Tim Worstall

LGBT Discrimination

Can somebody point me to what this is all about please? I’m getting very confused indeed.

Antonia Bance on a proposed law to outlaw discrimination against lesbians and gays in the provision of goods and services. I do understand that it was her partner Jo who helped to get the thing passed by the Labour Party conference and so on, but hang on a minute, there’s something I still don’t get.

To go to a reductio ad absurdam. I have a widget. It is mine, my property. It is not the State’s, not anyone else’s, simply mine. Property laws and all that, the basis of a civilized (and free and liberal come to that) society.

I’ve decided that I wish to dispose of this widget. I might throw it away, give it away, sell it, Dutch or English auction it, advertise it in the paper, donate it to a starveling African babbie, burn it in the garden or let the dog eat it. It is mine, how I wish to move it from being my property to not being my property is my decision. That is, after all, the only possibly valid description or definition of what is my property that there can be.

Now, perhaps I am a racist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, or perhaps in contrast I might be uxorious,  xenophilic,  or perhaps I support a specific political party or line of theological thought.

In a free society I must be able to take those quirks of my own character and desires into account when I decide how to dispose of my widget. For if I cannot it is not my property that I am free to keep or dispose of as I wish, not so?

So what’s this with a law that says I cannot dispose of it to a, if for example this were my preference, a heterosexual? Or someone asexual? Or celibate (for example, can I no longer by preference donate it to a nunnery?) or however else my (however disgusting they are to righteous society) thoughts and desires lead me to get rid of it?

How is such a law consistent with a free and liberal society and the maintenance of my right to my property?

(BTW, I specifically use my and mine because I do not mean to talk for businesses here. I regard them as being sufficiently motivated by profit that while there might be isolated examples of exclusion, there will not be on a societal basis. Vodaphone is far too interested in your money to care who you wish to sleep with.)

In

20 responses

  1. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    The answer is, this law isn’t consistent with a free and liberal society. Gay rights campaigners have got themselves into positions of influence within the government and now they are almost in a position to inflict their agenda on the rest of society. The opt-outs are due to be incredibly small in practice so that gay rights groups can then by litigation enforce their views on those who dissent. Where is the opposition to this law?

    Reply
  2. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    Just curious, but in your ‘free society’ could you also dispose of it by ramming it down someone’s throat? If not, is your society still free?
    But anyway, the point is that the state does not attempt to create a free society, but a society which holds to certain values or ideals (and yes we can argue about the reality of this as well but let’s not, for the purposes of the discussion). So if “the people” do not want their country to allow people to discriminate based on gender or whatever then why not?
    Anyway, isn’t this all about provision of services rather than distribution of personal property? A rather different beast, I would say..
    Tim adds: In what way are the services I am distributing not my personal property? I’ve paid for them, they are mine.

    Reply
  3. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    How often does this ever happen? How often does someone turn up at a bar and not get served because they look like they are gay? Last thing I heard, businesses were falling over themselves for people with high incomes and no dependants.
    The reason why Vodafone, Tesco etc don’t discriminate is because most of their shareholders who care far more about money than what other people get up to. If Vodafone started banning people they thought were gay, they’d quickly have shareholders asking what the hell they were doing driving customers away.
    Why do gay people want this law anyway? If someone won’t serve you at a bar because you are gay, then do you really want to put food on their table to allow them to breed more, give them money to fund whatever causes they support? Surely, you’d rather walk out the door and go down the road to someone more enlightened?

    Reply
  4. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    I’ve not been following this but as best I can judge by a bit of cursory googling is that the cause celbre here was/is a refusal of accommodation to a same-sex couple by a residence offering B&B.
    Quite how and in what circumstances it will be possible with new legisation to prove in court that a specific refusal was on the basis of discrimination against LGBT couples and not on some other (legitimate) grounds is admittedly challenging.
    My guess is that government ministers in current political circumstances were not feeling up to putting down an issue that could be presented as a fundamental human rights concern.
    It’s likely another classic instance of apparently irresistible political pressures leading to bad legislation – remember the dangerous dog act? The fact that infants are still being being occasionally attacked and seriously injured or even killed by certain varieties of dogs (as happened recently in Leicester) is indication that the legislation we have is more for form than effectiveness. The great continuing puzzle is why anyone would want to keep a variety of dog which is widely recognised to be temperamental and inclined to attack young children without warning.

    Reply
  5. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    Bob B,
    “The great continuing puzzle is why anyone would want to keep a variety of dog which is widely recognised to be temperamental and inclined to attack young children without warning.”
    There’s not much of a puzzle to it. If you live in an area with a lot of burglary, you have two options. Rely on the police and courts to protect you (yeah, right), or get a deterrent.

