![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Good news for today!
Yesterday, I posted that people suck. Today, my faith in humanity is somewhat restored, because the House of Lords defeated an amendment which would have given people the right to discriminate against gay people. This is amazingly good news, not least because the bigots clause was very soundly defeated: 199 votes to 68.
I'm sure you all know I'm a strong proponent of gay rights. But though this bill is specifically related to homophobic discrimination, the significance of this vote goes much further. I was very afraid that if the Lords accepted the principle that religious belief can justify the refusal of goods or services, it would be the beginning of a very slippery slope.
I'm aware that, in the USA, this is a major problem: pharmacists refusing to stock emergency contraception or even standard birth control, subjecting women to questioning to determine whether they are "entitled" in the pharmacist's view, to have a valid prescription filled. This has happened once, that I know of, in the UK and the Muslim pharmacist concerned got a stern wrist slap from the regulator. But if this horrible amendment were accepted by the Lords, it would open the door to such behaviour all over this country.
And the bigots knew it. The campaign of misinformation surrounding this bill has been the biggest since the so-called "Iraq dossier". They've been claiming that this law would force teachers to actively promote civil partnerships alongside marriage (not true - the bill has nothing to do with education. It would prevent schools excluding pupils for being gay). They claimed it would force a family B&B to allow transsexuals to have sex in their rooms, even if the owners feel this is detrimental to their children (not true - the bill is about sexual orientation not gender identity and why the hell would a trans couple having sex be damaging to children if a cisgendered couple wouldn't?). And, my personal favourite, a Muslim printer could be "forced" to print literature promoting homosexuality. Well, yeah, in theory that one's true. But what gay organisation is going to go to a print shop that so clearly doesn't want their business? We don't want to line the pockets of bigots any more than they want to serve us.
To me, the answer is simple. If your "religious" beliefs are so strong that you can't bear to provide your services equally to all, then get a job where you don't fucking have to. And, thank goddess, our House of Lords actually had their heads screwed on and have done the right thing for a change.
I'm sure you all know I'm a strong proponent of gay rights. But though this bill is specifically related to homophobic discrimination, the significance of this vote goes much further. I was very afraid that if the Lords accepted the principle that religious belief can justify the refusal of goods or services, it would be the beginning of a very slippery slope.
I'm aware that, in the USA, this is a major problem: pharmacists refusing to stock emergency contraception or even standard birth control, subjecting women to questioning to determine whether they are "entitled" in the pharmacist's view, to have a valid prescription filled. This has happened once, that I know of, in the UK and the Muslim pharmacist concerned got a stern wrist slap from the regulator. But if this horrible amendment were accepted by the Lords, it would open the door to such behaviour all over this country.
And the bigots knew it. The campaign of misinformation surrounding this bill has been the biggest since the so-called "Iraq dossier". They've been claiming that this law would force teachers to actively promote civil partnerships alongside marriage (not true - the bill has nothing to do with education. It would prevent schools excluding pupils for being gay). They claimed it would force a family B&B to allow transsexuals to have sex in their rooms, even if the owners feel this is detrimental to their children (not true - the bill is about sexual orientation not gender identity and why the hell would a trans couple having sex be damaging to children if a cisgendered couple wouldn't?). And, my personal favourite, a Muslim printer could be "forced" to print literature promoting homosexuality. Well, yeah, in theory that one's true. But what gay organisation is going to go to a print shop that so clearly doesn't want their business? We don't want to line the pockets of bigots any more than they want to serve us.
To me, the answer is simple. If your "religious" beliefs are so strong that you can't bear to provide your services equally to all, then get a job where you don't fucking have to. And, thank goddess, our House of Lords actually had their heads screwed on and have done the right thing for a change.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Well...Bush and his cronies are partly responsible. But they are hurting the USA badly, too.
There have always been racists in Britain. In some ways this so-called "war on terror" has only changed the terminology, given them an extra excuse. One of my closest friends at school was from a Pakistani family and I know what hell she went through.
I'm going to follow
no subject