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

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm a bit wittering -- I mostly just agree with you, and am thinking aloud. However, thoughts...

From the thought-experiment point of view, though, I'm trying to think of an example where my existing job could be changed in such a way that in order to carry on doing it I had to run the risk of doing something that I couldn't in all conscience agree to. If you can think of a good example, please throw it at me!

Yeah. It is difficult, there is no one good example because all examples are emotionally loaded one way or the other.

And I'm afraid I have no idea of a good example for you personally, because I can remember neither your job nor your philosophical positions :)

Ooh, ooh, I thought of one! Gay=smoker. According to anti-smokers (and true by any rational standard) smoking is dangerous to the smoker's body and can be unpleasant or dangerous to people's bodies if they spend time with smokers. According to (some) anti-gays (and not true in my opinion), practising homosexuality is dangerous to the gay person's soul, and may be unpleasant or dangerous to the soul of someone supporting the behaviour.

Most anti-people would still hire, sell food to, etc the gay/smoker. (And IMHO should be legally compelled to if there's a chance the gay/smoker will unreasonably suffer otherwise.) However, they may or may not be willing to sell cigarettes or B&B beds, to the gay/smoker. Should they be legally compelled to? I feel it is arguable.

As a matter of fact, a large number of non-smokers did get together and severely restrict smoking in various public places for a combination of reasons. Anti-gay people have done so in the past, for their benefit and maybe or maybe not gay people's too.

OTOH consider the analogy:

Apartheid country = gay person
Anti-apartheid country = anti-gay person
Sporting relations = being friends with
Trade = hiring, selling things to, etc

Here, the number of non-apartheid countries was sufficiently great that they did choose to deny non-apartheid-related goods and services to the apartheid country, imho justifiedly.

I guess where I'm going is:

90% thing, 10% anti-thing: anti-thingers can't pass any laws, and can deny services to thingers, but probably only to their own detriment.
50% thing, 50% anti-thing: delicate balance
10% thing, 10% anti-thing: neither can do anything, anti-thingers can deny services to thingers or vice-versa, but the free market will probably take care of it.
10% thing, 40% anti-thing: Anti-thing action may be a problem, the other 60% may choose to prevent anti-thing discrimination.
10% thing, 90% anti-thing: Thing may be banned.