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

"one mans rights could become another mans burden, which though legally correct may be seen as a bit unfair."

That would be true if the law in any way impinged on the second man's private life - but it doesn't.

The man you say is being "burdened" is also similarly burdened with things like health and safety law, which requires him to keep his B&B up to a certain state of repair and safety, EVEN THOUGH it's his home. This "burden" exists only because it's a place of business and making it such places an extra duty of care on the proprietor.

If the proprietor of a business is not prepared to shoulder the burdens of running a business - all of them - then he has an obvious recourse.

SoRB

>>"The man you say is being "burdened" is also similarly burdened with things like health and safety law, which requires him to keep his B&B up to a certain state of repair and safety, EVEN THOUGH it's his home. This "burden" exists only because it's a place of business and making it such places an extra duty of care on the proprietor."

Quite.

Being a business involves a certain exchange between an individual and the state - ultimately, in return for being allowed to run a business, receiving property protection from the police, access to civil legal system to chase up bad debts, etc, someone has to comply with various rules, pay taxes, etc.
Their freedom is to choose between:
a) not running a business
b) complying with the rules and running a business
c) not complying with the rules, running a business, and taking the risk of having action taken against them

If they want to make up their *own* rules, that puts them in category c), whatever their justification.
If I thought the Good Lord would never let little children come to harm, that wouldn't exempt me from safety precautions if I was running a nursery.
If I thought the End Times were a-coming, that wouldn't allow me to spend all my employee's pension contributions on good causes.

>

I don't think I agree with this. It *is* in the bible that homosexual sex is an abomination, but so are lots of other things (shellfish, usury, any sex outside marriage). Picking on poofs is just bigotry to me. If B&Bs were in the habit of asking for marriage certificates before letting rooms to hetero couples, it would less hypocritical IMO. And made them promise not to use johnnies, engage in bj's, and pearl necklaces obviously.

IF it's just *one* abomination they're against, it seems that they are cherry-picking the bits they want to, and then it's just plain bigotry and they can **** off.

<>

allowed?



All of the above are available equally to private individuals. No special dispensation is granted to businesses. If a business, for example a football club, requires the services of the police they have to pay.

The day you start a business is the day you open up your wallet to the government and the council. This government in particular makes it as difficult as possible for small businesses. Every year brings rafts of new legislation that businesses have to comply with, so much so that there are businesses that make a living out of advising other businesses on new legislation.

Why do you think so many businesses relocate out of the UK? To escape the overbearing dead hand of government.

An example of discrimination legislation:

Every business has to have a written policy on disabled access. They have to make provision for the disabled (this is a good thing btw). However, they are not allowed to promote their disabled provision, even to the disabled, as this is discriminatory. Businesses may not actively offer assistance to the disabled unless specifically asked - to do otherwise would be discriminatory.

>>"Why do you think so many businesses relocate out of the UK? To escape the overbearing dead hand of government."

So many? Apart from those just seeking cheaper labour, how many businesses *do* relocate?

While religious bigots might feel free to pick and choose which bits of scripture to follow and which to ignore while still feeling morally superior, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with doing the same for laws of the land.
Even claiming they should be allowed to seems to be just a demonstration of arrogance.

"Businesses may not actively offer assistance to the disabled unless specifically asked - to do otherwise would be discriminatory."

You sure SWL?

Lots of business get succesfully taken to Employment Tribunals on the grounds that they do not offer to make reasonable adjustments for disabled access. The defence "We didn't know they needed it as they didn't ask", has been comprehensivly thrown out time after time by employment tribunals.

Yup. Mrs SWL started a new job recently and was astounded to find that she cannot offer assistance to a struggling wheelchair user unless asked. Mind you, it's a US-based company so it may reflect US law more than ours.

Sorry FB, just re-read your post.

They have to have physical amenities available, but they cannot advertise other services. For example, wheelchair users are not entitled to reduced rates of access, but their carers are allowed in free. But they are not allowed to advertise this or actively offer it as this would be discriminatory.

Sorry about the triple post, my legal mate just made this point:

"It's a civil matter. Cases of (alleged) discrimination, other than those related to employment, are heard before the county courts:
http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/complaint.html

If the police were asked to attend an incident where racial discrimination was alleged, they might choose to do so in order to prevent a possible breach of the peace. If they did attend, it's likely that the officers would remind the service provider of the provisions of the the law. However, there is no actual obligation upon the police to attend an incident or to advise the service provider about the law. Further, neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service can take any direct action in relation to allegations of racial discrimination.

It's extremely difficult to prove an allegation of racial discrimination based upon a single incident. It's not illegal to refuse to serve a black man. It's only illegal to refuse to serve a man because he is black. If the service provider declines to give a reason for refusing service, proving discrimination only really becomes possible if his reasons become clear through repeated breaches of the legislation.

So, whoever is taking action is wise to send in a few test customers to establish a pattern, unless the discrimination is blatant and easy to prove?

Presumably if someone comes up with a contrived excuse to try and fit the evidence of apparent discrimination, the court *can* choose to ignore the excuse without having to explicitly disprove it?

As a civil matter, would it come down to the balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt (making discrimination easier to prove)?

>>"If the service provider declines to give a reason for refusing service, proving discrimination only really becomes possible if his reasons become clear through repeated breaches of the legislation."

Which is basically what I said some posts ago.

However, let's leave aside pubs and clubs, and consider a business which hardly *ever* refuses service except when just too busy.

How many normal (ie not 'exclusive') shops do you know that refuse to serve *anyone* apart from specific known troublemakers and/or drunks?

How many service businesses turn away business if they have spare capacity? If one person is told "We're too busy" and someone asking soon after for a similar job to be done is told "Yes, we can do that", that's fairly good evidence for discrimination. Repeated a few times, at little cost, it's excellent evidence.

Consider a hotel, where bookings are made by telephone - if they refuse to let two men book a double room, but take bookings from a mixed-sex couple, how hard do you really think it's going to be to collect evidence - surely just a few phone calls.

Ultimately, the main point of the legislation is to make people stop discriminating, not to catch them, ideally making the ones who would discriminate worry whether every single customer is actually some kind of test. Even the odd well-publicised prosecution might do the trick.
Ultimately, there may be few actual prosecutions, and yet the legislation might still have been worthwhile.

Potholer's right, it's quite ridiculously easy to perform these tests. In somewhat recent study, a group sent out resumes to companies that were hiring. There were 2 sets of resumes, which were identical in every way, except for the name. On one set of resumes there were white/caucasian "sounding" names, and on the other African-American "sounding" names. The resumes with "white" sounding names were more than twice as likely to get a response...

Bet they'd get a surprise if Trevor McDonald showed up.

I take it a Gay Adoption Agency, catering sensitively to the needs of gay couples and gay children would be run out of town?

>>"I take it a Gay Adoption Agency, catering sensitively to the needs of gay couples and gay children would be run out of town?"

If they refused to deal with other people, I guess they might be.

I'm not sure what the situation would be if there was an organisation that didn't *handle* adoptions but merely provided specialist advice.
If the advice they provided wasn't actually any use to anyone else, there'd probably be little demand for their services from anyone else.
Maybe much would depend on how they were funded.

I guess there may be nothing to stop the Catholic Church providing Catholic-specific advice and information to Catholics considering adoption?

Would they be entitled to State Funding?

I don't know what the criteria are for state funding.
I'd guess it generally involves jumping though various hoops and/or spinning whatever one does to the people most likely to fund it that particular year, but I doubt many groups have absolute *entitlement* to funding, even if many may feel they should have.

I don't know where the edge of running a business or providing services blurs into advice agencies.

Presumably it's possible to have men's groups or women's groups without falling foul of sex discrimination law.
Where the borderline lies with activities that have to be non-discriminatory, I'm not sure. Maybe your lawyer friend could elaborate?

I think you're right about blurring edges. I don't think my tame lawyer could clarify that.

I can't see a problem with state funding to be honest, if they can prove they are providing a worthwhile service to a defined group.

There's a point where a victimised minority needing support could become people playing victim looking for unjustified help.

The problem is, where that point is is rather a matter of opinion for any particular group, depending on who's doing the evaluating.

True. I read recently that gypries were only formally recognised as a race for the purposes of the Race Relations Act in the early 90s. I think they had a case, having a distinct culture and homegenity(?). It also brought them them rights and recognition. Again, fair enough. I do wonder though at the more recent recognition of Irish Travellers as a race. I think that is stretching a point a little and could be construed as a group seeking special status for gain.

Just remembering the 70s when I was hunting for a flat to rent (for two). When making an appointment to view (or it was a turn up & queue option), landlords frequently refused a viewing unless we were both present.
Presumed to have been covert race (or other) discrimination - the flat would mysteriously be already let if the landlord didn't like the look of you.

I imagine that wouldn't be allowed these days, although presumably it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask for character references from all tenants.