Tim Worstall

Gay Discrimination

A slightly odd question arising from this Polly column.

In the Lords they are trying to strike out regulations in the new
equality act that outlaw discrimination and harassment of gays, making
it illegal to discriminate in providing any goods and services to
anyone, from healthcare to hotel rooms.

Illegal to discriminate in providing any goods or services? Really?

So here’s a (admittedly, extreme) scenario. A woman is offering sexual services for payment. This is legal to do (pimping, brothel keeping, soliciting are not legal. The actual provision of the service is).

Will it now be illegal for her to refuse such services to women while still offering them to men? Will a gigolo have to agree that men get access to his services just as women do?

Well, I think in this case, however extreme and absurd my set up is, that we’d all agree that this isn’t quite what we mean by non-discrimination against gays, yes?

Good, so it is not any, it is some.

Now we can actually have a useful debate. When, in what circumstances, should it be legal for the providers of legitimate goods and services to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality? Should the squeamish (or religious) bed and breakfast owner be allowed to exclude people from what is, after all, their own home as well as their business?  Should those who place children for adoption not be able to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality?

Should a business owner not be allowed to discriminate (in the absence of their having a State granted and enforced monopoly) in absolutely any manner that they wish at any time?

Once we’ve got to the some part rather than any, this is the can of worms opened up, something I’m not sure that Polly has quite grasped. That I tend to the last description of freedom and liberty doesn’t change the fact that not even Polly means any.

Update: In the comments there a couple of people have said that our mythical tart is only selling heterosexual sex so that’s alright then. But isn’t that rather the point? She is discriminating in that she is indeed only selling only heterosexual sex, rather than sex. If she’s allowed to do that then why is heterosexual only bed and breakfast, or heterosexual only drinking, or heterosexual only ironmongery illegal?

We’re still with this problem of some not all.

 

In

8 responses

  1. Glass House Avatar
    Glass House

    I think you’re right to say that things aren’t as simple as Polly implies but I also think your example is a bit off.
    The woman who offers sexual services for payment to men but not women would not be discriminating against gays. She is offering a set selection of services, all of which are heterosexual sexual acts. A prospective female client would be asking for a service that is not being offered (homosexual sexual acts) – that is distinct from being refused a service offered to others.

    Reply
  2. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    We have to look at real practicalities. A gay pressure group could well orchestrate a campaign to ask all B & B owners to let rooms to homosexual couples; to report to councils any schools which say heterosexuality is anything other than equal to homosexuality; to ask all printing businesses to print a sample leaflet extolling the virtues of homosexuality; the list could go on.
    The authorities would then be bound to prosecute. The reality is that Christians like me need protection from what in fact would be gay rights groups using the law to force into silence any criticism of what they do. This is NOT time for a nice academic discussion about discrimination; we need to recognise what ideological groups would do if this law goes through. Ask yourself: are Christians persecuting homosexuals in the UK at the moment? OF course they’re not.

    Reply
  3. john b Avatar
    john b

    Terry in 1976:
    “We have to look at real practicalities. A black pressure group could well orchestrate a campaign to ask all B & B owners to let rooms to black couples; to report to councils any schools which say blackness is anything other than equal to whiteness; to ask all printing businesses to print a sample leaflet extolling the virtues of blackness; the list could go on.
    “The authorities would then be bound to prosecute. The reality is that racists like me need protection from what in fact would be black rights groups using the law to force into silence any criticism of what they do. This is NOT time for a nice academic discussion about discrimination; we need to recognise what ideological groups would do if this law goes through. Ask yourself: are racists persecuting blacks in the UK at the moment? OF course they’re not.”

    Reply
  4. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    John b, point taken. And to put another example, we could go forward 20 years (for example) and have paedophiles as the persecuted group. So it all comes down to the value we think should be given to (a) black people (b) those promoting homosexuality (c) those promoting paedophilia. I would agree with the point you bring out re (a) black people but I do not wish the government to promote what I see as immoral behaviour in (b) and (c).

    Reply
  5. Sam Avatar
    Sam

    Glass house:
    You’re right, and Tim is wrong, in that a woman offering sexual servcies to men is not disciminating against gays (assuming, of course, that she’d happily shag a gay man if he paid her price).
    She is, of course, discriminating on the grounds of the sex of her customers (assuming for the moment that she only takes male clients). I would have thought that this would place her in more or less the same legal position as a beauty parlor offering pubic hair removal refusing male customers.
    I assumed that that would be OK under the “decency” get-out clause in the SDA, but that seems to only apply to employment and not the provision of services.

    Reply
  6. AntiCitizenOne Avatar
    AntiCitizenOne

    A business the discriminates against it’s customers on anything but rational grounds is not likely to be in business for long.
    I’d prefer the market (i.e. peoples choices) to sort these things out rather than the government.

    Reply
  7. William Norton Avatar
    William Norton

    There’s a far more boring answer to Tim’s example. Contracts for prostitution are not enforceable through the courts, so there would be no legal standing for any one to launch an action against a prostitute who refused to contract.

    Reply
  8. mishima Avatar
    mishima

    Robert Sharp makes some intelligent comment on the b&b idea over at his blog (via Justin).

    Reply

Leave a Reply to AntiCitizenOneCancel reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

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

Continue reading