Lesbian Sandwich Questions

Whether they’ll admit it or not, being the meat in a lesbian sandwich is a fantasy of most straight males. However, even most straight guys would be angered if the local Department of Health asked nosy questions about their private sexual habits and preferences. From pinknews:

A newsagent was shocked this week after being asked to disclose her sexuality when completing a form related to selling sandwiches.

Aruna Majevadia, had been providing sandwiches in her Brighton shop for two years, but was amazed when the council sent her a form to complete regarding hygiene standards, which asked for her nationality, religion and sexuality.

She told The Argus, “I was flabbergasted. I filled in the form because I didn’t want the council to stop me selling sandwiches. The last question asked me whether I was bisexual, heterosexual or lesbian. That threw me.

“What has my sexuality or nationality got to do with selling sandwiches? I’m normally a jolly person but this brought me down. I’m just a single mum trying to earn a living.”

George Bernard Shaw is attributed with, “An American has no sense of privacy. He does not know what it means.There is no such thing in the country.”

I guess the same holds true on the other side of the pond, too. BTW, if you are GBLT friendly and tired of the Democrats dissing you and your issues, here’s a great solution for you.

posted May 13th, 2006 by Stephen Gordon
  • undercover_anarchist

    I signed my first professional contract not long ago. Part of the contract says that I have to disclose all political contributions and that our company’s contributions must be “balanced” (I’m assuming that this doesn’t include the LP, etc.) Theoretically, I could be fired if I insisited on contributing $2000 to every Democratic candidate within the state because this would cause great “imbalance” for our firm. Effectively, this bars employees from making any such contributions.

    I think this is an invasion of privacy, stepping well beyond the realm of an employer’s authority. I mentioned it to the chairman of my state LP, and he said, “Well, that’s private. Your boss can say ‘I don’t want you showing up drunk, and I don’t want you showing up libertarian, and there’s nothing wrong with that.’” I don’t agree. And to clarify: This is NOT a government job. It is a private company. This article seemed to relate to my situation.

  • Devious David

    Looks like they might have had the opportunity to discriminate based on any of those factors. Then they decided to tack that last question on so that they can discriminate on that too. This is just one reason why business licensure is not just facistic, but downright deplorable and discriminatory.

    For you “reformers” out there, how about getting a “shall issue” licensure bill passed? And a license privacy act?

  • Devious David

    undercover, I agree with your state LP chairman. He’s right. As a condition of your contract, which you VOLUNTARILY agreed to, you have an obligation to uphold. It’s the same as you not letting smokers in your home – as a condition of their coming inside, you don’t allow them to smoke and they voluntarily agree to it.

    Now, if government were to do the same thing… this would be different of course.

  • Mike G

    Two years ago at a Christmas party I had jello-shots made by a gay dude. They tasted no different than if they wouldve been made by a straight dude….

  • undercover_anarchist

    David: Yes, I voluntarily signed the contract. I’m not going to make a fuss. However, according to the Civil Rights Act (if not libertarian doctrine) do I not possess some civil rights that my employer is bound to respect? I can say “No Christians inside my home,” but I cannot say “No Christians inside my business” or “Hiring: Christians Need Not Apply.” Furthermore, what else can my employer prohibit me from doing on my own (very limited) free time? Could he prohibit me from owning a gun? If not, then why should the second amendment be more cherished than the first?

    In truth: I’m not really upset about it. In fact, it will let me off the hook from donating to campaigns! :) But blame it on my residual leftistness, I’m a little uncomfortable with an employer regulating the lives of employees outside of the place and hours of employment. I mean, by your reasoning, there is no qualms with the employer’s position in this blog article either, right? Thanks for listening.

  • Stephen Gordon

    LOL Mike — but I’m afraid to ask too much about those particular shooters

  • Devious David

    I didn’t ENDORSE the employer’s position! You made an agreement and were in full knowledge and understanding when you made the agreement. And this deal with “home” and “business”? It’s still private property. Any attempt at distinguishing between the two whilst ignoring private property is dangerous. What about people whose business is at home? These distinctions can become thin and tenuous. If we take a step back and understand that “it’s private property, stupid”, then we see that for these purposes there really is no difference. Nor should there be.

    Being “of the hook” with contributions is not a good thing! I’m not accusing you (you are off the hook), but I am sick and tired of people talking the talk and filling the room with hot air but refusing to take action or put their money where their mouths are. Talk really is cheap and libertarians are no different than anybody else where that is concerned it seems. In fact libertarians are probably on average more full of more hot air.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Well, sir, I have donated far more of my fair share of money and time. I have even been a candidate in the past, at the ripe old age of 25. My assertion that I was now “off the hook” was just me trying to put a positive spin on the situation, hence the :)

    Secondly, you can say that there’s no distinction between a private home and a “private” business, but the law disagrees. Maybe my “Christian” example didn’t make it clear, but as per the Civil Rights Act, a business that is open to the public cannot, for example, bar Blacks from entering its doors. An individual can, of course, bar Blacks from entering his or her home. There is a legal distinction between a “private” business open to the public, and a private home.

    Again, I’m happy with my employer. But I think a law establishing the right of an individual’s free political expression shall not be infringed upon by his or her employer, would not be entirely inappropriate.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    I agree with undercover – allowing discrimination in venues open to the public, I believe, goes against libertarianism, or at least my interpretation of it.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Now let me just reiterate, that I do not feel put upon, downtrodden or “discriminated against.” My not being able to give $200 to Sue Jeffers is not nearly the same thing as being told “they won’t seat my kind” or being denied an apartment because of my race, etc. As for whether or not the Civil Rights Act goes with libertarianism, that is a separate debate. I might be inclined to say that it doesn’t, and yet, I still believe it is a good thing.

  • Devious David

    Again, I did not levy any accusation. It was a digression that was not at all meant to reflect upon you. I was taking a shot at people that like to talk the talk, but… you know.

    As for the law, it also disagrees that you can smoke pot or own private property that a developer wants. The Civil Rights Act was a piece of judicial activism by the Warren Court. It should be repealed immediately. If your business wished to discriminate against anyone, be they a group or individual as far as I am concerned, it is acceptable. Stupid, probably in most cases, but acceptable and it should be legal. Let me reiterate – it is very dangerous to get into definitions of “public accesibility” when such definitions can be tenuous and difficult – often to the individuals detriment.

    Your idea of using the law to compel your lawyer into accepting your political ideas is wrongheaded and naive (pardon me). We should know who/how the law is written, interpreted and enforced to know this is inherently bad.

  • undercover_anarchist

    David: I understand where you are coming from. You may disagree with my position, but also understand where I am coming from. I don’t think my employer should be allowed to restrict my free speech outside of the hours and place of employment, and libertarians are fond of believing that money is speech. Regardless of its “unlibertarianness,” I will not be one to advocate for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act.

    Why is it that libertarians oppose the Civil Rights Act on the basis of property rights, and yet now those same libertarians want to infringe on the property rights of business owners who choose to practice affirmative action in hiring? Only the federal government and other corporate welfare queens are bound by Nixon’s executive order, and yet many more businesses practice affirmative action because they find a benefit in maintaining a diverse workforce.

    Taking this discussion into matters of race, I’m tired of tears being shed for me, the poor white man. I am no victim.

  • Devious David

    Property rights are but a part of my opposition to the Civil Rights Act, not the parcel. The fairweather libertarian position of supporting such an abomination is inconsistent with the libertarian philosophy and for that matter, peripheral positions that a libertarian would accept such as Constitutionalism. Money is a medium of exchange and store of wealth, not free speech. If libertarians are willing to accept “unlibertarian” positions which are fundamentally unlibertarian, then they will likely never achieve a decidedly libertarian society. Everyone would have a pet “unlibertarian” position which they could identify as such. Politics being what they are, everyone would get their pet legislation and said libertarian society would never materialize. We already live in that fairweather libertarian world, in other words.

    I (at least) am consistent in my support of businesses being able to discriminate. I thought I made that clear in my prior post.

  • Devious David

    Affirmative action and “diversity” are politically correct terms and policies that are used to justify discrimination and subvert your Civil Rights Act. Pretty typical of liberal style logic – Force people into compliance of your sense of right and when that conflicts with your sense of right, intervene once more to “correct” the inconsistency to your liking, however that may be arbitrarily defined. Diverse work places should naturally happen on basis of merit, not government fiat. In particular within government – private businesses have their own prerogative.

  • undercover_anarchist

    When libertarians oppose campaign finace restrictions, they always say it is a matter of speech. Now when my employer places its own throrough restrictions, it is not speech?

    I’m not saying I’m pro-affirmative action. I’m saying that libertarians and conservatives were pro-racial preferences when white men were the beneficiaries, and now they’re not. I’m also saying that in terms of injustices, affirmative action ranks in the bottom centile.

    I said you were being consistent, dude, chill. I’m acknowledging my inconsistency. I see libertarians with anti-libertarian positions on a whole range of much more serious issues: immigration, trade, hawkish foreign policy, anti-choice, anti-gay, etc., etc., etc.

    And I’m not so sure that the distinction between something truly private (a home or social club) and something open to the public (a business) is as blurry as you imply. If I’m going to be crucified as a statist, I would be happy for it to be in standing up for the Civil Rights Act.

  • John G4lt

    Here’s another bone to throw in the fray: In Idaho, a judge can throw out a contact as “unconscionable”. I’d bet that most states have similar statutes/jurisprudence. Yes, once you signed the contract, you are OBLIGATED to follow it, but you may have recourse if you didn’t and the contract was found to be an unconscionable infringement of your natural rights

  • undercover_anarchist

    Mr. Galt: I find that perfectly acceptable. There are some rights that one cannot surrender. One cannot, for example, sell onseself in to slavery. And yet I’m sure that there are libertarians who believe that one should be able to, as well as sell themselves into human sacrifice, etc.

    A contract is not a written document. A contract is a legally binding agreement enforced by the courts. A) If one party doesn’t fully understand the contract, then those portions that the party doesn’t comprehend are not necessarily legally binding. B) Any contract a court refuses to enforce is not a contract at all.

    These are not opinions.

    Libertarians love “property rights.” And yet “property” is a social construct, enforced by the state (or by force) through the courts. We accept this “statism” as a necessary, even good, thing. Why then can we not accept what is now essentially common law: That individuals shall not be discriminated against in public accomodations or employment on the basis of race?

  • Devious David

    There are situations where one counterparty to a contract has recourse. One situation where the contract would be void is when the counterparty was at a significant or distinct disadvantage when they entered the agreement. And example of this would be the Constitution. How is the counterparty (The People) supposed to seek recourse in the event that the other counterparty (The State) defaults on it’s part of the agreement? We see the answer fully. The State is always total, and The People have no legal action to take against it when it violates the compact. There is no higher authority to go to arbitrate the dispute. For this reason (and a myriad others), I find constitutionalist statists to be naive people. I’m all for The State adhering to The Constitution strictly, but I am no constitutionalist.

    The State is not necessary for private property.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Devious Dave: I completely agree with your first paragraph. The Constitution is a (hypothetical, and ultimately as you point out, unenforceable) limit on government, not a sacred piece of parchment to be deified.

    The state is absolutely necessary for the enforcement of private property beyond that which one can personally defend, or defend with in confederation of others. As a (philosophical) anarchist, I see a stateless society as when where the only rights individuals ultimately posses–including property–are those rights which they can defend. Without the state, who is to grant me a patent? Who is to say that I own these 100 acres and the minerals under the ground?

    Some old time French anarchist said, “History’s greatest villain is he who first grabbed a rock and said ‘this is mine.’ The second greatest is the fool who believed him.”

    Property is essentially an artificial, legal construct. The state has always enforced it since it was first defined.