Gender again. Sorry!

[matticus]

The Arches have been played here, which is a shame, because they'll be the ones coming out looking like dickheads who support cancel culture.

If only they'd shown some balls. Oh dear, never mind!

 

[winjim]

The implication then is that providers can actively discriminate against anybody they consider an arseh*le. Refusing to give one person goods or services but not another, without very good reason, is discrimination, regardless of whether you think they deserve it.

I work in healthcare. If Graham Linehan needed care and I was part of the team providing it, I would absolutely do my job to the best of my ability, same as I would for anyone else.

Edit: if he came in and started spouting transphobic gibberish that might be another matter since my workplace is a safe and inclusive space for LGBTQIA+ people but that would be on him, not on us.

 

[mudsticks]

I work in healthcare. If Graham Linehan needed care and I was part of the team providing it, I would absolutely do my job to the best of my ability, same as I would for anyone else.

Of course you would, there are (horrible) stories of healthcare workers having to put up with all kinds of hateful abuse from idiots on account of their gender, skin colour, sexuality etc etc.

But the saintly providers carry on regardless doing their best work.

However, that's that's not the same as provision of 'inessential' services is it??
Either legally, or even dare I say it, even 'morally'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's OK to admit occasionally that you don't know about a thing, you know. Tell Paley while you're at it.

How is this situation different from the Julie Bindell case? After legal advice the council admitted that the decision to cancel the booking simply because she was appearing was unlawful.

Tell Paley yourself. I'm sure he'll be amused you can't even reply to other people without mentioning him.

I work in healthcare. If Graham Linehan needed care and I was part of the team providing it, I would absolutely do my job to the best of my ability, same as I would for anyone else.

Edit: if he came in and started spouting transphobic gibberish that might be another matter since my workplace is a safe and inclusive space for LGBTQIA+ people but that would be on him, not on us.

It's not really the same as for anyone else then is it? Who decides if his 'gibberish' is such that he should actually be denied medical care? Your benchmark might be different to someone else's.

I know people who work in health care and have been subject to verbal abuse and physical aggression. They would never deny someone medical care unless the abuse was intensely personal or involved physical intimidation. They certainly wouldn't refuse to do their job because someone expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Plus, refusing to do your job is different from providing goods and services in terms of discrimination law anyway.

 

[Pale Rider]

Tell Paley yourself. I'm sure he'll be amused you can't even reply to other people without mentioning him.

The power and influence is intoxicating.

Seems we are both being patted on the head and told we don't understand - another age old NACA tactic.

There is, of course, very little to understand.

In woke leftie land, freedom of speech and tolerance is only afforded to those in agreement.

Any dissidents must be stamped on.

 

[winjim]

Of course you would, there are (horrible) stories of healthcare workers having to put up with all kinds of hateful abuse from idiots on account of their gender, skin colour, sexuality etc etc.

But the saintly providers carry on regardless doing their best work.

However, that's that's not the same as provision of 'inessential' services is it??
Either legally, or even dare I say it, even 'morally'.

Indeed. Providers of other services are free to exercise discretion, particularly if other providers are available. As you pointed out, in the case of a show there are links to both the promoter and to the venue so both have rights and responsibilities. Venues carefully curate their image and decide what events to put on and what would suit their intended audience which is fine, it's how these things work.

Look at gay bars. Are they discriminatory?

 

[winjim]

How is this situation different from the Julie Bindell case? After legal advice the council admitted that the decision to cancel the booking simply because she was appearing was unlawful.

Tell Paley yourself. I'm sure he'll be amused you can't even reply to other people without mentioning him.



It's not really the same as for anyone else then is it? Who decides if his 'gibberish' is such that he should actually be denied medical care? Your benchmark might be different to someone else's.

I know people who work in health care and have been subject to verbal abuse and physical aggression. They would never deny someone medical care unless the abuse was intensely personal or involved physical intimidation. They certainly wouldn't refuse to do their job because someone expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Plus, refusing to do your job is different from providing goods and services in terms of discrimination law anyway.

Refusing to do your job is absolutely your right if you're being put in a situation where you feel uncomfortable or intimidated. You escalate it to a more senior member of staff or management. You don't leap straight to denying healthcare.

 

[mudsticks]

Indeed. Providers of other services are free to exercise discretion, particularly if other providers are available. As you pointed out, in the case of a show there are links to both the promoter and to the venue so both have rights and responsibilities. Venues carefully curate their image and decide what events to put on and what would suit their intended audience which is fine, it's how these things work.

Look at gay bars. Are they discriminatory?

Fwiw if I was asked to provision for an event, or run a teaching session for a group, whose values were clearly in antagony with my own I would say "no thanks" to that business.

If they asked why, I'd tell them.

I don't know if that would put me in a 'legal' fix or not.

