A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register














You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased
icon5.gif Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased  [message #74511] Sun, 01 July 2018 21:00 Go to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13282



That does not mean it is a good thing, but it is bizarre that some of "our" number express surprise that, for example:
  • White LGBT folk, often raised in a relativeky bigoted way, are in some manner racist against black forlk, and hence black LGBT folk. The reverse is also expected.
  • People who do not understand Bi folk exhibit prejudice against them
  • LGBT folk express bioas against "breeders". Even the use of the term is pejorative
  • LGBT folk of different political persuasions exhibit partisanship sometimes far greater than a heterosexual person might. 

I could very probably go on. But why are we surprised about this? Does being LGBT make us somehow special and incapable of bias or discrimination?

Look at the businesses who have decided either to print gay banners or not to print gay banners. I don't much care about the rights and wrongs of this, nor do I understand the rationale for compelling these folk to print or not to print them. But what I find I dislike is folk who pick up the cudgel of being "against this sort of thing" and trying to force them either to print a gay banner or not to print one. That, too, is bias.

Or is bias not "real bias" when the cudgel is wielded by an LGBT person?

Yes, there are different elements here. Please do not conflate them, nor think that I am conflating them.

What is your reaction to the title of this post, "Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased"?

[Updated on: Sun, 01 July 2018 21:20]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased  [message #74516 is a reply to message #74511] Mon, 02 July 2018 18:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pedro   United Kingdom

Toe is in the water

Registered: March 2014
Messages: 59



Of course we all bring our own bottles to the party. Anyone who won't admit that is kidding themselves and bigoted in their own way. 



Pedro
Re: Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased  [message #74518 is a reply to message #74516] Mon, 02 July 2018 20:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW   United Kingdom

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1502



Of course we all have our own biases and prejudices - all humans do. The best we can hope for is to be aware of such things within us, and try our best not to let them affect our speech or actions.

However, I have to take issue with "Look at the businesses who have decided either to print gay banners or not to print gay banners. I don't much care about the rights and wrongs of this, nor do I understand the rationale for compelling these folk to print or not to print them. But what I find I dislike is folk who pick up the cudgel of being "against this sort of thing" and trying to force them either to print a gay banner or not to print one. That, too, is bias."

For me, it's very simple. People can do what the hell they like in their own homes. However, if someone offers goods or services to the public, they must expect to make them available to the whole public - no discrimination. Yes: I have some experience of this - when I was a public servant operating rooms and halls to hire, I had some clients who I regarded as morally bankrupt (Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministry, Nation of Islam, etc for extreme homophobia, BNP for racism, spring to mind). Nevertheless, I and my team did our best to deliver the best service possible to these clients, along with all others.

There's muddy ground surrounding clubs (including Churches). However, it seems clear to me that the public as taxpayers should not support such institutions (by tax relief, offical support / Establishment, etc) if the institution bars or disadvantages people on grounds over which individuals have no control - sexuality, age, gender identity, ethnicity, disability.

I've experienced enough direct discrimination in the 40ish years I've been "out", and some in the dozen years I've been "disabled", to realise the the different kinds of discrimination different groups experience have far fewer similarities than might be supposed. What, however, is clear to me is that if discrimination against a particular group is allowed to grow to public acceptability, physical violence surely follows. We've seen a massive growth in physical violence against disabled people over the past ten years in the UK, despite legal protection, because there's been a government and popular media narrative of "fakers and scroungers". Conversely, we've seen a reduction in queerbashings (I haven't been queerbashed since the 1980s) as some forms of public gay/lesbian exprssion have become acceptable.

For me, the social / legal sanctions on people who refuse service to any particular group because of what they are, rather than what they believe or views they hold, are a really important part of ensuring a safer society for all of us.



"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Re: Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased  [message #74564 is a reply to message #74518] Tue, 17 July 2018 21:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
American_Alex   United States

Toe is in the water
Location: New York, upstate
Registered: October 2017
Messages: 33



"NW wrote on Mon, 02 July 2018 16:55"
....

