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

Hello Blicky, thought you might pop up,

Fault 1 I think you are wrong but I will check to be sure

Fault 2 Covered under No 1 , if I'm right

Fault 3 It is actually about compliance with the laws of the land, not telling others tahat 'they' should do so.

Fault 4 It was a simple example Blicky , not a point of argument.

I do wish you would grasp that I don't care what you drink, what you watch or what you do in your spare time. You have that right.

Novo

"The point I have been trying to make is that the anti discriminatory laws, whilst absolutely right and proper in intent and in most cases, can actually end up denying the rights of others."

That's absolutely right, but then I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Freedom is in the silence of the law, and every law that is passed reduces the legal rights of others to act in a particular way. There's no denying that anti-discrimination legislation restricts the legal freedom of people to act in particular ways, just as anti-theft or anti-trespass legislation does.

In any controversial case, there will be - at some level - a clash of important rights or interests. If it were not, there would be no controversy. The mere fact that a proposed law restricts someone's right to act in a particular way is not itself enough to show that the law is wrong - the further argument that has to be made from there is to show that the restriction on the right to act in that way is wrong or disproportionate.

"I don't believe that the law should be brought to bear to force persons or a group, to do something which is fundamentally against their beliefs. No one should be compelled to provide a service or a product on the basis that not to provide it becomes an illegal act of discrimination."

I think there's two points here. Firstly, I don't see that this law does force people to do anything that is fundamentally against their beliefs. What it's saying is that if you voluntarily take on role X then you must do Y. If you can't or won't do Y, don't take on role X. As long as there are plenty of alternative roles in society, then I don't see the problem.

Second point - and I've asked this before - is what the difference between this piece of legislation and other anti-discrimination legislation is - other than the group it protects? If it's wrong to discriminate on irrelevant grounds of race in the provision of goods and services, why is it not also wrong to discriminate in the provision of goods and services on any other grounds, including sexuality or perceived sexuality?

I'm trying to make sense of the view that Christians/Catholics are being 'discriminated against'. Is the argument that others are allowed to follow their consciences, but they are not? If that's it, it seems pretty poor to me.

"I do wish you would grasp that I don't care what you drink, what you watch or what you do in your spare time. You have that right.

Not sure what gave you the impression that I thought you did? My post above doesnt sugest anything of the like, if anything it congratualtes people who stick to the way I interact with them and others in public arenas of exchange when it comes to judgeing the way to deal with me or other people.


"Fault 1, I think you are wrong but I will check to be sure

Youve used the comparisson several times to back your position and NOW you think about checking the facts


"Fault 2 Covered under No 1 , if I'm right

If...If you are right, why doont we carry on as if you are wrong because most times you are.

No its not they are related under this argumet but actually separate issues. You keep making a plea for sympathy because these B&Bs are peoples homes well under the law the business side superceeds personal issues about homes. Which is why I have dealt with them separately.



"Fault 3 It is actually about compliance with the laws of the land, not telling others tahat 'they' should do so.

What in the name of Bob do you think all the other laws we have *do* they are there for people to comply with whether we agree with them or not. I have conscientious objections to backing the arms trade but I still pay my taxes, well on the money they know about.


"Fault 4 It was a simple example Blicky , not a point of argument.

No its a faulty premis you are saying that because I put up with Y it is no big deal for others to put up with X. It is a faulty argument or if you like example because the two things are about as comparable as a nicetoasted bun and a freshly laid dog turd. Sure the bun and the trud are brown but after that the comaprison fails to be of any accuracy. There is no good reason that your acceptance of prejudice should be followed by others when the things you were denied compare poorly with the services denied other people.

one love

I do wish you would grasp that I don't care what you drink, what you watch or what you do in your spare time. You have that right.

>>"Finally, any religious group has ideas which to them are not invented prejudices at all. They are a matter of their beliefs. It isn't for you or I to deny them such beliefs, no matter how ludicrous we may think them."

Almost any Christian (apart from absolute literalists, or people who state the whole Bible is just inspirational stories) picks and chooses which bits to take as the word of God.

Some Anglicans and some Catholics think homosexuality is a sin, some don't. The difference between the two positions is more a matter of prejudice or upbringing than actual theology or divine inspiration - basically it's just a *cultural* thing.
If my parents had brought me up to be racist, sexist or homophobic, I wouldn't be able to claim a *cultural* right to discriminate. Why should religious claims be treated any differently from cultural ones?

Some religious types claim their package of ideas deserve special treatment because they are what one or more deities want. Why should anyone else consider that a good argument, especially when people supposedly believing in the same deity often can't agree on much about what the deity actually wants?

Novo, If people are that worried about "who" comes into their house then I am sorry but running a B7B is the wrong business.

Do you think Racist B&B owners should have the legal right to refuse blacks entry to their B&B soley on the grounds that they are black?

Hi Novo, first off, a stooshie is just a stramash.*

There's a difference, I think, between 'no bikers' and 'no gays'. Bikers have a reputation for being violent, intimidating, smelly nose-picking ruffians (and that's just the women). There's a world of difference between making generalisations about what people *do* and what people *are*. People are still told to take helmets off going into banks etc.


<<The problem arise when we forget that one mans Human Rights are sometimes another mans burdens. I go back to the argument about the B&B owner being able to choose who he has in his house, or the right of a publican to refuse a service, or a shop to equally refuse to do business with any particular member of the public.>>

Businesses don't have the same rights as private individuals. If you don't want gays in your house, fine. If you don't like muslims, fine. IF you run a business, you don't have that disgression.

A B%B is a business, and subject to regulations like any other. If some people are *so* homophobic they can't stand the thought of two poofs sleeping together, then they should get another job. Easy.


*a stramash is a fuss, or a to-do.

Hmm. That was meant to post about two hours ago. Oh, well..

A shopkeeper, hotelier or service provider has elected to provide a service by choice. No one forced him to provide the service and therefore service provision is entirely at his discretion.

For example - a shopkeeper can refuse to serve you and ask that you leave the premises and he does not have to say why. Equally, he can charge you 100 times what he chooses to charge others and again, he does not have to say why.

However, he does not have the right to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. This would have to be proved in court and the onus would be upon the claimant to prove that he was discriminated against.

>>"Equally, he can charge you 100 times what he chooses to charge others and again, he does not have to say why."

If prices are marked, I'm not sure they can be arbitrarily and repeatedly exceeded on a shopkeeper's whim without falling foul of trading laws.

A quote from an e-mail I received from a lawyer friend:

"it's illegal to discriminate on certain grounds but proving it is another matter. The hotelier might, for example, say 'Yes, I discriminated against that black guy but my discrimination wasn't based on any illegal criteria. It's just that I always refuse to accept bookings from people with a public school accent". That would be perfectly legal.

I'd imagine it's well nigh impossible to prove illegal discrimination unless you can establish a pattern of behaviour. And, of course, if there are very few prospective customers from a certain group, so that the proprieter is not turning away large numbers, he could always dream up some other explanation for each occurance (such as the "public school accent" you mention). And there's always the option of providing service with a snarl, as described in Ricky Braithwaite's memoir To Sir, With Love.

TRiG.

>>""it's illegal to discriminate on certain grounds but proving it is another matter. The hotelier might, for example, say 'Yes, I discriminated against that black guy but my discrimination wasn't based on any illegal criteria. It's just that I always refuse to accept bookings from people with a public school accent". That would be perfectly legal."

But one booking accepted from someone white with a similar accent would pretty much destroy that defence, even if it might have initially been believed, which it might well not have been.

Ultimately, if someone is going to consistently discriminate, it's going to be fairly easy to nail them by sending appropriate test customers.
Arguably, one point of discrimination law is to make it too risky for someone to discriminate *all* the time, and too much of a pain to be selective about when to risk discriminating or to try and build up some coherent false justification to explain the choices made.

I would imagine that between being notified of a court case and the case actually coming to court, the miscreant would have ample opportunity to concoct an excuse.

So, in effect, you can drive a double-decker bus through the legislation in such cases.

>>"I would imagine that between being notified of a court case and the case actually coming to court, the miscreant would have ample opportunity to concoct an excuse."

The court doesn't have to *believe* an excuse. If an excuse was really far-fetched, I'd have thought it was up to the defendant to show it held up to some extent.

Isn't there something in the caution about "...But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court..."?

If I actually *had* (for example) a morbid fear of serving people wearing pink ties on Thursday afternoons, I'd be likely to come up with that as the explanation when first questioned, rather than only just happening to remember it months later.
I'd really have no reason not to remember or explain it straight away.

Can you actually be booked for a single case of discrimination? What do all these "the management reserve the right to refuse admission" signs mean, so? Am I not right in suggesting that the prosecution have to establish a pattern, or have you actually tell the person why you're refusing to serve them?

TRiG.

I think for pubs/clubs, it's probably *much* easier to argue that a particular person just looked like trouble, especially for places which tend to attract more than their fair share of trouble.

Somewhere where *some* people being turned away was a common occurrence would probably need a significant pattern of turning one group away disproportionately to be established before they could be successfully pursued.

Businesses that usually didn't refuse anyone unless they were clearly full would presumably be rather easier to act against.

Morning FB, Potholer, Otto, SWL ,

No, of course I wouldn't argue that a racist B&B owner should refuse a black guest. I am clearly unable to find the words to express what I am thinking on this point.

I have said endlessly that anti discrimininatory laws are good, at least in the sense that they put into law the behaviour we would all hope to see, even if only in the enlightened in the first place.

Will everyone please accept that I am not wishing to challenge the anti discrimantion laws as they effect the parties they were designed to affect.

What I have been trying to say ( as Otto put so well ) is that laws which define the rights of minority groups will impact on the majority.
In spite of Blickys abusive ranting I am not trying to say that discrimination is right in any form, but that I can see the logic in some religious bodies objections to a law which might, unles they change their job, put them in a very difficult position vis a vis their beliefs and conscience.

In practical terms , for everyone else, it is no big deal. There are many ways , some already described , to circumvent the problems, though perhaps not all would succeed!

I am not 'religious' I am not anti gay, I simply see that there are two sides to each situation, and was trying to express the clearly unpopular view

Respects to those who deserve them,

Novo

>>"In spite of Blickys abusive ranting I am not trying to say that discrimination is right in any form, but that I can see the logic in some religious bodies objections to a law which might, unles they change their job, put them in a very difficult position vis a vis their beliefs and conscience."

I can see the *point* of con-men objecting to a law against obtaining property by deception. That just means I can understand that from their point of view, objection makes logical sense. However, I can still take pleasure if it turns out that their objections are ultimately ignored.

If the beliefs and/or conscience and/or religiously dressed-up prejudice of a *subset* of believers cause them to wish to discriminate against other people, then it's just tough for them if it gets made illegal, just as it would be for other people without an actual or pretended religious backing for their views.

Why are you striking up with the passive aggressive name calling. There has been no ranting in my posts nor has there been any abuse aimed at you or anyone else.

Novo, pleases, stop telling lies about me in an attempt to garner support for your indefensible stance on this subject.

Listening to the radio this morning there was an interview on this very subject, someone said something like:

What would you say to a Doctor who on religious grounds refused to perform abortions?

Me Id say fine. If her or his sensibilities prevented them performing or even advising on terminations it does not have to be a huge problem. they could work in a completely different area of medicine or if they were a GP all they would ned to do is make it clear to all their patients that they did not approve of or prescribe artificial methods of birth control.

No problem at all if this were the case.

No differetn to a vegetarian baker labelling his "sausage rolls" as being made with a meat substitute. He's not discriminating against meat eaters or breaking with his beliefs and there would only be a problem if he refuse to serve people who ate meat.

one love