Race – Sex – Religion.

Three powerful forces in society. Which ones trumps the other?

Race encompasses ethnicity so you can be racist to French people by calling them Frogs even if both of you are blonde blue eyed Aryans. You can also be labelled racist even if the “victim” doesn’t perceive it as such but any other person does. Sex is the differentiation based on gender and gender identify and also includes sexual preferences. Religion is that which you have faith in, be it a supreme being, a god, or nature, or non at all.

According the recent ruling where it is discriminatory to forbid a homosexual couple from staying in a B&B even its against your personal beliefs the rights of sex overrides the rights of religion. It has now become legal for homosexuals to go to a Muslim business and demand compensation if they are refused service. It could also be technically illegal for a B&B to refuse service to an S&M loving couple. Because S&M is just as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality is according to some people.

Or was the ruling made on which group is the lesser minority. In other words because gays are a smaller minority than Christians, gays can’t be discriminated against by Christians. But then Gays can be discriminated against by Humanists.

The judge mentioned that it is a sign that society has changed that discrimination against homosexuality is now seen as taboo. But it also shows that society is less inclined to religion than ever before, even though a large proportion of the UK state that their religion is CoE in the last census.

Statists want everyone to have all rights possible and to have the state impose them and force them on everyone, but then they don’t usually think it through. Should we have any rights other than life? What happens when a conflict between two rights occurs? Which trumps the other? Should the state impose any rights through laws? How big an issue does it need to be before friendly banter is perceived as racism.

Now we don’t want discrimination based on someone’s beliefs, sex, or colour as a good society is one where everyone is fair to everyone else but neither do we want one group to claim top trumps over another group through rights. So how do we stop discrimination without using rights roulette?

Some examples that might help the discussion.

Is it discrimination to exclude a boy from a game of football if he is crap at playing? Is it still discrimination if the boy is black as well?

Is it discrimination to not serve a black customer in a village in northern Scotland where they don’t have much choice about where they can take their business? Is it the same discrimination in deepest London where a black person can just go to the next corner and conduct their business?

Is it discrimination to stop a Scientologist from entering a Mosque? What about stopping a homosexual from entering the Mosque. Can a Muslim be stopped from entering a sex club?

Is it discrimination for a black kid to make fun of a red haired kid?

Can we not just accept that people are different and have different viewpoints, ideas, and ways of living and that unless they are committing an act of violence against us that only best way of fighting discrimination is through education and that many times the discrimintion is only perceived and does not actually exist and that groups can still live harmoniously even when they have different beliefs. In the case of homosexuality the education has used the fact that its not so much a choice as a determination by genes and hormones and brain chemistry. Race has highlighted that there are more differences within a genetic grouping (such as northern Europeans) than there is between blacks and whites. With religion it is educating others that all faiths are equal as no one faith is better than the others, no matter what the fundamentalists think.

And don’t get me started on politics!

SBML

1
will
January 20, 2011 at 08:41

The one and only natural law, the ultimate first principle that can be deduced by rational objectivity is self ownership. From this principle can be derived the non aggression axiom and property rights. Everything after that is completely made up and entirely dependent on consent. Rules can only be agreed upon mutually and adhered to voluntarily. Rights do not exist. Whether you call them human rights or natural rights they are a fiction. If they were objective truth then how come they change with geography and history? Did you know according to the UN its a ‘human right’ to have a holiday?
so I’m for Rothbardian property rights

2
St Paul
January 20, 2011 at 09:55

I see it as quite a normal state for any group to reinforce its internal bonds by denigrating those outside the group. This extends from world wars, through football to the pub darts team. This primordial condition of favouring your own group has genetic advantage. The extent of the expression of this prejudice is subtly conditioned by prevailing social attitude in the community.
The difficulties start when some righteous, finger-wagging, Pharisee starts inventing rules; which become laws; which make the lawyers rich and bog-down the country in a morass of competing rights.

3
Old Slaughter
January 20, 2011 at 10:02

“Because S&M is just as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality is according to some people.”

Which people?

4
Anna Raccoon
January 20, 2011 at 10:32

Heresy Corner?

5
Old Slaughter
January 20, 2011 at 10:55

Sorry Anna, I don’t understand.

Does the blog Heresy Corner suggests this or are you hinting that they would?
I would very much like to see the evidence for this. Whereas it seems homosexuality is in broadly the same numbers regardless of which society, there are apparently differing ranges of uptake of S&M, hinting at nurture rather than nature.

For the record, much bothers me about this legislation and my natural reaction is to be loath to tell people what they can and can’t do with their property business or not.

For me it was the ‘not married’ argument that I thought smelled of bullshit. And if it is bullshit I would have much rather they were honest and said ‘we don’t like gayers’.

6
Dick
January 20, 2011 at 11:48

The solution, explaining who’s going to win the rights Top Trumps: Victimhood Poker

http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2006/07/tdl-gaming-world-series-of-victimhood.html

7
Chalcedon
January 20, 2011 at 16:43

Race only encompases ethnicity in the brains of the politically correct, lawyers and scientific illiterates. An Irish traveller is not a different race from me (Anglo-Saxon) nor is any other European and probably non-Dravidian Indian subcontinentals too. After all if we speak an Indo-European language that might be a big clue. Calling a Frenchman a Frog isn’t racist. After all, it’s how other Frenchmen designate or denigrate a citizen of Paris. It’s just rude.

8
lenko
January 21, 2011 at 12:33

Well said! We call the French Frogs, and they call us Rosbifs. We call the Germans Krauts (short for sauerkraut.) Haven’t a clue what they call us. To us, they are Yanks, to them, we are Limeys. Who cares? And we are all the same race.

These days, it’s “offensive” to refer to the Pakistani’s as Pakis, which simply omits their word for “land”. Strangely, it’s perfectly OK for everyone, including ourselves, to call us Brits. Anyone offended? Yes? Then bugger off.

Some people NEED to be offended.

9
Pericles
January 20, 2011 at 18:39

Because this case seems to give rise to such a high heat-to-light ratio I thought I’d prepare an extract from Judge Rutherford’s judgment.  I urge those passing comment on it to read this — even if not prepared to read the whole judgment, to which any-one interested will find a link on that page — if only so that their comments bear on the actual ruling.

In one matter — the compatibility of the regulations with the European Convention on Human Rights — he was unable, as a county-court judge to rule.  His ruling itself, however, which he himself describes as subject to appeal (should the defendants be so advised), is carefully crafted and worth reading.

ΠΞ

10
Bobo
January 21, 2011 at 13:56

The germans, I am reliably informed, call us “Inselapfen” (spelling may vary from that actually used in Gernam): “Island Monkeys”. The visual image is red hair and buck teeth, which is how the English are potryed in the Asterix The Gaul cartoons, oddly enough

11
lenko
January 21, 2011 at 19:31

I spent a few years in the 50′s, living in Germany, and one of the few things I learned, apart from the language, was that South Germans tell jokes about the North Germans being thick, and these jokes are very often the same ones we tell about the Irish. For instance:

Did you hear about the North German who stood on the shore looking towards Scandinavia? He was looking for a wave of pornography! Boom-boom!

No, it still isn’t funny.

12
Bobo
January 21, 2011 at 13:56

apologies for the spelling.