwards to give cash to expectant mothers, single mothers, married couples, married mothers-to-be(now child benefit is started before the baby is born! Having a child is a choice not a right. If you can't afford to bring it up don't have it) to name just a few(OK, I was a bit heavy on mothers there - sore point at moment - nothign personal).

Me I have to pay for everything. I get nothing back. I still have to pay 80% of the council tax even though my footprint on council services is virtually non-existant.

I would like to have some 'car benefit' I would love a faster car but cannot afford the insurance or up keep. It's MY right to have one so I should be able to go out buy one on credit and get help from the governe-ment to pay for it and then get cash for its up keep.

Case in point - girl at work is now on paid maternity leave for about 6 months, she also had about 2 weeks off sick during her pregnancy.

A guy a work wanted 4 weeks unpaid leave to go on a safari - No go, the company does not do that sort of thing...so he left...we now have a less effective replacement who needs training up and who probably costs more than the guy who left.

Goes off to calm down.

"It might be possible to see that the most discriminated aginst, in the sense that there is no legal protection, (in employment law especially perhaps), and no legislation preventing it elswhere is a white, British born male, who is single and is healthy."

That's not true. Anti-discrimination legislation (workplace and goods and services) protect whites, males, Brits, and hetrosexuals too. If a white British male who is single and healthy has been discriminated against he has the same recourse to law as anyone else.

Police officer discriminated against on grounds of being English
http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/cases_cold.html

Garage worker discriminated against for being white
http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/cases_face.html

>>"It might be possible to see that the most discriminated aginst, in the sense that there is no legal protection, (in employment law especially perhaps), and no legislation preventing it elswhere is a white, British born male, who is single and is healthy."

Most discriminated against in a moronic theoretical sense, I suppose, but in reality?

If someone was sacked for being white, or being male, they'd have the possibility of claiming race or sex discrimination.
They'd face the issue of whether their treatment could be showed to be based on their colour or sex, but then so would someone who's black or female.

Disability legislation may be one-way, but then much of it is about making provisions to enable people to work, access education, etc. By definition workplaces are already adapted for non-disabled people.
I'm not sure how many incidents of employment discrimination against the non-disabled there are, but it's pretty obvious that if you're going to have legislation requiring some kind of reasonable accommodation, you also need employment protection otherwise disabled people would just end up getting sacked or not getting employed.

Hi Potholer

Please note that I said "in the sense of lack of protection" - not implying actual discrimination. Maybe I should have added heterosexual to the list in view of the recent discussions and upcoming legislation.

I work in the field of employment law, and in that area alone the discrimination protection offered to other groups is extensive and readily quoted. granted my 'specimen' could try to prove a discrimination case were he in a minority of race or colour within a business. But that is pretty unlikely, and he would have a hard time proving discrimination in a 'normal' working environment.

The company for whom I work are specialists advising employers. As such if ANY possible disciplinary action occurs we advise extreme caution in handling situations where the race / colour / sex / pregnancy / disability could be alledged to be influencing the employer. In fact it is practically impossible to handle what would be 'normal' disciplinary matters when the employee is a pregnant woman.

Of course any employer has a Duty of Care, and an obligation to look at varying working time, days, or the environment under some situations, of illness, as well as the usual obligations regarding disability.

I was merely pointing out that almost every other group has legislation preventing certain actions. By and large my 'specimen' does not.

Novo
blackcat>

Hi Otto,

Two valid points, but I think you will grant the policeman case was rare? but I admit to being surprised that Race Discrimination was upheld. One for my notebook.

In your second link I would have thought the discrimination was obvious, but in any event hadn't the new owner also broken the TUPE laws?

I take your points though.

Novo

Even when someone ISN'T employed i.e. gets turned down at interview you can sue on grounds of any of the discrimination above. This is why interviews are bland regimented tickbox situations where everyone 'is givien the same chance'. Not the organic well-run interviews by people who knew the discipline of the person of is being interviewed. No they are run by HR people to a set script.

Some people just do not seem to realise that you can get turned down for a job simply because they do not want you because you are crap...

>>"granted my 'specimen' could try to prove a discrimination case were he in a minority of race or colour within a business. But that is pretty unlikely, and he would have a hard time proving discrimination in a 'normal' working environment."

Do you have to be in a minority in a workplace?
Does that mean women can't claim sexual discrimination if their workplace has a female majority?

Hi Potholer,

I can't see how, unless she was pregnant perhaps. Problems between majorities of women tend to be victimisation, or unfair (unequal) treatment.

Minority groups can more easily point to discrimination, or at least claim it. The fundamental point is that any company should apply ALL of it's policies equally across a workforce to whom it applies.

If this is't being done, and if 'your' woman who is not a minority can point it out then she may have discrimination claim, but not a sexual one.

Otto is of course right to say that my example male has the same rights as everyone else. What he doesn't have is specific legislation covering the group to which he belongs.

Novo

>> >>"Do you have to be in a minority in a workplace?
Does that mean women can't claim sexual discrimination if their workplace has a female majority?"

>>"I can't see how, unless she was pregnant perhaps. Problems between majorities of women tend to be victimisation, or unfair (unequal) treatment."

So if a woman is in a majority female workplace, it's OK for a sexist (male or female) boss to treat them unfairly based on their gender, or promote less-qualified men over their head?