    Reply
  6. Not Saussure Avatar
    Not Saussure

    You still can dispose of your widget pretty much how you want to in the way of private business, though, can’t you? As far as I can see, the only thing you can’t do is advertise it for sale ‘to straights/gays/celebates only.’ If you’re selling your widget, or your car, and you don’t want Peter to get his hands on it, then you sell it to Paul, and there’s an end to it.
    I suppose, strictly speaking, it’s inconsistent with a free and liberal society and the maintenance of your right to your property to the extent that the laws against racial and sexual discrimination in the provision of goods and service are, and for the same reasons. Is that a great problem, though?

    Reply
  7. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    Tim – C’mon. There are dogs and dogs. Most of the attacks by dogs on infants are attributable to a few varieties or breeds which are widely recognised as having uncertain temperaments and given to attacking without warning. And it is not as though vicious dogs are the only precaution available against burglary – after all, there are such things as burglar and personal alarms. Few defend our inherited legislation against dangerous dogs but there is no clear consensus as to where to go from here.

    Reply
  8. Kay Tie Avatar
    Kay Tie

    Signs like “No dogs or Irish” are illegal now. But you can legally refuse to sell your widget to an Irishman. It’s the difference between public offerings and a private transactions.
    K.

    Reply
  9. pl Avatar
    pl

    There’s more to these regulations than goods and services: see http://www.thecctv.org/thecctv/articles/paedophilescharter.htm

    Reply
  10. Not Saussure Avatar
    Not Saussure

    Never heard of paedophiles who prefer to prey on the opposite sex, eh, pl? Anyone who’s interested can see the actual consultation document here.

    Reply
  11. Laban Avatar
    Laban

    Disposing of your property as you wish has not been legal at least since 1976, when a Mr Robert Relf was imprisoned for advertising his house for sale to ‘an English couple only’.
    The legislation is designed to attack evil bigots like the Scots couple whose Christian morality leads them not to offer a double bed to same sex couples. Jo wishes the values of a Southern university town to apply to Wester Ross, and that the people concerned be imprisoned unless they either close their business down or allow these people to do whatever it is they do under their roof. I personally consider B&B not to be the same as running the Dorchester – it’s their home as well as their business.
    http://www.torridon-mountains.com/cromasaig/
    I noted a year or two back “In Victorian times a person could dispose of property more or less as he wished, whereas sexuality was subject to many legal and social restrictions. Now the situation’s been more or less reversed.” The only area you can discriminate in is who you sleep with – and I’m not even sure how that would apply to prostitutes.
    http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2003/08/discrimination-is-alive-and-well.html

    Reply
  12. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “The great continuing puzzle is why anyone would want to keep a variety of dog which is widely recognised to be temperamental and inclined to attack young children without warning.”
    Which variety of dog are you talking about here…? Pit bull? Rottweiler? Because I’m sure the Kennel Club (not to mention the Government) would love to be able to identify that elusive single breed solely responsible….
    The Dangerous Dogs Act would have had more teeth (ha!) if it had concentrated on placing regulations and restrictions on the owners rather than the dogs. That’s your way forward….

    Reply
  13. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “Quite how and in what circumstances it will be possible with new legisation to prove in court that a specific refusal was on the basis of discrimination..”
    Just how is the law supposed to work here?
    Is the presumption that a refusal, say, to rent out a room to an obviously gay couple must therefore be based on discrimination, unless alternative evidence is offered by the defendant?
    I can only see the lawyers benefitting from this legislation…as usual!

    Reply
  14. Serf Avatar
    Serf

    I personally consider B&B not to be the same as running the Dorchester – it’s their home as well as their business.
    Laban has it on the nail. Whatever anyone thinks of such beliefs, a B&B owner who believes that to be gay is a sin, should not be forced to accept a gay couple into his house.
    I like Tim believe that the vast majority of transactions will be no prejudicial, simply for the sake of the profit motive. We don’t need this or other discrimination legislation. Its just a gold mine for parasitic lawyers.

    Reply
  15. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    “Which variety of dog are you talking about here…?”
    Two Rottweilers were certainly implicated in the recent fatal attack on a 5-month old baby in Leicester but this breed is NOT banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, which specifically banned only these four breeds: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Brasileiro.
    Other pieces of legislation include the Animals Act 1971, which says the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, the Guard Dogs Act 1975, and the 1871 Dogs Act.
    The 1871 act says any person may make a complaint to a magistrates court that a dog is dangerous, or report the matter to the police, and the court may order it to be controlled or destroyed.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5377262.stm
    Of course, the complainant is at risk of having to pay the costs of pressing proceedings so nothing tends to happen until there is serious injury or a fatality. We are appropriately aware of the status accorded to mere humans in these matters.