Chances are it wouldn't happen - I'll let you know if it ever does 👍🏼

I've certainly run events which are exclusively women and non binary, and advertised them as such, I've never been told I'm crossing a legal line.

I don't know if gay bars can put a sign above the door saying 'Gays Only' and even if they did, how would they check.?

It's done by implication and maybe doorstaff isn't it??

Dunno, not an expert although I am close to someone who may have to be expert on all that soon - so then I'll be able to find out...

 

[theclaud]

How is this situation different from the Julie Bindell case? After legal advice the council admitted that the decision to cancel the booking simply because she was appearing was unlawful.

If you mean the Nottingham library thing, not least because (AIUI) the council prevented it from happening.

Anyway it's nice that you and Paley are teaming up on the side of Who Needs People Who Know What They're Talking About.

The Fringe is at least two things, and they are in tension. On the one hand it's an open access festival - anyone can play there if they can provide a show and find a venue to host it. On the other it's a massive commercial exploitation opportunity, dominated by four big venue conglomerates and other corporate players at the expense of independent work, workers, local communities and ordinary punters without deep pockets. If you are concerned about freedom of expression at the Fringe, perhaps you'll give us your views on, for example, the City Council doing a monopoly deal with a single print distributor which means that pretty much every surface in the city is marketized at eye-watering rates and a team of goons scouts the city for unauthorized posters. Don't give a monkeys? Thought not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes gay bars are often discriminatory. They are allowed to be under the Equality Act. The equivalent to the Linehan case is not a gay bay restricting itself to being a gay bar but rather a bar that is open to everyone chucking someone out when they realise someone is gay. One is discriminatory separation, allowed in certain cases under UK when there is a valid reason, the other is discrimination.

Refusing to do your job is absolutely your right if you're being put in a situation where you feel uncomfortable or intimidated. You escalate it to a more senior member of staff or management. You don't leap straight to denying healthcare.

It's not the same as refusing to provide goods and services because you don't like someone's previously expressed opinions though is it?

Fwiw if I was asked to provision for an event, or run a teaching session for a group, whose values were clearly in antagony with my own I would say "no thanks" to that business. If they asked why, I'd tell them.

If you are running the actual session yourself and it relies on your input, rather than just providing the room, you might be within your rights to refuse to have your services booked by a group you strongly disapprove of. It would be akin to the gay cake case perhaps.

 

[mudsticks]

Yes gay bars are often discriminatory. They are allowed to be under the Equality Act. The equivalent to the Linehan case is not a gay bay restricting itself to being a gay bar but rather a bar that is open to everyone chucking someone out when they realise someone is gay. One is discriminatory separation, allowed in certain cases under UK when there is a valid reason, the other is discrimination.

Aiui it's not ok to discriminate against someone who is gay or trans.

But it is ok to 'discriminate' against someone being transphobic, or homophobic .

All the way from chucking them out of your bar, to taking them to court.

If you are running the actual session yourself and it relies on your input, rather than just providing the room, you might be within your rights to refuse to have your services booked by a group you strongly disapprove of. It would be akin to the gay cake case perhaps.

Thing is, both you and I know that I probably would agree to run the session - and then very thoroughly re-educate* them with my 'teachings' 😇

*In fact it would be my duty as a teacher in my discipline, so to do 🙏🏼

 

[AuroraSaab]

If you mean the Nottingham library thing, not least because (AIUI) the council prevented it from happening.

Venue was booked. People complained when they found out Bindel was speaking. The council cancelled. Legal advice told them it was unlawful. Seems a straightforward comparison.

Anyway it's nice that you and Paley are teaming up on the side of Who Needs People Who Know What They're Talking About.

We are talking about discrimination under UK law, not running an arts venue. The fact it was an arts venue is irrelevant.

The Fringe is at least two things, and they are in tension. On the one hand it's an open access festival - anyone can play there if they can provide a show and find a venue to host it. On the other it's a massive commercial exploitation opportunity, dominated by four big venue conglomerates and other corporate players at the expense of independent work, workers, local communities and ordinary punters without deep pockets. If you are concerned about freedom of expression at the Fringe, perhaps you'll give us your views on, for example, the City Council doing a monopoly deal with a single print distributor which means that pretty much every surface in the city is marketized at eye-watering rates and a team of goons scouts the city for unauthorized posters. Don't give a monkeys? Thought not.

Leaving aside that it's possible to be concerned about two things at once, this is just whataboutery and irrelevant to the specific topic being discussed.

 

[winjim]

I'm talking about forcing a gay bar to host a non gay friendly show.

 

[winjim]

I can't quite believe we're having this conversation. Linehan's a nasty piece of work. F*ck him all the way to hell.

 

[mudsticks]

I'm talking about forcing a gay bar to host a non gay friendly show.

And how is that plan coming along, Jimbo??
🙄