Friday, January 28, 2011

Homosexual discrimination

The tabloids are still making hay out of the B&B case as well as pushing the conspiracy of the 'gay agenda'. I've not discussed this as I needed to martial my arguments beyond simply saying "They're wrong".

Let me start with the premise that I have started a service available to the general public. I wish to maintain an air of distinction for my establishment and thus ban the wearing of T-Shirts and other apparel I find offensive. Please bear with me for seeming crass, but is this not discrimination? Why would I be allowed to discriminate in this case, but not say in ethnicity - why no sign saying "No Asians"?

Consider my removal of someone on the grounds of wearing a T-shirt; they can leave and return in a smart suit and gain admittance; someone who was banned for being rowdy could modify their behaviour and regain entry. However someone who is Asian could not leave and come back not-Asian at least not without some drastic surgery.

In other words a T-shirt is not a fundamental aspect of a person. I think it's this point that emphasises the tabloid position - being homosexual is something that you can change; which in turn stems from their belief that being such is a learned (nuture) response rather than a innate (nature) characteristic.

With such a premise their fuss over why a B&B can't discriminate in this way or the talk of how a homosexual education is turning our children gay becomes clear. This is an alterable learned attribute which they dislike and therefore wish to see removed. Why they consider it wrong is a whole other discussion, but the stance that derives from it is simple:

It is wrong to discriminate against someone for a reason beyond their control.
It is okay to discriminate against someone for a reason in their control.

If I'm right the bedrock on which they sit can be toppled by demonstrating that homosexuality is nature over nurture. Except it won't because they know the truth and hundreds, thousands even of respected studies that contradict their position haven't budged them.

Nevertheless we can try and chip away at this hard core of belief to let some truth using this chain of logic.


walkerno5 said...

Well, indeed.

It also leads on to discrimination based on religious grounds - religion is a choice after all, and all religions discriminate against all others, so why should it be illegal to discriminate against people based on their faith?

Anti-discrimination laws, in addressing faith at all, immmediately discriminate against the teachings of most faiths.

FlipC said...

If the tabloids had their way it would only be illegal to discriminate against 'our' religion.

Sadly for them the law can now not be seen to be so biased.

Heh which off-topic is why I have to respond to the calls for 'give the police more powers to deal with problem [x]'. Such people never see how an unbiased creation of such can turn around and bite them.

poetesslaureate said...

A well reasoned and explained argument. Thank you.