Pred and breakfast

[j4]

I don't blog about the news, but this baffles me:

The Sexual Orientation Regulations have been criticised by some religious groups who say people will not be allowed to act according to faith.

I can see how (to take an example that's already becoming extremely irksome, so thanks to vinaigrettegirl for a nice variation) the anti-discrimination laws might mean that running a B&B would not allow you to guarantee being able to act according to your faith, if your faith were to dictate that, for example, you may not offer shelter even unto the least and most helpless of gay people, brown people, etc. But how do you get from that position to the idea that you have a God-given right to run a B&B in the first place, and that the state must therefore defend that right? I look forward to hearing Zoroastrian librarians insisting that the Bodleian has no right to prohibit them from kindling therein any fire or flame.

Comments

[j4.livejournal.com]

The question I'm wondering about is not "is teh ghey contagious?" or "no but yeah but what if it was NAZIS?" but "Does God say you should be able to do any job you like?" and "If so, how do you recommend that (for example) the laws should be changed to allow Christians to work as prostitutes without being expected to do anything that goes against their faith?"

[nja.livejournal.com]

My line is "if God wants you to wear a turban all the time, God doesn't want you to ride a motorbike in twentieth-century Britain".

[j4.livejournal.com]

I figure that's up to them: if the turban's more important than the safety or the law (obviously they'd have to take the consequences of breaking the law if caught) then they're unlikely to increase their chance of injuring anybody else in a crash by not wearing a helmet.

I do like your turn of phrase though. I will have to think of something equivalent which the PATHOLOGICALLY ARGUMENTATIVE part of my brain can accept. :)

[nja.livejournal.com]

Obviously there's a libertarian argument that if not wearing a helmet's only going to harm yourself (a big if, but let's assume it's true), you shouldn't be forced to wear one. But given that the law says you have to wear one, as you say it ought to be up to Sikhs to make choices about what's important in their lives, obeying the law, riding a motorcycle, or wearing a turban.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

One potential answer (though not exactly counter) to the libertarian argument is that if you smash your head open and spew grey matter everywhere, you're going to use up vast amounts more NHS money than if you were wearing a helmet, using up doctors, consultants, surgeons and nurses who could be dealing with something else - on average, at least.

Of course, if the person making the argument is a libertarian who doesn't believe the state should take any taxes at all and certainly not for medicine, that's not going to fly. That attitude is generally less prevalent in Britain than in (for example) America, though.

[j4.livejournal.com]

you're going to use up vast amounts more NHS money than if you were wearing a helmet

True. So, do we stop people doing things that might make them need medical treatment, or do we refuse to treat people who could have avoided their illness/injury?

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

This sort of thing has come into the news recently, such as "Should people who take up smoking get lung cancer treatment?" or "Should fat people all just die?"

There aren't any exact answers, and I don't pretend to have them.

[j4.livejournal.com]

There aren't any exact answers, and I don't pretend to have them.

Me either -- just interested in the questions. Though I feel that the answer should often involve a reminder that the existence of grey areas in the middle does not necessarily prevent people being able to come to some kind of majority consensus on the really-quite-distinct colours at the two ends of the scale. (It's sort of the opposite of the excluded middle, and I wish I knew a word for it.)

Not arguing with you in particular, just arguing, really.

[olithered.livejournal.com]

A smoker once told me that the tax they pay on tobacco is vastly more than their cost to the NHS.

I wonder if you could tax everything in accordance with the probable cost to society (or the environment) rather than its value?

[lnr]

Awww, bunny.

[j4.livejournal.com]

I wonder if you could tax everything in accordance with the probable cost to society (or the environment) rather than its value?

I like that idea. Is there a word for it?

For bonus points (this may have been implicit in your suggestion -- if so, my apologies for unnecessary subtitling!) it should be taxed according to the probable net cost to society (most things have some benefit to somebody as well).

[olithered.livejournal.com]

If there is a word I'm not aware of it. Do you have any suggestions?

I like your extension (and had not thought of it), but I fear benefit is much harder to quantify than cost.

[aldabra]

> Is there a word for it?

Internalising externalities?

[matgb]

Tax raised from smoking per annum, approx = £7.5bn Cost to NHS of smoking related illnesses (some of which are caused by, for example, car fumes anyway) approx = £2.5bn.

Ergo, as a non-smoker, I thank smokers the country over for keeping the taxes I have to pay down, and think they can have whatever they need.

A sort of tax to cover what you mean is, I think, a Pigouvian tax, but you'd need to ask someone like chris_dillow_fd for a real answer, I just read what they say...

(blame caramel_betty for my presence...)

[j4.livejournal.com]

it ought to be up to Sikhs to make choices about what's important in their lives, obeying the law, riding a motorcycle, or wearing a turban

It is, isn't it? Did I really miss a law that says Sikhs don't have to wear a helmet?

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=UK_Legislation_connected_with_turban

Why it, apparently, only exempts Sikhs wearing turbans is another matter.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Oh.

Blimey.

How bizarre.

(Thanks!)

[nja.livejournal.com]

I think the relevant law (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506862-02.hcsp) may predate your birth.