Gay Bars Part-Nationalised

I think that problems arise when the government confuses its realms of influence. It provides services, and therefore has a responsibility to manage its employees and ensure competence. And it also creates law that affect us all. It’s wrong for it to confuse the two.

Changes in practice regarding nationalised services should be distinct from law that affects private business. If the police force is “institutionally racist”, the government should confront the problem, but it’s impact should not carry over into other businesses. Otherwise it's nationalisation.

For example, government services such as the NHS are public. Hence decisions about gender or sexual equality have to be made in the public realm. If a GP refuses to treat a homosexual man, then the government has a duty to become involved because it’s denying service to a paying customer. The NHS has a responsibility to enact practice that doesn’t discriminate, and the government should monitor this.

But a pub (although open to the public) is a private business. If a pub refuses to serve a heterosexual man, I don't see why this is a public issue. As long as it’s private property, the preferences and values of the people of Great Britain should be irrelevant.

To change the law so that pub owners are unable to decide their clientele erodes freedom of association, and also private property. And it strikes me that these two concepts are even more important for minority groups.

The problem arises when legislation to change government practice, simultaneously affects regulation of private business. Laws that limit how people can use their property is nationalisation: if the government intrudes on a bar’s decision to limit it’s clientele to heterosexual men, (and thereby forcing policy to be decided by the government rather than the owner), then it’s nationalising that bar.

In their efforts to use the arm of the state to force legislation, gay rights groups have nationalised gay bars. I don’t see how anyone has benefited from this.

See The Times

Comments

[Quinn]

Tricky one this. I certainly agree that there should be some provision in law for gay bars, gentlemen’s clubs and women’s gyms.

However, these three institutions provide a service for a specific market; they do not discriminate against a section of society, they just cater for a certain market segment. Surely, though, it cannot be right for an insurance company to be institutionally racist, or for a private doctor to refuse to treat someone purely on the basis of their sexuality? I don’t believe such actions can ever be acceptable, regardless of whether a firm is in public or private hands. If you think that government should not interfere in this way, should they also repeal current discrimination legislation so that a company (provided they are privately owned) can be as racist or sexist as they like when selecting job applicants?

I won’t give this bill my unqualified support until I read the fine print, and you are right to say that government should not confuse its role and meddle in things that are not its business; but tackling discrimination and prejudice wherever they may be does seem to me to fall within their remit