    Reply
  16. ScotsToryB Avatar
    ScotsToryB

    If, e.g. the total homosexual make up of society is say 10%, I would infer that I, as a provider of goods and services, do not discriminate as 10% of my income already derives from that percentage. QED.
    I, too, immediately thought of the B&B in W.Ross.
    Surely this is just basics?
    I offer something for sale – you offer to buy it. I withdraw my offer to sell – you have to go elsewhere if you want similar goods or services. I am at no point obliged to sell anything if I do not want to. As you say ‘it’s my property’.
    The mistake is, of course, to say, even in a lilting Highland brogue something along the lines of “Och, now, heery! We cannot be having your type in here, no, no.”
    STB

    Reply
  17. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “Two Rottweilers were certainly implicated in the recent fatal attack on a 5-month old baby in Leicester but this breed is NOT banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991”
    Because therein lies the fallacy of assuming that it is a breed of dog that is the deciding factor, and not the way it is kept, trained and treated by its owners.

    Reply
  18. Bob B Avatar
    Bob B

    “Because therein lies the fallacy of assuming that it is a breed of dog that is the deciding factor, and not the way it is kept, trained and treated by its owners.”
    That’s rubbish unless we are supposed to believe that those with warped, anti-social and psychopathic personalities are irresistibly drawn to ownership of dangerous dogs – which isn’t an entirely unreasonable hypothesis, I must admit. On the evidence, some dog breeds are defintely more inclined to viciously attack small children than other breeds – just as some snakes are poisonous while other snakes aren’t. Maybe the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be extended to include Rottweilers which have reportedly been involved in many attacks on infants.
    “Och, now, heery! We cannot be having your type in here, no, no.”
    As these recent media reports conclusively show, the problem in Scotland is that open hostility towards immigrant settlers and those with minority faiths are defintely motivated by ethnic and sectarian factors in addition to the manifest homophobic motives which seem to have prompted current proposals to outlaw LGBT discrimination:
    “A SCHOOLGIRL who claims to have suffered two years of anti-English bullying on a remote Scottish island is preparing to take legal action against the local council for allegedly failing to protect her. Sophie Parks, 17, claims that she suffered cuts, bruises and broken bones at the hands of fellow pupils on the Isle of Lewis. She said she was so traumatised that she considered suicide. On at least one occasion her injuries were so bad that she was taken to hospital; on another the bullies also allegedly attacked her mother.”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2401594,00.html
    “AN ENGLAND football fan living in Scotland blamed the country’s First Minister yesterday for stoking anti-English racism after his windows were smashed because he was displaying the St George’s flag.”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2224705,00.html
    “Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc has been cautioned for a breach of the peace by police for blessing himself in an Old Firm match at Ibrox in February. The Crown Office said the procurator fiscal had issued the caution as an alternative to prosecution. A spokesman explained that Boruc’s actions ‘included a combination of behaviour before a crowd in the charged atmosphere of an Old Firm match’. And that the Polish keeper’s behaviour had ‘provoked alarm and crowd trouble’.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/5287664.stm
    Of course, the conundrum is why should we expect outlawing LGBT discrimination to work in Scotland when bullying for ethnic and sectarian motives continues there.

    Reply
  19. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “isn’t an entirely unreasonable hypothesis, I must admit.”
    Indeed! One of the things that often follows the ‘devildog attack horror’ headlines is the realisation (from reading the newspaper reports afterward) that the owners were barely capable of living a civilised and respectful life – never mind the animal they kept!
    “some snakes are poisonous while other snakes aren’t”
    There are many species of snake. There is only one species of domestic dog. You are more likely to be seriously injured by a large, powerful breed like a rottweiler or alsatian if it attacks than by a chihuahua, but they are all equally prone to attack if not socialised properly.
    Enough toddlers bear the scars from Labrador/poodle/Jack Russell attack s to give the lie that all that is needed is for the DDA to add another breed to the list……

    Reply
  20. ben Avatar
    ben

    the reason for the bill is to kill what little morals this country now has and try to silence those that fight for morals. (if you dont accept their lifestyle their try to put you in prison and while there at it distroy your childrens minds too).
    calling someone a bigot comes from someone that dosent want a debate.
    if homosexuality was right why would you get a life sentance e.g. hiv/aids.
    God gave us guidelines if we follow them we’re be ok if not you pay.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading