Home

TheSinner.net

Equality Laws

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:02 pm

At the risk of injecting some activity back into this forum, I thought I'd canvas the sinner for thoughts on this:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platf ... ty-la.html

Where does everyone think the balance of rights lies?
What, if anything, makes religious beliefs 'special'?
What might the consequences of an exception to the law be, and how far could an exception be carried?
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Al on Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:49 pm

In the private sphere, people should be able to do what they want. If you want to lay down rules in your private house about what behaviour is acceptable then you should be allowed to do just that. Once you start operating in the public sphere then you must follow what the law says. The trouble with allowing exceptions because of one set of sincerely held beliefs is that you then must allow exceptions for all sincerely held beliefs.

In the case of the guest house owners, the flaw in the argument put forward by the owners and their supporters is when they say that they would have turned away an unmarried heterosexual couple. That is, their religious beliefs demand that they do not allow unmarried couples (of whatever sexual persuasion) to share a bed. The thing I can't work out is just how they would know if a man and woman seeking a room were married or not. Of course, they could ask but they wouldn't necessarily get a truthful answer. In other words, they'd be happy if a couple booked in for an adulterous break as long as they claimed to be married to each other.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby wild_quinine on Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:57 am

Where does everyone think the balance of rights lies?


I'm not sure that I have an answer, other than my rapt attention. It's really, really interesting. I don't fully agree with many of the comments on the page you link above, but for a comments thread a number of them are unusually succinct and direct, and there are powerful arguments made in simple terms:

"we are in danger of putting religion in a box only to be brought out on ceremonial occasions"

"If you believe in their right to treat customers differently based on personal preference then you have to be prepared to defend racists' rights to do the same."

"How dare anyone march into someones home, shop or business that is in the private sector and demand service."

"How dare anyone illegally discriminate contrary to the laws of the nation."

"Um, hello, the debate is about what the laws of the nation ought to be. You can't argue against a proposal to change the law just by saying, "well, it's the law"."

"The law applies to everyone, equally, and no group or religion gets special dispensation"

"The law doesn't apply equally to everyone because it is the kind of law which is designed to penalise those who hold certain views. Your argument makes no more sense than arguing that the law which used to criminalise Catholicism "applied to everyone" even though it was designed to penalise the public expression of certain views."

"Most points of view ... are ridiculous if taken to their ultimate conclusion. Which is why mature people don't."


What, if anything, makes religious beliefs 'special'?


Religions usually deal in moral absolutes, from the highest moral authority. I'm not convinced that this makes them deserving of special legal treatment. But it does make them quite perculiar.

That's part of the issue here, I think. *If* what this Christian couple believe is true, then it is absolutely so, and they *should* act as they are, even though it seems very objectionable.

To tell them to act otherwise because of the law, is to say that their beliefs are less important than the law.

But because their moral code supposedly comes from the highest moral authority, then this the same thing as to tell them that their beliefs are wrong. Which I think the law is not really supposed to do.

I think their beliefs about gay people are wrong. So do a lot of very committed Christians, let's not forget.
But I also think that it's dangerous to have laws telling people what it is OK to believe.

What might the consequences of an exception to the law be, and how far could an exception be carried?


It's a bloody mess, basically. Two parties with conflicting demands for rights that are theoretically protected by law. Adding an exception will favour one over the other. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, but it would have to be really, really carefully handled.

I suspect there's a temptation to pronounce one side as 'right', and I feel it, too. Thing is, that's not a hugely compelling moral argument in itself. It's a conclusion, not an argument. And even if we could agree on an argument to support it, and we might well be able to do so, I still reckon there'd be a good deal of collateral damage against other tenets we'd like to hold on to...
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:07 pm

wild_quinine wrote:I'm not sure that I have an answer, other than my rapt attention. It's really, really interesting. I don't fully agree with many of the comments on the page you link above, but for a comments thread a number of them are unusually succinct and direct, and there are powerful arguments made in simple terms.


I was also struck by the (unusual) fact that some worthwhile arguments were going on in the comments thread.


wild_quinine wrote:Religions usually deal in moral absolutes, from the highest moral authority. I'm not convinced that this makes them deserving of special legal treatment. But it does make them quite perculiar.

That's part of the issue here, I think. *If* what this Christian couple believe is true, then it is absolutely so, and they *should* act as they are, even though it seems very objectionable.

To tell them to act otherwise because of the law, is to say that their beliefs are less important than the law.

But because their moral code supposedly comes from the highest moral authority, then this the same thing as to tell them that their beliefs are wrong. Which I think the law is not really supposed to do.

I think their beliefs about gay people are wrong. So do a lot of very committed Christians, let's not forget.
But I also think that it's dangerous to have laws telling people what it is OK to believe.


I think I'd have to suggest that whatever their claims to absolutely moral authority, religions should not be given special legal treatment, for a few reasons. Does a claim of divine inspiration for a belief make it more worthy than a claim of empirical evidence for another belief? Or, to make it more difficult, does one religion gain priority over another (as most of their adherents would argue should occur)?
Would this require the law to specify a 'true' religion and god or gods? Or should religions simply be ranked most likely to least likely, with the higher ranked religions permitted to discriminate against those ranked lower: for example, a Jewish guest house allowed to disallow Buddhist visitors but not Muslim ones, and a Christian guest house allowed to discriminate against both Muslims and Buddhists? And everyone allowed to discriminate against Scientologists?
I think it would be easier--and probably also better--if all beliefs were wholly equal before the law. And I think its worth noting that nobody has said this couple can or cannot believe what they want, merely that they may not discriminate in providing a service.


jollytiddlywink wrote:What might the consequences of an exception to the law be, and how far could an exception be carried?
wild_quinine wrote:It's a bloody mess, basically. Two parties with conflicting demands for rights that are theoretically protected by law. Adding an exception will favour one over the other. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, but it would have to be really, really carefully handled.

I suspect there's a temptation to pronounce one side as 'right', and I feel it, too. Thing is, that's not a hugely compelling moral argument in itself. It's a conclusion, not an argument. And even if we could agree on an argument to support it, and we might well be able to do so, I still reckon there'd be a good deal of collateral damage against other tenets we'd like to hold on to...


*puts on Devil's advocate hat* I don't think there's much collateral damage here, if an exception isn't made for this couple. They can continue to believe that gay people are abominable and the spawn of Satan if they wish; they just cannot refuse them service in their business. The couple (I believe) argue that they are not discriminating, and that they treat unmarried straight couples exactly the same way.
But the point is that the state recognizes civil partners (which those two men are) as equal to married couples. If the guest house owners, on religious grounds, are allowed to treat civil partners differently, what's to stop them from barring any non-Christian couple from staying in their hotel? Suppose a man and woman, married in a registrar's office (and NOT in any church) were disallowed? Or a Muslim couple, because they were married in the "wrong" church? Or a couple who were both in their second marriage were disallowed, because it isn't a "proper" marriage according to god?

All of these marriages are recognized by the state as equally legitimate, and a religious exception for a religiously specific definition of marriage would allow any religious business owners or service providers to install a personal 'Test Act' to weed out anyone not of their own denomination, if they wished.

Now, that said, I do see the point that if this couple strongly believes as they do, that they feel hard done by because they are forced by the law to act contrary to those beliefs in their business. They may even feel that their belief is being persecuted (an idea I think is silly, but that's a different argument).

I feel, however, that there is less collateral damage to upholding the law and the judgment, and declaring that the couple acted illegally by barring the civil partners. Conscious as I am of how recently legal protections of rights for LGBT people have arrived (and some have not yet arrived, it must be said), the last thing I would seek to do is impede the rights of anyone else. But to give a religious exception to the Equality Act could lead to discrimination against other religions (as I suggested above). Not to give an exception might, as the couple argue, infringe on their beliefs... but I cannot help but feel than the central point of Christianity concerns the death and rebirth of Jesus and salvation, and has very little to do with refusing to recognize gay civil partners.

(edited for a typo)
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:11 am

Regulation creates complexities and paradoxes.

Could a decision not be made that businesses providing lodging inside a proprietors private home fall into a special category?

It seems pretty clear to me that instead of restricting rights and playing fast and loose with conscience, we could all just accept that what are essentially B&B owners should be able to deny service at their will and be content with the fact that by doing so they are reducing their likely income and competitiveness. Really, why can't we take the long view on cases like this? Bigotry is not a sustainable business model, especially when that bigotry is increasingly at odds with majority mores.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Equality Laws

Postby David Bean on Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:50 pm

How fascinating to see one of our ConHome debates come to The Sinner. I was a little taken aback by the expressions of surprise from some posters here that the comments thread contained some interesting and cogent points, because ConHome threads regularly do: like any web site we have our share of nincompoops from all manner of political persuasions, but for the most part ConHome is a haven for intelligent, civilised discussion.

My own personal view is that it is improper for the law to regulate to the effect that a business must serve a given customer, irrespective of the motives on the part of the proprietor in wishing not to do so. Whenever this matter comes up on ConHome, some of the enthusiastic statists among us usually come up with hoary old arguments about how the abolition of such anti-discrimination laws "would lead" to the return of signs hung on doors to the effect of barring customers by race, religion or whatever else, but I reckon any business that did so would be out of business within the week, considering that not only would it lose the business of the parties they're seeking to exclude, but of every other right-thinking person too. Would you patronise a business that operated such a policy? I'm sure I wouldn't, but I don't need the law to protect me from such a temptation. On the other hand one regular contributor, a liberal-minded, soundly conservative homosexual man, wrote an article at one point arguing that the very last thing he wanted was to be admitted to a guest-house run by people who despised him, simply because the law said they must.
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby wild_quinine on Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:20 am

jollytiddlywink wrote: Does a claim of divine inspiration for a belief make it more worthy than a claim of empirical evidence for another belief?


No. Not a claim. But if the belief is right, or true, then it clearly is more worthy, or as worthy as any other claim.

We don't know which beliefs are true, and which are not. But the issue is not so much about whether the belief is true, at a specific level. The issue is whether we allow people to live as if their beliefs are true.

And I think its worth noting that nobody has said this couple can or cannot believe what they want, merely that they may not discriminate in providing a service.


Being told that you can believe what you want, but not live as if your beliefs are true, is really the essence of this problem. So I don't see that as a way out, in the general argument.

The couple (I believe) argue that they are not discriminating, and that they treat unmarried straight couples exactly the same way. But the point is that the state recognizes civil partners (which those two men are) as equal to married couples.


I quite agree with this, and to the extent that the Christian couple are using the line that 'it's because they're not married', then I think the 'well, actually they are married' line is a perfectly acceptable return, no boundaries crossed, and please STFU and get back to running your now infamous B&B.

So in practical terms I think the ruling was correct - discrimination was unfair, and they were rightly slapped on the wrists.

Whether or not people have the right to live as they believe, when they believe something that is legally as well as morally objectionable, such as that being gay is wrong, I don't know. Perhaps every answer to the question, for a time, must be made on a case-by-case basis. The law lives by its spirit, after all.

I feel, however, that there is less collateral damage to upholding the law and the judgment... to give a religious exception to the Equality Act could lead to discrimination against other religions (as I suggested above). Not to give an exception might, as the couple argue, infringe on their beliefs...


Again, yes. In this specific case, I don't think there was much more that could have been done. I think that this judgement was sound, and carefully considered. It was made in the light of the law, respectful to the beliefs of all involved and came to a sensible, considered, legal conclusion.

But it was also appropriate to note the difficulties inherent in the case, which were thoughtfully handled. Because there really is something to this 'one protected right vs another' argument, and it will return in force the next time a such a case is brought. As it inevitably will be...

I cannot help but feel than the central point of Christianity concerns the death and rebirth of Jesus and salvation, and has very little to do with refusing to recognize gay civil partners.


Yes. And I've come to see this more and more clearly, the more I have looked into it. Even if you take the tiny, barely notable possible references to homosexuality and interpret them all strongly, they still represent a much smaller difference in religious belief than that which exists even between different individual sects of Christianity, such as between Catholics and Protestants and, whilst they have their differences, they largely consider one another to be Christians. I mean, the Catholic vs. Protestant bibles have different books in them, for crying out loud!

At best such a prevalent belief is just vestigial cultural trash. "We all think being gay is wrong, and here's a small collection of sentences which just barely support that notion."

But whilst taking out the trash seems like common sense to me, I definitely wouldn't want to legislate common sense, as there'd be a great deal more trouble in the world than any religious crusade ever caused, if we tried that...

No, people should be free to come to their own conclusions, and able to live by them, (and with them!), as much as possible.

LonelyPilgrim wrote:Regulation creates complexities and paradoxes.


In that case, thanks to New Labour, we now exist only in a quantum state.

Could a decision not be made that businesses providing lodging inside a proprietors private home fall into a special category?


Possibly. But there are disadvantages to that approach, as well.

Really, why can't we take the long view on cases like this? Bigotry is not a sustainable business model, especially when that bigotry is increasingly at odds with majority mores.


Because it could be a very long view, indeed. Bigotry is a sustainable business model, when you're discriminating against minorities for whom the majority have little concern. Try running a hotel barring furries, adult babies or coprophiles; I doubt you'll meet with much resistance.

What's that? Those freaky guys don't haverights? Your childrens' children will disagree. If not on that, then certainly on some other matter which right now seems distateful and obviously wrong.

David Bean wrote:for the most part ConHome is a haven for intelligent, civilised discussion.


Indeed. Cigars and port all round.

No, seriously though, I have no intention of hanging around to find out.

My own personal view is that it is improper for the law to regulate to the effect that a business must serve a given customer, irrespective of the motives on the part of the proprietor in wishing not to do so.


There is a very short list of things that you can't discriminate on the basis of, and I'm largely comfortable with that list. It exists to protect the rights of people to be in minorities, and still part of a functioning society. It is one of the small controls that civilised society rightly accepts to improve the freedom of the people to live as they wish.

If a customer is being rowdy, or rude, or breaking the house rules, or just plain old wasting your time, all to the good. But no, I don't think you should be able to turn someone away because they are gay, or black, or christian.

Whenever this matter comes up on ConHome, some of the enthusiastic statists among us usually come up with hoary old arguments about how the abolition of such anti-discrimination laws "would lead" to the return of signs hung on doors to the effect of barring customers by race, religion or whatever else, but I reckon


That's not really the problem. Not that we might return to a state of racial discrimination. The problem is that the specific discrimination against gay customers right now is , or will one day be seen to be, in the same category of wrong as racial disrimination. Why do we allow the one, when we do not allow the other?

The problem is not that we might start discriminating against group X. The problem is that we ARE discriminating against group X, right now. We are possibly the last generation who will even think it worth having this argument. Even if you don't care about that, consider how bad you'll look a few years down the line. It's going to be like having dinner with Prince Phillip by the time you're a grandpa.

On the other hand one <insert 'lots of my friends are gay' reference here> wrote an article at one point arguing that the very last thing he wanted was to be admitted to a guest-house run by people who despised him, simply because the law said they must.


Story of the week: people don't feel welcome when they're being made to feel unwelcome. I wouldn't want to hang five in a Yakuza bar, either; what's your point? This is a distraction at best, and pretty offensive if you stop to think about it for any length of time.

Nick Griffin says of local muslims that, of course, legally, they're able to come and see him. But he expects they'll probably want to go elsewhere... so that's all right, then?
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:37 am

wild_quinine wrote:
LonelyPilgrim wrote:Regulation creates complexities and paradoxes.


