Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?

[Naffa]

As I am quite enjoying reading threads asking a philosophical question, here's another.

At what point does tolerance become self defeating? I'll use an example of an argument I had with Dolph sometime ago, and where I was accused of being a hypocrite (a charge I will only partially refute). When Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy got refused a double room at a Cornish bed and breakfast on the grounds that their were a homosexual couple, the owners got taken to court and subsequently lost their case. The law is such that the right of citizens to receive blind service, was placed above a Christian couple's want to run their business according to the teachings of their religion.

I actually believe that it's impossible to take an non-hypocritical position, on this question. I believe that the judgement was just, and fair. Excluding my known dislike of religion, my beef was with the fact two people were refused a particular service on the grounds that they were gay. I was subsequently accused of being a hypocrite, because my belief that somebody's sexuality should in no way have an effect on a business decision of whether or not to tender a service, naturally leads on to the conclusion that, in order to make that a reality, you have to curb the rights of certain groups (mainly religious) to do business as they wish. However, as far as I'm concerned, if it were the other way around, and the bed and breakfast owners were legally allowed to refuse service on grounds of sexuality, the personal liberty of the homosexual couple is then infringed, as they would not be free to operate in a 'free' society, as heterosexual people would be able to.

I have no problem with government being involved in a question like this, I'm not a libertarian as far as that is concerned.

But what do you think? I suppose it's a question of the balance between liberty and license. But it's also bigger than that, should a strong advocate of democracy support the democratic election of a fascist government? Should a liberal support the infringement of personal freedom, simply because they don't believe government should be involved in such questions?

A big first post, but I hope we have an even bigger discussion.

 

[platinum87]

As I am quite enjoying reading threads asking a philosophical question, here's another.

At what point does tolerance become self defeating?

To be tolerant of others, is separate to what your actual views are, dont you just simply tolerate things you dont like for any reason.

Or is being tolerant meaning you actually dont mind, so your not really tolerating anything?

Its self defeating immediately.

I'll use an example of an argument I had with Dolph sometime ago, and where I was accused of being a hypocrite (a charge I will only partially refute).

Doctor tells you dont smoke, while he is smoking, he is not a hyprocrite because its do as i say, not what i do. A lot of thought processes can override others. Therefore even when making a fundamental decision, and then going against it, does not make you a hypocrite. i really dont like that word tbh.

I skipped the rest for now.

 

[Naffa]

As far as I am concerned, tolerance implies allowing a practice you actively disapprove of, to continue. I think it also implies the ability to stop, or inhibit it and choosing not to.

If you are ok with something, there is no toleration involved.

 

[Dolph]

Rights, in a free and fair society, should always be balanced if they come into conflict. In the case you referenced, I don't feel that was done, the rights of one party were allowed to run roughshod over the rights of another, despite both rights being enshrined and protected by law.

For clarity, this particular case was somewhat skewed by the fact that the business premises and home were one and the same, my position would be different if it was purely about a place of business.

On a more general view, it really is a matter of balancing rights, a role which should always fall to the courts as a last point.

 

[Vespasian777]

If you run a B&B I think you should be allowed to turn away homos, or any other ****** that you don't like the look of. It's your premises and that should be your perogative. As for, homosexuals are not able to operate in a "free" society, if this were to be enforced, thats just balls. sorry. They just need to go and stay somewhere where homos are welcome.

 

[Castiel]

You should speak out against intolerance, however the argument you raise against any particular act of intolerance must be balanced and objective. If it is then you are not being intolerant yourself.

As regard the actual criteria that sparked the discussion, as long as there is provision for both Homosexual and Religious people within any given community then each should be free and able to do as they wish. The religious couple iifc were not homophobic as they would have refused to let a double room to any unmarried couple, and as long as there is suitable provision within a reasonably defined area then I see no reason that both couples would not have been equally catered for.

If anyone recalls that particular thread, I called a Hotel in Blackpool that caters for Gay Men and tried to book a stag night for Heterosexual mixed couples.... eventually when they replied I was turned down, siting that they were fully booked......several days later I tried again posing as a homosexual group, for the same dates and was accepted.

I have no problem with Gay Only Hotels, Hetero Only Hotels, Women Only Hotels, or Age restricted Hotels as long as there is provision for everyone within a given community or region. Of course the whole thing is fraught with issues surrounding implied acceptance of Sexism, Racism and so on...but if it is regulated and sensibly enforced I see no reason why everyone can within reason be catered for in an equal and free society.

 

[semi-pro waster]

If anyone recalls that particular thread, I called a Hotel in Blackpool that caters for Gay Men and tried to book a stag night for Heterosexual mixed couples.... eventually when they replied I was turned down, siting that they were fully booked......several days later I tried again posing as a homosexual group, for the same dates and was accepted.
Snipped for space

That doesn't necessarily prove discrimination, they may have had a cancellation in the several days gap. It's probably unlikely but worth pointing out that there's a possible explanation that doesn't involve discrimination.

As for the original topic. It's a somewhat difficult question as I believe it can be very hard to give a general position that works for absolutely every possible situation, there will almost always be exceptions that cause what seems to be a reasonable position to now become objectionable and occasionally the diametric opposite of what you actually believe. It's one of the reasons why I try not to hold peoples opinions in threads outside of the current one they are posting in as an absolute - fun though it can be to point out what seem to be inconsistencies in belief it's also worth recognising that there could be valid reasons for holding a different position on certain circumstances.

 

[Castiel]

That doesn't necessarily prove discrimination, they may have had a cancellation in the several days gap. It's probably unlikely but worth pointing out that there's a possible explanation that doesn't involve discrimination.

Possible, but unlikely given the number involved and refusal to reply to my original request by email and the way the original conversation was worded, it was not until I asked as an afterthought about the orientation of the group that the booking was then refused due to a sudden overbooking that wasn't apparent only minutes prior......

I am not particularly against their position (if indeed they have one) only making the point that there seems to be a double standard, especially with regard certain groups.....I understand also that te couple in question were intentionally targeted, which I feel was uncalled for and intentionally provocative on the part of the Gay couple in question.

 

[Xordium]

As for the original topic. It's a somewhat difficult question as I believe it can be very hard to give a general position that works for absolutely every possible situation, there will almost always be exceptions that cause what seems to be a reasonable position to now become objectionable and occasionally the diametric opposite of what you actually believe. It's one of the reasons why I try not to hold peoples opinions in threads outside of the current one they are posting in as an absolute - fun though it can be to point out what seem to be inconsistencies in belief it's also worth recognising that there could be valid reasons for holding a different position on certain circumstances.

Very well put. As to the second part I would say I would have to actually remember what their beliefs were from another thread which aint going to happen with my goldfish brain. So achieve that action with far less noble reasons (have enough problem figuring out what I believe)

 

[Eriedor]

Rights, in a free and fair society, should always be balanced if they come into conflict. In the case you referenced, I don't feel that was done, the rights of one party were allowed to run roughshod over the rights of another, despite both rights being enshrined and protected by law.

For clarity, this particular case was somewhat skewed by the fact that the business premises and home were one and the same, my position would be different if it was purely about a place of business.

On a more general view, it really is a matter of balancing rights, a role which should always fall to the courts as a last point.

Would you feel different if the refused couple had been Black? Or Jewish? or ...

 

[Dj_Jestar]

As far as I am concerned, tolerance implies allowing a practice you actively disapprove of, to continue. I think it also implies the ability to stop, or inhibit it and choosing not to.

If you are ok with something, there is no toleration involved.

If you actively disapprove, by definition, it is impossible to be tolerant, else you would not be active about it To be tolerant of something is to passively disapprove.

As for actual question in the OP.. well, let's get to the meat and bones of it: "I will not tolerate your intolerance" is the implied hypocrisy. But then simply because one is tolerant of one trait, the other doesn't need to be of the same trait, and nor does one need to tolerate all things to be tolerant.

In a sentence: one is neither "tolerant" nor "intolerant", but one is "tolerant of certain topics or motifs, and intolerant of others".

The hoteliers/b&b owners were blatantly discriminating though, so it's open/shut case tbh.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Rights, in a free and fair society, should always be balanced if they come into conflict. In the case you referenced, I don't feel that was done, the rights of one party were allowed to run roughshod over the rights of another, despite both rights being enshrined and protected by law.

For clarity, this particular case was somewhat skewed by the fact that the business premises and home were one and the same, my position would be different if it was purely about a place of business.

On a more general view, it really is a matter of balancing rights, a role which should always fall to the courts as a last point.

The right to discriminate purely of personal prejudices - I'd not heard of that right before today, Dolph.

 

[kylew]

I think the important part is that the Christian couple who ran the B&B were essentially being oppressive to the gay couple, whether or not they feel that it's their right to turn their custom down due to them being gay. Two men being gay isn't oppressive to the rights of the Christian couple however, and simply trying to stay at a B&B isn't oppressive to the owners either which is why I think the rights of the gay men should come before those of the B&B owners.

If they are so happy to infringe upon the rights of others simply because they don't agree with their lifestyle "choice" then why should their rights be held in such high regard? I know it's not as simple as that, but in a business environment it should be a case of, if you want to be able to discriminate against a certain group of people, you should have to give up any sort of legal protections of your own rights about similar things.

