?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Pred and breakfast - shadows of echoes of memories of songs — LiveJournal
j4
j4
Pred and breakfast
Read 36 | Write
Comments
caramel_betty From: caramel_betty Date: January 10th, 2007 10:58 am (UTC) (Link)
When I think about some of this, it makes me wonder if they'd be arguing that the Bible says that they must keep blacks away from, you know, real people, and that they shouldn't have to give a room to mixed-race couples.

Sadly, I know what the answer to that might be for some people. Colon dash open bracket.
j4 From: j4 Date: January 10th, 2007 11:13 am (UTC) (Link)
The question I'm wondering about is not "is teh ghey contagious?" or "no but yeah but what if it was NAZIS?" but "Does God say you should be able to do any job you like?" and "If so, how do you recommend that (for example) the laws should be changed to allow Christians to work as prostitutes without being expected to do anything that goes against their faith?"
nja From: nja Date: January 10th, 2007 11:18 am (UTC) (Link)
My line is "if God wants you to wear a turban all the time, God doesn't want you to ride a motorbike in twentieth-century Britain".
j4 From: j4 Date: January 10th, 2007 11:29 am (UTC) (Link)
I figure that's up to them: if the turban's more important than the safety or the law (obviously they'd have to take the consequences of breaking the law if caught) then they're unlikely to increase their chance of injuring anybody else in a crash by not wearing a helmet.

I do like your turn of phrase though. I will have to think of something equivalent which the PATHOLOGICALLY ARGUMENTATIVE part of my brain can accept. :)
nja From: nja Date: January 10th, 2007 11:39 am (UTC) (Link)
Obviously there's a libertarian argument that if not wearing a helmet's only going to harm yourself (a big if, but let's assume it's true), you shouldn't be forced to wear one. But given that the law says you have to wear one, as you say it ought to be up to Sikhs to make choices about what's important in their lives, obeying the law, riding a motorcycle, or wearing a turban.
caramel_betty From: caramel_betty Date: January 10th, 2007 11:47 am (UTC) (Link)
One potential answer (though not exactly counter) to the libertarian argument is that if you smash your head open and spew grey matter everywhere, you're going to use up vast amounts more NHS money than if you were wearing a helmet, using up doctors, consultants, surgeons and nurses who could be dealing with something else - on average, at least.

Of course, if the person making the argument is a libertarian who doesn't believe the state should take any taxes at all and certainly not for medicine, that's not going to fly. That attitude is generally less prevalent in Britain than in (for example) America, though.
j4 From: j4 Date: January 10th, 2007 12:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
you're going to use up vast amounts more NHS money than if you were wearing a helmet

True. So, do we stop people doing things that might make them need medical treatment, or do we refuse to treat people who could have avoided their illness/injury?
caramel_betty From: caramel_betty Date: January 10th, 2007 12:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
This sort of thing has come into the news recently, such as "Should people who take up smoking get lung cancer treatment?" or "Should fat people all just die?"

There aren't any exact answers, and I don't pretend to have them.
j4 From: j4 Date: January 10th, 2007 11:58 am (UTC) (Link)
it ought to be up to Sikhs to make choices about what's important in their lives, obeying the law, riding a motorcycle, or wearing a turban

It is, isn't it? Did I really miss a law that says Sikhs don't have to wear a helmet?
caramel_betty From: caramel_betty Date: January 10th, 2007 12:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=UK_Legislation_connected_with_turban

Why it, apparently, only exempts Sikhs wearing turbans is another matter.
nja From: nja Date: January 10th, 2007 12:01 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think the relevant law may predate your birth.
beingjdc From: beingjdc Date: January 10th, 2007 11:14 am (UTC) (Link)
Presumably an Orthodox Jewish B&B couldn't in conscience admit mixed couples.

You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son, for he will cause your child to turn away from after Me and they will worship the gods of others then the L–rd’s wrath will burn against you, and He will destroy you
j4 From: j4 Date: January 10th, 2007 12:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm sure there are millions of "ah but what if" examples which are morally equivalent. But I'd be interested to take this in the other direction: what would the consequences be if you said that B&Bs were people's private houses and therefore they were allowed to have whatever batshit rules the internet cared to invent -- banning people who have iPods, banning redheads, whatever? (I'm thinking of direct consequences rather than "Well, it's the thin end of the whatnot, innit, next thing you know they'll be banning Christmas".)
cartesiandaemon From: cartesiandaemon Date: January 10th, 2007 12:16 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think people *did* argue that.
caramel_betty From: caramel_betty Date: January 10th, 2007 12:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
I was thinking rather more if that body law were passed now, as a statement of society's values over certain specific religious values, with the consequent quashing of religious freedom and the inability to teach children that all niggers are thieves and rapists, and such.
Read 36 | Write