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

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

I don't want to sound like I'm sidestepping the question, but this is one reason why I have no plans to work as a web-monkey in the commercial sector if I can help it.

Academia and the public sector generally are not immune to this sort of thing. It's perfectly possible for, for example, Universities or charities to run evening classes for local residents, members of (principally non-academic) staff, and the like. That's not really the "commercial sector" as the term is normally used. You may then find yourself providing technical support for teaching the BNP, being asked to set-up training sites for use by them during said evening classes, and so on. You are not training the BNP people who come yourself, but you are providing some of the resources that are used to do that, by one of your colleagues.

Given that a number of public sector bodies are being told to be of more use to the wider community, this is not that impossible.

Alternatively, charities or research groups may find themseves in strange positions of feeling obliged to lobby or work with groups they don't like, or having their work taken and used by said groups. For example, the Open Rights Group (http://www.openrightsgroup.org/) have an intellectual property/copyright policy framework thing that has been adopted by, amongst others, The UK Independence Party, which has left one or two volunteers a little antsy. (Whether you agree with UKIP or not, some people will obviously not do so.)


I am lucky that my skills are sufficiently transferable that I'm not trapped in one very specific job or type of job

On the flip-side, someone who's been running a B&B of one sort or another for the last twenty-five years is likely to have many transferable skills, but many of them being in the hospitality industry where it's very possible they will continue to run into the same problem. Perhaps one of a couple is good with company accounts, say, but other people may be better with providing entertainment (uh-oh, running club nights for teh gays), being a head chef (cooking romantic meals for teh gays, or catering a so-called marriage for teh gays), cleaning (in a large hotel, having to clean up after teh gays have had their way with each other), and so on. Even the company accountant might end up auditing a gay pub or charity.

One extrapolation from such a position is that such a person wouldn't be happy until they just didn't have to interact with gays at all. Love the sinner in principle, hate that you have to deal with them.

[j4.livejournal.com]

I know HE/FE/etc aren't immune to bad decisions, but I do think there's a much lower chance of that sort of situation arising. (Also, it's not just a tactic for avoiding difficult decisions, it's a positive choice to work for people to whom I'd rather give my time.)

You may then find yourself providing technical support for teaching the BNP, being asked to set-up training sites for use by them during said evening classes, and so on

Well, I would object to that, at a personal and an insitutional level -- I mean, I'd object to me doing it, and I'd object to the university providing that support to the BNP; if my objections were overruled (as they probably would be, unless lots of other people were also objecting...!) then in all good conscience I would have to leave the job.

[snip] One extrapolation from such a position is that such a person wouldn't be happy until they just didn't have to interact with gays at all.

Well, yes. I suppose if you come to the conclusion that you can't be happy until you can totally exclude $minoritygroup from every aspect of your life, directly or indirectly, then you're down to a rather Blackadderish set of options: 1) Kill them, 2) Kill yourself, 3) KILL EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD! ... which isn't a great set of choices.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

You've missed out choices 4 and 5.

4) Lobby Parliament to say you don't have to do anything with teh nasty monirotiez, because this is a Christian country where we practise Christian values, like hanging out with prossies and being rude to your mum and dad. (Thus, Britpop stars are clearly the best Christians.)

5) Invent ways of breeding them out of the gene-pool. (http://www.bgay.com/bnews/news70102_researches_try_to_turn_gay_sheep_straight.htm)