In that case, thanks to New Labour, we now exist only in a quantum state.


Most regulations make things slightly more complex, in that there are now some rules that must be heeded, where there may have been none before, but that is hardly inherently bad. As for paradoxes, I think they are very rare, and occur mainly in new areas like the one under discussion; areas of new legislation covering complex issues. But I don't think that such issues are inherently bad, either.

You may not like this regulation much, but we all want *some* regulation, expect perhaps the wildest anarchists. We'd probably all agree that laws against murder are a good thing, as are regulations that stop your bank having you hung, drawn and quartered because you looked at the cashier funny.

wild_quinine wrote:
LonelyPilgrim wrote:Could a decision not be made that businesses providing lodging inside a proprietors private home fall into a special category?


Possibly. But there are disadvantages to that approach, as well.


One problem is that making your house a bed and breakfast means that it isn't the owner's private house any more. And even ignoring that, how many rooms will you allow before it ceases to be a "private" house? The hotel in question has seven guest rooms, which look fairly spacious from the website. http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/rooms.html
My view is that somebody with seven spare rooms isn't really running a private house with a bit of lodging on the side.

wild_quinine wrote:
LonelyPilgrim wrote:Really, why can't we take the long view on cases like this? Bigotry is not a sustainable business model, especially when that bigotry is increasingly at odds with majority mores.


Because it could be a very long view, indeed. Bigotry is a sustainable business model, when you're discriminating against minorities for whom the majority have little concern. Try running a hotel barring furries, adult babies or coprophiles; I doubt you'll meet with much resistance.


I think WQ has this spot on. Bigotry is a sustainable business model; you need only see that the hotel in question lasted long enough to be sued for bigotry. I'd go so far as to say that it's a sustainable business model even if you're barring half the population (i.e. single-sex member's clubs, which aren't quite typical businesses, but still have to break even to continue existing), or most of the population.
I'd bet there were plenty of 'whites only' establishments in South Africa during Apartheid, and the same happened in the US, where in certain areas white people were the minority. We all know how long and difficult the effort to end such discrimination was (and is!), so why should we expect some invisible hand of the market to fix cultural problems for minority groups when it did nothing to help majority groups?
In both SA and the US, (and I'm generalizing here, apologies to any specialists in the subjects) a minority campaign led to political and legal efforts to enforce non-discrimination, which then began to spread in wider society. The market had, so far as I can tell, roughly sod-all to do with it.


David Bean wrote:My own personal view is that it is improper for the law to regulate to the effect that a business must serve a given customer, irrespective of the motives on the part of the proprietor in wishing not to do so.


I respectfully suggest that this view might be informed by the fact that you, personally, are a straight white male, and are thus unlikely to have animus directed at you because of who you were born.

David Bean wrote:On the other hand one <insert 'lots of my friends are gay' reference here> wrote an article at one point arguing that the very last thing he wanted was to be admitted to a guest-house run by people who despised him, simply because the law said they must.


And I <'lots of my friends are straight' reference> have a heterosexual Christian friend who thinks that this law is a very good idea. Does my irrelevant anecdote trump yours?
Can we please debate this issue on its merits and de-merits? As WQ points out, your point adds nothing to the debate beyond a rather simple-minded and offensive implication that because *one* gay thinks that way, we all should.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby David Bean on Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:41 am

I'll debate this matter on whatever terms I like, thanks very much. Other than having read a few of his articles on ConHome I don't know the fellow I mentioned from Adam, so I don't know where my supposed 'friendship' with him is supposed to come from. Nor is it irrelevant to relate the contents of a salient post written by someone with an interesting point of view, and frankly anyone touchy enough to find such a view offensive is not someone I'd want to interact with.

As for the matter of social change, that is my very point. Statists can't seem to get past the notion that all social change must be driven by legislation, when in fact the world actually works in broadly the opposite direction. I don't think the current generation, as it grows older, will be concerned about these issues at all, because the desire to discriminate on irrelevant bases (and I think it's important to add that clarification, since all the word 'discrimination' by itself means is the capacity to tell the difference between two unlike things) will have become utterly outmoded, in precisely the manner you suggest. However, under those circumstances there would be no justification for anti-discrimination legislation whatsoever, because it would represent a curtailment of liberty in order to prevent a harm nobody accepted would ever occur.

As in so many other situations, these laws are bad not because they prevent us from doing something we otherwise might like to do, but because the very fact of their existence is an unacceptable diminution of liberty. Laws should not impose a more extensive ethical code upon people than would be required to secure their life, liberty and property rights. The regulation of their personal affairs is a matter for individuals to determine for themselves.
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Al on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:40 am

But the law does not regulate people's personal affairs. The law requires that people providing services are not withholding those services on grounds that have been deemed unlawful. A hotel is not a private home. Nor is a guest house or B&B. It is a place of business. And, I may, add they were regulated by the law long before this particular law was enacted.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:16 am

David Bean wrote:I'll debate this matter on whatever terms I like, thanks very much.

Touchy.


David Bean wrote:Nor is it irrelevant to relate the contents of a salient post written by someone with an interesting point of view, and frankly anyone touchy enough to find such a view offensive is not someone I'd want to interact with.

It is not his view that I find offensive, nor do I suggest that it is, per se, irrelevant to the debate. The offense is your doing. There was no need to mention the sexuality of the person whose view it is. Mentioning it suggests either that you are attempting an appeal to authority: "A gay man said so!" or that you take the views of one gay man to represent, by extension, the views of all LBGT people. Neither alternative paints you in a good light, but maybe I'm being insufficiently charitable. Why did you mention the man's sexuality?

David Bean wrote:As for the matter of social change, that is my very point. Statists can't seem to get past the notion that all social change must be driven by legislation, when in fact the world actually works in broadly the opposite direction.

Have you got any evidence to support that assertion. I'm not exactly a civil rights/LGBT rights scholar, but I've made a few efforts, and am currently working on some LGBT research, and all the evidence I'm aware of points in exactly the opposite direction to what you're insisting on.

David Bean wrote:I don't think the current generation, as it grows older, will be concerned about these issues at all, because the desire to discriminate on irrelevant bases (and I think it's important to add that clarification, since all the word 'discrimination' by itself means is the capacity to tell the difference between two unlike things) will have become utterly outmoded, in precisely the manner you suggest. However, under those circumstances there would be no justification for anti-discrimination legislation whatsoever, because it would represent a curtailment of liberty in order to prevent a harm nobody accepted would ever occur.


There are three problems with this; first is the glaring logical gap that if nobody wants to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, legislation prohibiting such would not practically impede anybody's liberty. If the government passed a law tomorrow decreeing that I'm not allowed to dip myself in cow blood and throw myself to wolves, it wouldn't infringe on my liberty, because I don't want to do that, and never will.
The second problem is that your argument is set in the indefinite future. Discrimination is happening NOW. The life, liberty and property of LGBT people are curtailed NOW. Discrimination on irrelevant bases, as you put it, may be less virulent now than it was, and that trend seems to be continuing. But we're not there yet. So why not address TODAY, and not a future that, even in your rosy hypothesis, doesn't have a date on it?
The third problem is that, unless I'm very much mistaken, you are so firmly opposed to government regulation, regardless of function, that while you're willing to put up with quite a lot of racism, sexism, and homophobia, the last thing you're willing to put up with is a couple of new lines in the statue books to prevent bigots from trampling the rights of minorities.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby macgamer on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Another example for Sinners to consider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ition.html
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby wild_quinine on Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:21 am

jollytiddlywink wrote:You may not like this regulation much, but we all want *some* regulation, expect perhaps the wildest anarchists.


Well, I'm not an anarchist. Just a liberal, I suppose. It was the other three thousand new laws I was thinking of when I wrote that line. Oh, but how I hated the New Labour government.

Sure, I think we're in a tricky situation with these anti-discrimnation laws, where and when they clash, as you know. But I'm not expressly against this narrow set of laws. Anti discrimination laws on human rights issues I view as an acceptable compromise on freedom, because such laws *should* increase the legal space in which people are able to live as they wish.

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/rooms.html


Why they are worried about anyone at all having sex, I really can't tell. Surely the wallpaper alone would be enough to do for that idea.

I respectfully suggest that this view might be informed by the fact that you, personally, are a straight white male, and are thus unlikely to have animus directed at you because of who you were born.


As a straight white male, especially one between the ages of 18 and 35, I find that I'm often considered to be impervious to discrimination. But I have been in situations where I've been racially discriminated against.

Usually, if I say this, the statement is met with some derision. As if being from a demographic so normally protected by majority and influence should be some kind of consolation. As if it's the kind of thing I'd only say for attention, or sympathy. As if, by virtue of birth, I couldn't possibly understand 'genuine' discrimination. As if it's not proper to mention it. As if I should just ignore it, because rocking the boat over something so harmless couldn't possibly be civil.

But the main thing I learned about the world from finding myself in that situation was that it is NOT something that you can ignore, or get over, or carry on regardless. And it's not something for which consolation prizes can readily be applied. Because it does something to you, when you feel that way, something pernicious and harmful, that makes you less ready and less able to defend yourself against it. I was surprised by how it weakened me to defend myself, and even at how it made me feel as if my self should need defending.

This experience increased my sensitivity to issues of discrimination a thousandfold, because never before did I understand the depth of the harm that casual discrimination can cause. But i do also promote some degree of tolerance, because nobody's fucking perfect. We're all short of the bar some of the time.

David Bean wrote:I'll debate this matter on whatever terms I like, thanks very much.


Well, of course. But if you try to debate this matter on irrelevant terms, then that will probably be obvious to everyone else.

Other than having read a few of his articles on ConHome I don't know the fellow I mentioned from Adam, so I don't know where my supposed 'friendship' with him is supposed to come from.


That was my insertion. You were essentially parroting one of the more common tropes of bigotry. So I toyed with that.

Lines such as:

'Lots of my friends are black...'

'A very sensible gay person said...'

'It's OK, the person that told me this one was Jewish...'

may all more or less be statements of fact. But they are also indicators that the person making those statements is probably justifying a controversial or dubious viewpoint by appeal not to argument, but to the fact that someone from a minority group appears to be on side.

I pointed out why the argument itself is not a winner. Why does it matter that a gay bloke made it?

Or as JTW put it:

Why did you mention the man's sexuality?

Laws should not impose a more extensive ethical code upon people than would be required to secure their life, liberty and property rights.


But such a statement is thoroughly open to interpretation. I probably agree with the spirit of this statement, myself.

But if a majority of people impinge on the ability of a minority to live as they wish to live, does this not constitute a reason to protect the liberty of that group?

You could argue that laws should be created to enact universal healthcare, from the principle of protecting life.

You could argue that everyone should have an equal opportunity to own property, and therefore introduce some approach to redistributive wealth. Or are some people who are born rich simply entitled to that advantage, with no checks or balances?

I think my own economic beliefs fall somewhere in the middle of the scale... but I damn well know which side of human rights the allocation of property rights would fall in any political system I wanted to be part of, and I hope most people would agree with that.


macgamer wrote:Another example for Sinners to consider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ition.html


I get the impression that the full story is not being told here. Indeed, looking around I see suggestions that the couple essentially said that they would not feel able to support a child in certain circumstances... which sounds like quite a different argument.

The christian couple seem to be trying on the 'it's really about not having sex before marriage' argument again, which is probably disingenuous... because what are the chances they're going to consider gay people 'married'?

But the most interesting thing about this story actually, is the suggestion that foster carers may not be able to expose children in their care to their beliefs, *regardless* of their stance on homosexuality.

Apparently the judges stated that "biblical Christian beliefs may be 'inimical' to children".

I know there are probably people on here who agree with the statement as is, and I personally have always had concerns about what it means to raise a child in a given faith.

But nonetheless, I find the implications of a statement like that being made in a legal context quite, quite scary.
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:35 am

WQ and Jollytiddlywink - I do think you're being uncharitable to Bean. The formulation "Well, I know a [minority] and he/she says..." is usually suspect and rightly so, but I think you're reacting in general terms to a specific usage that is acceptable.

First, in this case it wasn't used to excuse a racist statement. Gay people don't want to be where they aren't welcome? Well, neither do I. Hardly offensive, I would think.

Second, the statement would be worse if the sexuality of the referenced individual weren't known. Presumably a homosexual individual has more standing to make a general observation about the matter (even though the argument he was making should be obvious, and applicable to anyone). Would it not be more suspect if it were formulated, "This random bloke says homosexual's don't want to stay somewhere they aren't wanted," or, "This straight guy told me he thinks...?"

Third, the individual Bean referenced went so far as to write an article about the matter, setting himself up as an authority and making an argument. We can question whether that makes someone a real authority or not, but it does set him apart a bit from a mere friend or a guy on the street. It sounds like the individual used his homosexuality to bolster his case in his article, in which case the main fault should lay with him (if there is fault to be assigned, which I'm far from convinced of...)

Perhaps I'm being charitable because I'm sympathetic to the argument. Legislating the hiding of bigotry makes it easier for that bigotry to persist by protecting the bigot from due derision so long as they obey the law. Of course, I'm sympathetic to the other side of the matter as well, that minorities need to be protected if they are to enjoy liberty, too. I feel we should keep in mind, though, that sweeping bad things under a legal rug may well cause them to privately persist longer than they otherwise would, which is probably an acceptable cost given the alternative, but one we shouldn't forget.

Please note, I've just had a fair bit of gin, and may well not agree with myself tomorrow.
Last edited by LonelyPilgrim on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Equality Laws

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:48 am

In more general terms, regarding the main point, I realise I approach this as an American. As such the problem looks like this to me:

If the right of religious conscience is protected (and it's hard to see how the free exercise of religion can be protected if religious conscience isn't), then anti-discrimination laws of this type raise a problem. Requiring people who believe that homosexuality is sinful to provide a bed to a homosexual couple if they wish to operate a bed and breakfast or hotel creates a religious test for full participation in the economic life of the country. Or, formulated negatively, anti-discrimination laws may bar those who hold certain religious beliefs from engaging in their economic rights. Effectively, this results in the state backwardly legislating what religious beliefs are acceptable if one wants to enjoy the full rights of citizenship.

That may not be a problem in a country that grants religious freedom as a matter of statute, and does have an established national church... that provides a fair amount of leeway, I would think. In my country, the United States, however, the establishment of a national religion is Constitutionally forbidden, and I would think that approaching the matter backwards, to functionally create a set of government-approved religious beliefs and practices without explicitly doing so through the process of using anti-discrimination laws to create that religious test for full economic rights... well, it strikes me as insidious, dangerous, and wrong. But again, that's an initial reaction, and no doubt conditioned by the political environment of my country. I certainly don't disagree with the stated aims of the ruling/legislation and the religious views that I hold and the set of religious views I respect place a premium on tolerance and universal brotherhood. I'm just bothered with the idea of the state saying on the one hand, "You are granted the right to religious freedom," and then on the other hand, "But if you want all your other freedoms you had better have these religious views..." Bothered is an understatement: deeply troubled is more accurate.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Senethro on Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:41 pm

Huh? What? Why is there even any room for discussion here? Why is there even any consideration that we should place a higher value on the right of bigots to discriminate than for minorities to be free from discrimination, just because they say they're carrying out the will of their tribal spirit?

Religious beliefs shouldn't be given special treatment, either negative or positive, just treated as a non-religious person who might hold that belief. This goes double when people not involved in that belief system are involved. I can kind of get behind Sikhs not being required to wear motorcycle helmets in the interest of diversity, because they're not imposing on the rights of others.

On what grounds would we allow a secular person to discriminate in this manner?
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:59 pm

I'm disappointed that this nonsense story is still circulating and that the B&B owners are heralded as some sort of attitude-shifting paradigm regarding the way that some people treat other people.

Every article, interview and news story at the time gave the couple's attitude to the non-guests' sexuality. It wasn't until organisations such as Aren't Christians Just Very Wonderful And Quite Frankly Picked Upon These Days (or perhaps they're called the Christian Alliance, I forget) got involved, that the bigotted couple from hell (sorry, the "Christian" B&B owners) claimed that it was the non-married thing that caused them concern. Do they demand to see wedding certificates when men and women check in, or look overly-dubious if a couple book in under the name of Smith?

It is all a lot of bollocks. They dislike gay people, they pretend that Christianity also dislikes gay people (it really doesn't) and they mask their bigotry in a synthetic version of what they claim to be their religion. If your business caters to the public, you can't discriminate against the public.

Even if all of the above were untrue and you were to argue that the tenets of a religion should be adhered to (regardless of the laws against discrimination and, I'm sure, there's a reference in the NT about living by the laws of the land you inhabit)... and we pretend that Christianity is anti-gay, that would only apply if a Christian couple (of whatever sexuality) booked into that poxy B&B. Rules for Christians apply to Christians. They don't apply to non-Christians.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:43 pm

Religion does deserve protection, gentlemen, because it falls under freedom of conscience. If you don't protect the right of individuals to have religious beliefs and to live their lives according to those religious beliefs, then you are placing arbitrary restrictions on everyone's right to believe what they will on no better grounds than your own biases. I don't believe in Shiva or in Thor, but I appreciate that I have the right to believe in them should I change my mind. Further, RedCelt, that permits people to interpret their own faith as they wish - even in ways you or I find ridiculous and don't accord with our understanding of the labelled faith.

The only restraints that should be placed on rights to conscience occur when the effects of beliefs impinge upon someone else's rights to a sufficient degree that the impinged upon person is not able, or finds it exceedingly difficult to, exercise his or her right(s). In such cases, the restrictions should be designed to preserve the right to conscience as much as possible.

The question here is whether the right to own a business is less important than the right to patronise a business (and to patronise it in a particular way - as I understand homosexual couples are allowed to stay at the B&B, just not to share a bed). I formulate it this way because it is unreasonable to expect a business owner who regards homosexual sex as an abhorrent sin to facilitate that act - requiring them to do so is likely to force them out of business, and restrict the economic options for other holders of particular religious beliefs. This isn't about religious rights, this is about economic rights and whether consumers have a right to be served as they wish by whomsoever they wish, even if asserting that right risks placing the right to own a business at odds with rights of conscience for some business owners.

I don't believe it does. I don't think my right to be served outweighs someone else's right to operate a business, especially if they are willing to accommodate me with an equal level of service as anyone else, just not quite as I want it. Unless you care to argue that B&B owners have a positive duty to do more than provide a bed?

I also think that when you start punishing people for holding certain beliefs, by effectively denying them access to certain ways of making a livelihood, you reduce the scope of individual liberty and make it harder for people to compete with 'experiments in living' in the idea marketplace.

Finally, I've always seen business transactions as voluntary. The buyer can refuse to buy; the seller can refuse to sell. We would certainly regard this as true in a private transaction between non-businesses, say over the private sale of a used car, but does anything change when something is a registered business? If so, why? I'm troubled by the question myself, because I feel it is right to support anti-gender discrimination and anti-race discrimination laws... and I suspect the difference lies in a perception that the B&B owners weren't discriminating against what the individuals were, but rather against what they feared they might do if given a bed together. Not wanting to aid and abet an act they regard as very sinful strikes me as an understandable concern, for them. Silly of them, but suitably wrong to justify legal action and a new restriction on their rights? I'm not so sure.

Please note, I'm not set in my thinking here. In fact I'm troubled by it. I feel I'm able to be persuaded to thinking otherwise, but you have to come up with an argument less disingenuous than "Religion doesn't deserve protection under freedom of conscience." There's just too thin a line between religious belief and other types of unproven belief and matters of conscience.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Equality Laws

Postby macgamer on Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:09 pm

LonelyPilgrim wrote:Religion does deserve protection, gentlemen, because it falls under freedom of conscience. If you don't protect the right of individuals to have religious beliefs and to live their lives according to those religious beliefs, then you are placing arbitrary restrictions on everyone's right to believe what they will on no better grounds than your own biases.

[...]

Please note, I'm not set in my thinking here. In fact I'm troubled by it. I feel I'm able to be persuaded to thinking otherwise, but you have to come up with an argument less disingenuous than "Religion doesn't deserve protection under freedom of conscience." There's just too thin a line between religious belief and other types of unproven belief and matters of conscience.

I applaud you in your objectivity, I think that you have really tried to grapple with the topic from a rational perspective. If a state does not permit freedom of conscience in negative actions, i.e. refusing to do something, then the state has become rather illiberal indeed.

As I understand homosexual couples are allowed to stay at the B&B, just not to share a bed.

I think this is an important fact to consider. Granted it is still a discrimination in the type of service provided, but it is not entirely refusing to provide any service whatever. One way around the law would be for the B&B owners only to offer single rooms.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:19 pm

wild_quinine wrote:
jollytiddlywink wrote:You may not like this regulation much, but we all want *some* regulation, expect perhaps the wildest anarchists.


Well, I'm not an anarchist. Just a liberal, I suppose. It was the other three thousand new laws I was thinking of when I wrote that line. Oh, but how I hated the New Labour government.


Sorry it if seemed that I was replying to you. My comments were directed mostly at LonelyPilgrim. You and I, WQ, do seem to be very much in agreement on this issue.
When I suggested that Bean may have views on discrimination formed in part by his experience of being a straight white male, I didn't mean to suggest that straight white males don't face any discrimination, or that it would somehow hurt less when it happens. I simply meant that he is less likely than some others to face such treatment, and so it's no skin (or only a little) off his nose if it takes a long time for discrimination to die out because he doesn't want regulations to prevent such treatment in the meantime.

macgamer wrote:Another example for Sinners to consider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ition.html


Well, this is tangentially connected, yes, but it doesn't advance the discussion currently underway. But so as not to be accused of ducking the (implied) question:

1. Bear in mind the not-inconsiderable odds that they might foster a young teen who is LGBTQ. What then? The child mentions this to their foster parents and gets the standard, "It's a sin and you're going to hell." The absolute last thing the child needs is foster parents who will tell them that they "aren't normal," which is what the couple have said they believe. So, this creates something like a 1-in-10 risk of them doing serious harm to a child in their care.
I note that neither you nor the article you posted mentions that the judges (plural!) called the couple's claims "a travesty of reality."

2. The couple are on very dubious ground to suggest that their position on homosexuality is 'mainstream Christianity.' There are Christian denominations which will bless gay unions, and others which want to hold full-blown gay weddings just as soon as the laws of this country permit them. Other churches condemn homosexuality (and homosexuals, none of this love-the-sinner business) to abuse and even to death. Uganda is a case in point. I'm not sure if you can still see the documentary on BBC iPlayer, but here's the article:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/11/sc ... in-uganda/

The documentary featured multiple interviews with Ugandans who held mainstream Christian views, advocating that gay people should be locked up for long periods, or for life, or executed. They openly and willingly said this on camera. And ministers from the US go there and join the Ugandan "men of god" in preaching such stuff. So I don't much care for people sounding off about 'Christian sexual ethics' or 'mainstream Christian beliefs,' because neither phrase holds any water between one denomination and the next or one believer and the next (macgamer thinks being gay is a sin, but it didn't bother my catholic flatmate last year one bit).

3. We can easily posit other religious views that would harm children; until 1978, Mormons refused to allow black people to hold any kind of position in their church, because they were deemed to be lesser because of the 'curse of Ham.' It could be pointed out that some other christian denominations held similar beliefs until quite recently, too.
And what of a child with appendicitis fostered by christian scientists?

This is not to agree with or defend the entire ruling (not least because I haven't managed to find a copy to read), but to put forward a few points which I considered.

LonelyPilgrim wrote:WQ and Jollytiddlywink - I do think you're being uncharitable to Bean...

Second, the statement would be worse if the sexuality of the referenced individual weren't known. Presumably a homosexual individual has more standing to make a general observation about the matter (even though the argument he was making should be obvious, and applicable to anyone). Would it not be more suspect if it were formulated, "This random bloke says homosexual's don't want to stay somewhere they aren't wanted," or, "This straight guy told me he thinks...?"


I don't think I'm being uncharitable. I've speculated on why he might have said what he did, but I've reserved judgment until he himself explains why he said what he did.
I think the point you make (your second one) is a valid one, but could we not take it one step further and simply say "people don't like to stay somewhere that they feel unwelcome." We're not that dissimilar, really. I'm not saying that the gay man mentioned can't speak to the gay experience, but rather that I would hope any human being with any empathy could speak to the human experience.

Your comments about the issue as it might relate to US realities and the Constitution strike me as being quite perceptive. I'm not sure I've got anything to add to what you've said, except to note that even in the UK, where things are, constitutionally, a bit easier, this is still a complex issue. I would only suggest that, as I pointed out to macgamer, there are religious views we can posit that few people would have any time or tolerance for, like the now abandoned blood libel of Christians against Jews, or Protestants and Catholics engaging in sectarian discrimination, violence or outright warfare.
Would we bother with a pretence of tolerance if, to pick a name, Ian Paisley chose the pope's visit last year to call him the anti-christ and demand that lots of catholics be violently treated? Anyone making such a statement would be roundly and universally condemned for it, and rightly so.
Lastly, I don't think that even sincerely held religious beliefs that gays are horrid and hell-bound are really all that worthy of protection. The issue is one of full and equal participation for a class of people in civil life in this country, against a very small, incidental, and hardly agreed-upon part of some people's religious beliefs, the central issues of which, for Christians, concern Jesus and salvation.

I'd like to reply to Senethro and RedCelt, but this post is already very long, and I largely agree with them... I'll leave it at this.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Next

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests

cron