However, I have to take issue with "Look at the businesses who have decided either to print gay banners or not to print gay banners. I don't much care about the rights and wrongs of this, nor do I understand the rationale for compelling these folk to print or not to print them. But what I find I dislike is folk who pick up the cudgel of being "against this sort of thing" and trying to force them either to print a gay banner or not to print one. That, too, is bias."

For me, it's very simple. People can do what the hell they like in their own homes. However, if someone offers goods or services to the public, they must expect to make them available to the whole public - no discrimination. Yes: I have some experience of this - when I was a public servant operating rooms and halls to hire, I had some clients who I regarded as morally bankrupt (Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministry, Nation of Islam, etc for extreme homophobia, BNP for racism, spring to mind). Nevertheless, I and my team did our best to deliver the best service possible to these clients, along with all others.

There's muddy ground surrounding clubs (including Churches). However, it seems clear to me that the public as taxpayers should not support such institutions (by tax relief, offical support / Establishment, etc) if the institution bars or disadvantages people on grounds over which individuals have no control - sexuality, age, gender identity, ethnicity, disability.

...

--

I've always felt that, if providing a service to somebody you find 'reprehensible', you should just deliver BAD service. Recently, the president's press secretary was denied service at a restaurant near DC, because the staff didn't like her politics. If it had been me, I would've been just as snarky as she is in her work, and would 'stonewall' any questions she had, and give non-answers (just like she does on every press conference). I would hope she would've just gotten up and left.



"Able was I ere I saw Elba"
Re: Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased  [message #74606 is a reply to message #74564] Thu, 26 July 2018 05:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pedro   United Kingdom

Toe is in the water

Registered: March 2014
Messages: 59



"American_Alex wrote on Tue, 17 July 2018 21:41"

I've always felt that, if providing a service to somebody you find 'reprehensible', you should just deliver BAD service. Recently, the president's press secretary was denied service at a restaurant near DC, because the staff didn't like her politics. If it had been me, I would've been just as snarky as she is in her work, and would 'stonewall' any questions she had, and give non-answers (just like she does on every press conference). I would hope she would've just gotten up and left.

--
The problem with this approach is that word will get around that your establishment gives bad service but not why you gave bad service to this particular person. That will impact the business.  At least if you refuse to serve someone outright, the action can be seen to be targeted at that particular person (or class of persons). Anyone hearing about it can then make their own decision about giving you business.


I suppose the trick is to extract kudos and karma from serving the person inspite of finding them reprehensible, bigoted or just plain undesirable. Of course the difficulty is working out how to do that appropriately.




Pedro
Re: Of course LGBT folk are also discriminatory, biased  [message #74612 is a reply to message #74606] Fri, 27 July 2018 10:18 Go to previous message
Mark   United States

On fire!
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 1134



"Pedro wrote on Wed, 25 July 2018 23:44"

At least if you refuse to serve someone outright, the action can be seen to be targeted at that particular person (or class of persons). Anyone hearing about it can then make their own decision about giving you business.


I suppose the trick is to extract kudos and karma from serving the person inspite of finding them reprehensible, bigoted or just plain undesirable. Of course the difficulty is working out how to do that appropriately.



--

That is an intersting idea.  Certainly, those who follow LGBT news in the U.S. are well aware of a recent case that made it through the court systems, making it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, over a situation where a baker refused to decorate a weding cake for a gay couple, citing that it would go against his religious beliefs; the couple claimed it was discrimination.  The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sided with the baker in the case.

A lot of people in the LGBT community, suffice to say, disagree with the ruling.  But a little while after the ruling was made, someone I know made an interesting point.  This is the kind of situation that could be a double-edged sword - if someone is forced to bake a cake that could be viewed as being in support of gay marriage, then by extension the opposite could occur.  That means that, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church could go make a baker decorate a cake with "God hates fags" written on it, or the Ku Klux Klan (an infamous white supremacist group in the U.S.) insisting that a cake be decorated with a picture depicting the lynching of an African American.

So obviously, the idea of "You have to do literally whaterver the customer says if you offer a service to the public" is not a good idea.  Of cource, being the imperfect humans that we are, we're going to disagree over what constitutes "going too far."
Previous Topic: A short and tortured life has ended.
Next Topic: Gone weekend gone
Goto Forum: