I'm working today. Have a poll!

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1547520]

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to run a B&B in your own home.

Accordingly, if you're opening your home to the public on a commercial basis, you should bloody well obey the law.

(If you're not doing it for money, but letting folks stay for free on a non-commercial basis, that's another matter entirely.)

The only remotely controversial aspect to this affair is that the B&B owners are renting out their spare bedroom to the public while continuing to live on the site where they conduct their business. Thus blurring the distinction between their business and their home life -- in their own heads. If a big hotel chain discriminated in this way, they'd be pilloried.

[andrewducker]

That would be my opinion also. Any other option under law would mean that having the manager sleep on-site would allow for discrimination.

Poll was prompted by reading about the Tories having had _exactly_ the same arguments about race rather than sexuality back in the 60s...

[thakil.livejournal.com]

Well, if said b&b customers are disruptive and rude, then the manager is surely within their rights to deny access? But otherwise, no.

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

Yeah, much my opinion.
B&B owners should be able to refuse service to people they have good reason to believe will damage or disrupt their business. But it had better be a GOOD reason unless they like being sued.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

It depends.

If I was in a position where reform was viable, then I would attempt this option first. If it was clear that the corruption was greater than I could manage without completely messing up my employment record (like going to the media with a fascinating story) then I would leave, and try a different organisation.

If there were others who felt the same way I did, then we could leave together and start our own organisation.

I would be cautious about starting an organisation on my own, and I would be cautious going solo or freelance unless I knew I had clients who would follow me, or a market which I could immediately take an income from.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

*nods*

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

When the organisation in question is the Catholic Church, it's extremely unlikely that you'll either need or want the "clients"

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

1. Depends on how much they are paying you and if they are prepared to cut you in on what they are stealing. If you are making 50k and they won't cut you in, go to another organization. If you are making 200k and they offer to cut you in for another 200k to look the other way, stay with them for a year or two, sock money away and then just don't show up for work one morning.

2. You should be allowed to have a "no children" policy because people come to B&Bs for peace and quiet and children could annoy your other patrons.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

You should be allowed to have a "no children" policy because people come to B&Bs for peace and quiet and children could annoy your other patrons.

That's an excellent point, but I think it could simply be put in under a more general no loud or disorderly conduct rule (most definitely including such conduct by children).

[andrewducker]

Interesting that the comments about corrupt organisations are so far referring to employers, whereas I was thinking of people's responses to both the Catholic Church and the New Labour Party.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Well, if you find out a co-worker is corrupt, you simply blackmail them.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I think Julie's point is still comparatively viable.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Other: openly armed (and unwilling to lock their weapons away in your safe, locked [by you] closet, or whatever), obviously infested with fleas or other vermin, drunk & disorderly, shouting violent threats, or any other state that is an obvious threat to either your health or safety. However, that's pretty much it.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

I've stayed at a B&B that had gun lockers! (nearly typoed fun lockers)

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

Interesting that at the time of writing I'm the only person who's clicked "start your own organisation." That's my first impulse, and I'm sort of surprised to be alone in having it.

[andrewducker]

I don't think most people think of organisations as things that can be started, just things that can be joined or left.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

It's interesting actually because many pubs/restaurants have notices up saying "We reserve the right to refuse service or ask you to leave for any reason/without giving reason" and we don't really question it as a general rule because we say "Oh, well, they mean if they know you to be a thug/arsehole but can't prove it and want their arses covered, don't they?" And they almost always do. But it's the same thing, really, isn't it?

At the end of the day though if you were chucked out for being gay/black/whatever and you could prove it later I guess they'd be onto a loser.

Butyeah, what everyone else said. You're welcome to not allow people into your home as a general rule. But if you're running a business you have to obey the law.

It's interesting; it's a little like the discussion Lizzie and I had with our* new letting agents when I was signing conracts. He's been studying law at Napier, and so was very keen to impart his wisdom on property law, which was nice. He was saying that a lot of the things landlords attempt to 'ban' in the flats they let, they really can't, legally. I mean, they can refuse to let to you on any basis really, and if they want to end your lease after it's up or onto the rolling notice period, then fine, but once you're there, you can get cats and take up smoking and they can't call breach of contract, because they can't legally put it in the contract in the first place, because this is legally your home, and you have certain rights in your home. They also can't force you to use certain fuel or telephone providers. This came up 'cause I asked him about the cats again and he was like "Meh, I didn't tell the owner, she's a bit precious. At the end of the day damage is damage."

*'Our' being Erin and I, not Lizzie and I.

[andrewducker]

I didn't realise that the cats thing wasn't legal! That's fascinating!

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

Mmyeah... if you open a business you are opening yourself to custom from all and sundry.

I keep thinking though, are there people none of us would want in our hypothetical B&B? BNP members? Fox hunters? I guess that's why we're not opening B&Bs...

And yes, I took the org thing to be a company rather than something like a party... interesting.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

My answer should be self-evident, since I'm still here on LiveJournal. *g*

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

When you provide a B&B, you're providing a service. In exchange for money, you allow people to sleep in your room. Why should it matter what kind of people they are as long as they don't cause a disturbance or break things?

Unless their sexuality, race and beliefs are not going to impact on you, whats the problem?

I see the problem is that moral disgust takes over, and some people don't want Those Kinds of People in their house in case they get infected.

[andrewducker]

Exactly.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

My view is that if you're offering a service, it should be offered to all, but that people could be banned for disruptive behaviour - deciding to practice the drums at 3AM, throwing up on the stairs, that kind of thing.

And to me, it's not so much a question of the leadership as of the stated beliefs of the organisation. I'm a Lib Dem even though I'm no fan of Clegg, because both the activist base and - crucially - the party's constitution are closer to my views than not in the main. On the other hand, a socialist or liberal in the Labour Party would now be fighting against the actual actions of the party and its conference motions for the best part of twenty years, and I'd then consider that the party didn't even pretend to express those views any more. As for the Catholic Church, well, one of the game-rules of Catholicism is you do what the Pope says and he gets to make the rules. If you don't believe that then you *should* leave, because you don't believe what the organisations does...

[andrewducker]

You have the same approach as marrog when it comes to Catholicism. I argued that it does, and has, changed as an organisation, and that different Popes have different views. I hear that it's now possible to even celebrate Mass in English nowadays!

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Question number 1: Too many variables. How easy will it be to start a new one? Is there any point? Does the organisation actually fulfil a useful role? How much do you care about its core purpose? How confident do you feel that you understand the politics in the situation? Do you have some belief you can successfully overturn the leadership? Is there another project that's more urgent?

And you missed a bunch of options. What about "leave so that you can comment and report on the situation from the outside"?

(I've been in the situation described before.)

[andrewducker]

Best response so far! Have a cool point.

I've emailed you about Wednesday plans.

[pete stevens (from livejournal.com)]

Do you apply this everywhere?

Pulling the first link at random,

http://www.visitnorthwest.com/manchester/gay-village.htm

AXM - bans stag/hen parties
Essentials - apparently have a Gay Only door policy

Certainly I've been turned away from staying at a hotel due to being a stag party.

[andrewducker]

I'm 99% sure that Essentials are breaking the law. I could be wrong though.

[gravityslave.livejournal.com]

2) Other: if they light fires in the guest rooms, kick your pets, or otherwise behave like raging assholes.

As for the first question, I actually already started my own group - there's a lot more drama among knitters in this city than the serene surface would indicate. :)

[captainlucy.livejournal.com]

1) You left out "Take off and nuke the site from orbit". Shame on you!
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church, much like the Mafia, is one of these organisations that considers you a member until they tell you otherwise. Used to be that they told you otherwise by tying you to a pole atop lots of firewood and setting light to it; nowadays, they tend to forgoe the live immolation in favour of memos - less ash to clean up.

2) The knee-jerk reaction of most people, I would imagine, would be "it's their home, they have the right to refuse whoever they like for whatever reason they like", not taking into consideration the fact that they're running a business, which has to abide by certain rules, including anti-discrimination. If they don't want GLBT/Black/Jew/Irish/Chinese/Indian/Whatever in their homes, then fine, but they should then also stop running it as a B&B.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

You should have the right to ban people from a Bed & Breakfast run in your own home if they are:

I do not know enough about what the law should be. We definitely need to prevent discrimination against several classes of people who often ARE discriminated against, eg. based on race, sex, sexuality. Not preventing that discrimination definitely leads to innumerable awful cases of discrimination. And I rarely hear of a case where such laws had bad effect (I think).

OTOH, I can imagine cases where they might be. Eg. a taxi firm by women for women for late night journeys might make many people feel safer getting into a car with a stranger, and I think that would be useful for some people and not cause any harm, and ought to be legal, but would not be legal if you were not allowed to offer services based on sex. I may have the law wrong and that is allowed by existing loopholes, but I expect there are similar examples where carving out loopholes is difficult. But is probably still the only sane way to go on.

If you accept such exceptions, should running a B&B be one of them? I think not.

However, that still leaves the case of people with opinions/beliefs/personal attributes which are less commonly or rarely discriminated against? Should people be prevented from discriminating? I'm not sure.

PRO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW: Discriminating against people is bad (and implicitly bad for business too)

CON ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW: Denying business runners discretion prevents them banning trouble makers simply because it makes the business more pleasant for staff and other customers. If one customer makes your shop hell, should you be required to prove it court to exclude them?

CON ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW: If it's easy to find an alternative, the people being discriminated against suffer a lot less. If I can't stop in bed-and-breakfast X because I'm gay, I may get that discrimination EVERY DAY. If I can't stop in bed-and-breakfast X because I have red hair, I may be temporarily outraged, but am much more likely to be able to go somewhere else and forget about it.

So although I agree with the sentiment I don't know if a general anti-discrimination law is plausible or not.

[neuralbuddha.livejournal.com]

If discrimination is bad for business then you don't need a law against, do you? :) The 'bad businesses' will simply graduate to being 'non-businesses' through competition.

[neuralbuddha.livejournal.com]

All of the above. You can chucked out of a pub, no questions asked, and for good reason. Basically because it's to protect the staff from abuse and spurious complaints. If the business is being run out of your own home then all the more so.

It's not so much a license to be prejudiced, more a license to protect yourself without being subject to question.