Sunder writes that ‘..the anti-discrimination principle has surely now been pretty much settled for decades.’

But has it? Religious organizations, acting as employers, have enjoyed certain exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. I stand to be corrected on this, but didn’t the Anglican bishops intervene to secure a version of these exemptions – in particular concerning discrimination relating to sexual orientation/behaviour – in the recent debates over the government’s Equality bill?

So a religious individual or household might say: ‘If my church, acting as an employer, can get some exemption from this or that anti-discrimination provision, then why can’t we as a religious household?’

My point is not that we should be sympathetic to this claim, but that our law arguably points in two directions at the moment – an anti-discrimination direction and a religious liberty direction – and its not clear that we have a fully settled or coherent consensus about to integrate these two sets of concerns.

Nevertheless, the Grayling position is wrong. Of course, people have the right to discriminate about who enters their home. That’s a basic right of privacy. However, society can and should insist that people who set up commercial enterprises respect certain social responsibilities in the way they run these enterprises, and these responsiblities can and should include duties not to discriminate in providing the good or service in question. If a Christian family decide to use their home as a B&B, they acquire a set of social responsibilities which include this duty not to discriminate. Is this a violation of their rights of conscience or privacy? No, because no one is forcing them to use their home in this specific way.

In short, if you are a Christian household and you don’t want gays and lesbians doing what you consider sinful things under your roof, then don’t use your home as a B&B….

Well, as long as there is a concept of “lawful discrimination” – which there has been in British equalities law since its inception in the 1960s – there will be debate over how far exemptions from the principles of legislation should go.

I am going to assume that all Conspirators agree with the principle of lawful discrimination – that we don’t want to live in a society where, for example, theatre directors are obliged by law to consider men for the part of Cordelia and women for the part of Lear.

Now let us take the case of a charity delivering domestic violence services to lesbians, bisexual women, gay men and transgender people (I have taken the example from the EHRC’s own website). Being LBGT is a genuine occupational qualification for workers who come into contact with clients, but not for admin support staff – no matter how uncomfortable or unhappy having straight co-workers makes the LGBT staff. Is this reasonable? Is this case on all fours with people who have paying guests in their own homes?

There are actually two different concepts here, which I will call egalitarian and anti-hegemonic. At present, B&B owners are forced to take gay guests and LBGT charity workers to work alongside straight back-up staff, no matter how much distress this gives them.

An anti-hegemonic position would examine, probably from a historical perspective, whether the provider was a member of a minority group and if so whether that minority was powerful or powerless by comparison with society as a whole. Such an anti-hegemonist might conclude that LGBT people do, at present, require additional protection (and so should not have to work alongside straight colleagues) but that Christians do not. The anti-hegemonsit might also note that the direction of socio-cultural trends is such that in, say, 20 years, the reverse might be true.

Anti-hegemonism is most lively, perhaps, in disability politics. Here is a current example. My wife is – and has been for over nine years – a resident in a long-stay hospital. She has MS and is very disabled indeed. However she can paint, and people do buy what she paints – her paintings are sold through exhibitions at or supported by the hospital itself. The hospital takes a cut of the price, very much as a gallery would were she able to live in the community. This is egalitarian. It displeases my wife considerably – she thinks that a hospital isn’t an art gallery and shouldn’t behave like one. Anti-hegemonism in disability politics thus takes the form of a view that the able-bodied should compensate or make restitution to the disabled.

At the moment I don’t feel the need to join the MS Society in order to campaign for an anti-hegemonic or restitutionist view of disability to inform public policy. Should I?

#2 Personally I disagree with the principle of lawful discrimination – I have absolutely no objection to a woman playing Lear or a man playing Cordelia. I’m already suspending disbelief to imagine that the actor/actress is that person, and people come in a range of body types/vocal ranges anyway, so I really don’t see why it should make a difference.

On the other hand I think it’s useful to have women working in women’s refuges, and would like to see more migrants employed by refugee charities/trade unions etc

Personally I disagree with the principle of lawful discrimination…….I think it’s useful to have women working in women’s refuges

This does not make sense.

Do you mean you are in favour of lawful discrimination when it suits you but not otherwise?

Do you mean you are in favour of lawful discrimination when it suits you but not otherwise?

It means having a system flexible enough to deal with smaller necessities. I thought you PC Gawn Maaad people were happy with the thought of hairdressers discriminating against women in scarves?