 

[Republic]

I work in the leisure industry (bookmakers) albeit just for another few days. In my experience, stuff like this should be down to the judgement of the person managing the establishment. Not being funny, but if I was running a business out of my house I would be using my authority as a home owner and a business owner to protect my investment / place of residence. It's the owner that makes the profit and if they choose to decline a transaction, it's up to them. They don't have to give a reason. For instance, I am not obliged to accept every legitimate bet I'm presented with. I can refuse whatever bets I like. An example being an abusive customer sending someone in to do their business for them. I knew about it, I said no. End of. That's in the situation where the customer has had an incident with the establishment though. In a scenario where neither party has done anything to particular deserve being penalished, while in some ways it could be deemed as unfair to refuse the sale - it's your business!

 

[Dolph]

Would you feel different if the refused couple had been Black? Or Jewish? or ...

Generally speaking, there isn't a protected freedom associated with such claims, so it is somewhat different.

The issue in the B&B case was a conflict between two different protected rights, and how they should be interpreted (as has been pointed out, they wouldn't allow a booking from unmarried heterosexual couples either, but that isn't a protected position), not simply about a conflict of personal preference.

 

[Dolph]

The right to discriminate purely of personal prejudices - I'd not heard of that right before today, Dolph.

Except it isn't, and this is just a strawman.

Religious belief is protected under article 9 of the ECHR, as implemented by the Human rights act 1998 in the UK.

Protection against discrimination, including based on sexuality, is covered under article 14 of the ECHR, again as implemented by the HRA.

The law states that the state cannot just ride roughshod over the rights of people to practice and express their religious beliefs in exactly the same set of statutes as the law states that the state cannot just discriminate based on a whole variety of factors.

 

[spudbynight]

Would you feel different if the refused couple had been Black? Or Jewish? or ...

Sammy Davis Jnr?

 

[anything I don't mind]

Business should have the right to not serve people based on whatever prejudice they hold. Businesses have the Rights of Admission reserved. The customer can not force a business to serve them or sell to them in the pure economic sense, that would be borderline theft.

When government gets involved however then it is different. Government does not have the right to mandate through law certain prejudices because the government is not a business. The government is a public service, well meant to be.

When there was a racial apartheid in america and in south africa it was the government that brought in the laws and forced the apartheid through the police. The businesses were some of the first ones to break through the barrier and serve non whites etc. As well as individuals refusing to be discriminated against.

But if i walk in to a bar and say i am from iceland and the owner got ripped off by icelandic banks he should have the right to kick me out based on that or anything else. The government getting involved in such matters is Orwellian and reeks of political correctness and health and safety hysteria that has gripped the uk the past few decades. It also makes the politicians and courts feel good about themselves when they enact laws about equality and other non sense.

Thought i should add, but business have an incentive not to be prejudice against certain groups based on sexual preference, skin colour, country of origin etc etc. Because they would be losing customers and then they will lose out anyway. But when it comes to a hotel where homosexuals will be sleeping in the bed, then i think the owner has more than a right to refuse them to stay.

 

[Devrij]

It's certainly an interesting case, but viewing the owners as proprietors of a business rather than home owners construes it as a business discriminating against gay rights. If they had refused them entry to their home in a non business context it would be different.

It does, however, reflect the secularisation of our society.

As to the general question of the thread, I think these situations have to be weighed on individual basis. There's just no way to say where the line is drawn.

If I was to stir things up, I'd ask how far people are willing to let eastern culture permeate British culture in the name of tolerance. Should there be some safeguard on British tradition or is that a xenophobic absurdity in the face of natural change?

 

[elmarko]

The question should be phased as to what should & should not be tolerated in a society.

I'm don't "tolerate" homosexual behaviour because I don't disapproves or approve of it either way, it's a personal choice which objectively causes no more intrinsic harm than heterosexual relationships & therefore no concern of mine.

The problem is when people mislabel the issue of homosexuality as a moral issue, when from a non-religious perspective it's not a moral issue to begin with.

Our acceptance (I'd prefer to use that term) of a set of actions should be linked to something measurable, for instance - actually measurable harm.

Two individuals engaging in a homosexual relationship causes no more harm than two heterosexual people.

Individuals discriminating against the two homosexuals does cause harm (social exclusion, harassment, judgement, made to feel like sinners).

In a well formed libertarian society everybody would be free to explore there own life (assuming they do not infringe on other peoples same right to exist without persecution).

When a conflict (or perceived conflict) is arisen, objective measures should be used to determine who if either party is actually causing harm - or simply perceiving it.

I've been hearing recently the argument that disapproving of homosexual behaviour is just an opinion & not homophobic.

But I pose a different question, If person A was against the idea of mixed race relationships (based on nothing but the colour of the skin) - would that person be objectively considered racist - or is that just an opinion ?.