Today brings another triumph for the invasive laws of the left, as Peter and Hazel Bull were successfully sued by Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy for £2,600 (£1,800 each) courtesy of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. To summarise the case Mr & Mrs Bull, the owners of Chymorvah Private Hotel, refused a double room to the civil partners on the grounds that they don't believe in sex before marriage, and I infer therefore that they do not view civil partnerships in the same light as marriage.
Sky News - Gay Couple Win Discrimination Case
Now I don't really care what Mr & Mrs Bulls religious beliefs are, or whether or not the "victims" were civil partners, married, engaged or a dude with a sex doll; my real concern here is that according to this ruling we can no longer choose to associate or sell our labour/goods to whoever we prefer. That everyone must treat everybody else exactly the same, despite our human prejudices and preferences.
Don't misunderstand me (any lefties who come across this), I'm a very open minded individual and couldn't care less about people’s sexual preferences, skin colour or anything other human distinctions the activists keep drawing attention too. If i were running the hotel I would have let them stay, but this isn't the point, the key issue is why should one group be made to suffer to satisfy another? By what standard does one decide that the life style of Mr Hall & Mr Preddy should be given precedent over that of Mr & Mrs Bull? (this is even more perplexing when you look at it from perspective that 'everybody is equal')
I personally find it impossible to make a decision about who should be given precedent, leading to the conclusion that neither of them should be (true equality). Yet under the courts line of thinking it seems that some people are more equal than others, but there was a much better solution to this problem; the free market (yup that favourite problem solver of mine!).
With the free market nobody is given preference over another (no hypocritical 'equal rights' laws), people simply act in accordance with their own beliefs weighed up again their wants/needs. The aim of a business is to make money (people who own them want to make money), obviously you will make the most by granting access to the largest customer base, that includes doing business with people of all colours, genders, sexual preferences, etc. A company which does this makes the most money, one which doesn't loses out on earnings (which equates to a loss of wages, profits, business stability, etc), so Mr & Mrs Bull would be paying a premium for discriminating against their customers.
To summarise, under a free market people who choose to discriminate pay a premium for their choices (unable to pay themselves as high a salary as other, non-discriminating, companies). This may lead to some people changing their policies, to avoid losing their business, and those that don't have not had their freedoms and private properties infringed upon by the government. A win - win situation. This reminds me of a similar argument for equal pay, which Milton Friedman sorts out quite nicely (watch 3.30).
No comments:
Post a Comment