#4

Yes, my point was that it’s possible that the first thing I want is irreconcilable with the more important second thing. Though as Sunny suggests, if it is possible to tweak the system so I can have my cake and eat it, then I gladly will.

Of course, in one sense it IS impossible to disagree with lawful discrimination, since once you legislate against any type of discrimination, it’s unlawful discrimination and whatever you’re left with is lawful. But I thought I’d go with the concept of lawful discrimination as Mike defined it, rather than splitting hairs.

@ 1 “In short, if you are a Christian household and you don’t want gays and lesbians doing what you consider sinful things under your roof, then don’t use your home as a B&B….”

Thats ridiculous. You could run a B&B for 40 years and never encounter a gay couple, or you could put one up every night. What you are effectively saying is anyone who could conceivably object to any member of the public should not open a business ?? At risk of starting a straw man “Black couple sued for refusing to allow Nick Griffin to stay in their B&B” ??

What makes me uncomfortable about this whole issue is the way a clear hierarchy of minorities “rights” emerges, and as someone much cleverer than me once said “Either everyone’s rights matter, or no ones do” “

[3] You miss the point. The real question is: should a woman be able to sue a theatre director for not casting her as Lear (when she was able to prove that she had more experience of acting and/or was a bigger box-office draw than the man who was cast in the part) on the grounds that the director had discriminated on the grounds of gender?

I should also add, of course, that all threads on the general subject of discrimination will attract two different kinfs of posting – those, like mine, which are quasi-academic and don’t seek to promote any particular world-view, and those which are and are intended to be themselves part of the struggle. This raises the issue of whether posts like this (and my previous one) in themselves constitute acts of discrimination against any given minority group, and, yet more fascinatingly, who is licensed to make that decision.

At risk of starting a straw man “Black couple sued for refusing to allow Nick Griffin to stay in their B&B”

Your straw-man really is obtuse. If a black couple banned Griffin because he was white – Griffin would have right to sue. But all B&B owners have the right to restrict individuals they feel may be destructive right? Or do you think B&B owners should not be allowed to stop drunken football hooligans from staying over?

Honestly, if you’re going to raise a straw-man at least try an intelligent one. Or perhaps thats a contradiction in terms.

Nick Griffin would not stay at a black owners B&B

That really is a pathetic straw man.

10 I was aware of the potentially straw man nature of the example , hence the disclaimer. Your answer is logical though, except that people maybe aren’t always honest about their true motivations ?

11 How do you know, ? People don’t generally check the ethnicity of their hosts/guests in advance, and stays at B&B are often spur of the momemt. In fact one of the recent controversies was caused by a gay couple being stranded somewhere and not having a choice ?

At risk of starting a straw man “Black couple sued for refusing to allow Nick Griffin to stay in their B&B” ??

One is the leader of a violent criminal conspiracy that poses a very real threat to the accused, whereas the homosexuals in question enjoy musical theatre and right said fred, probably.

Because we all know where this leads. NO Niggers, No brown people, No Irish, No gays, No unions, No lefties, No woman, No Ginger people. etc etc But then that is exactly the kind of world the right wing twats want.

Back to those gentler, warmer times, when people were much nicer to each other. (snark)

@ 13 – What is it with “Ginger people” today ?

It’s not that right wingers want that kind of world, they just want it’s opposite even less, the kind of world where the govt tells them what to do all the time, right down to deciding who their customers should be. If a B&B had all/any of those signs it wouldn’t be in business long would it, ultimately it’s not in any businesses interests to turn away customers, so why can’t social/market interactions determine “rights”, rather than the state.
It doesn’t “lead” anywhere automatically, that’s like saying that supporting the NHS “leads” to Stalinism

Sunny @ 5

It means having a system flexible enough to deal with smaller necessities.

So who decides that the system should flex and in what direction?

You presumably.

Tim says that he is happy for the system to be tweaked so that he can have his cake and eat it and, no doubt, we all would be.

But, in principle, there’s no difference between the system being tweaked to allow homophobic hoteliers to discriminate against gays then there is in tweaking it to permit Stonewall to discriminate against heterosexual job applicants.

Weird thing about it is that he’s so obsessed with gays. He’s basically only saying that hotels should be standardised compared to home-run B&Bs, but he’s reached for gay people to illustrate his point. It could have been homophobia, or it could have been an observation that homophobia exists.

I’m not willing to jump in and condemn them on such shaky ground, frankly. He’s guilty of being an ignorant, privileged, rich white guy, but not immediately of being a gay-basher. IMO, obviously.

#8 My real answer to your real question is yes, providing the law it required did not adversely impact on my second paragraph @3.

#15 “in principle, there’s no difference”

Depends what your principle is. If you want a value-neutral ideas-system overarching all groups of peoples regardless of their own positions within the hierarchies that currently exist, then yes, there’s no difference. If your principle is to support particular groups of peoples based on their positions within those hierarchies, then there is no inconsistency.

@ Matt Munro 14

“It’s not that right wingers want that kind of world, they just want it’s opposite even less, the kind of world where the govt tells them what to do all the time, right down to deciding who their customers should be.”

The trouble is lots on the right DO want that kind of world. The less savoury elements want it quite explicitly; the more cautious would still prefer it (but are happy to hide behind the excuse that it’s an infringement of their personal beliefs, or Big Brother, or the nanny state); the more credulous ones are happy to condemn the more whacko extremists, but still hark back to the good old days, when people could do what they want.. and actually believe what the Daily Mail says is true.

“so why can’t social/market interactions determine “rights”, rather than the state?”

Because that’s not the kind of society most of us want to live in: I wouldn’t want to live next door to people who ran a B&B with the kind of signs you refer to banning all the groups they hated, and the only recourse being to hope that it’d go out of business because YOU think it wouldn’t have any custom, as there were no laws to stop them pedalling their bigotry and discrimination, only social/market interactions. Waht kind of libertarian fantasy land do you forsee exactly?

Many institutions in the UK – bars/clubs/hotels/gyms – advertise themselves as “gay only”.

I don’t see any Lefties railing against this? Rank hypocrisy.

http://www.guyzhotel.com/ is just one. Google gay only uk and off you go. Haven’t noticed any Labour types getting het up against these places (they don’t bother me in the slightest, gay only clubs etc are fine by me).

“Many institutions in the UK – bars/clubs/hotels/gyms – advertise themselves as “gay only”.

I don’t see any Lefties railing against this? Rank hypocrisy.”

And I’m sure when we stop having cases where B&B owners are other places turn away customers because they are gay (and are defended for doing so), these ‘gay-friendly’ places will no longer be necessary and will wither away as well.

What is most striking is that no-one is forced to open a B&B!

If you decide to do so then you accept that you will have to follow regulations (ie health & safety, etc) and -above all- that strangers will ask for your services, including people you may not like the looks of etc. To say “this is my own business” is no defence.

Would you not comply with fire regulation because “that is my business”? Would you refuse to uphold standards of cleanliness because “this is my B&B, my own home, and I do what I want”?

No. So then why that against harmless people who can’t help the way they’re born?

Tim @ 17

If you want a value-neutral ideas-system overarching all groups of peoples regardless of their own positions within the hierarchies that currently exist, then yes, there’s no difference. If your principle is to support particular groups of peoples based on their positions within those hierarchies, then there is no inconsistency.

Ah but your eating the cake again, Tim.

If you insist on a system based on objective criteria, you can’t then opt out of that system in support of groups based on your subjective view of their merit or position within social hierarchies.

FWIW I believe that attempting positive discrimination is generally futile and usually produces poor outcomes. The gay couple staying in the B&B of the fundamentalist Christian compelled to accept them will probably not have a relaxed and enjoyable experience.

“I believe that attempting positive discrimination is generally futile and usually produces poor outcomes. The gay couple staying in the B&B of the fundamentalist Christian compelled to accept them will probably not have a relaxed and enjoyable experience.”

Whereas a succession of businesses sporting signs such as “no gays”, “no blacks”, “no tall people” or “no Jews” would do wonders for social cohesion…

Come on, Labour have been very helpful to gay people. They have unwittingly helped usher in the start of Sharia law – and I believe that is very helpful for homosexuals. Or did I misinterpret sharia law….?

“The gay couple staying in the B&B of the fundamentalist Christian compelled to accept them will probably not have a relaxed and enjoyable experience.”

I don’t think the Christian fundie gives a flying fig for the relaxed, and enjoyable experience that the couple might have.

But it is interesting that the bigots always claim to be so concerned for the happiness of the very people they are discriminating against.

I don’t think the Christian fundie gives a flying fig for the relaxed, and enjoyable experience that the couple might have.

That was my point.

But it is interesting that the bigots always claim to be so concerned for the happiness of the very people they are discriminating against.

I am not a bigot and your habit of calling people you disagree with bigots and racists is…….well, tiresome.