boyfriday Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 The state interferes though, with all the equalities bills and Human rights legislation and so on. That's generally to prevent organisations discriminating against individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 That's generally to prevent organisations discriminating against individuals. Then why include the small business person with one guest house in this "state dictatorship?" Whatever happened to the freedom of the individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 Then why include the small business person in this "state dictatorship?" Not really sure what you're getting at Grahame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 Not really sure what you're getting at Grahame No, you never are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 No, you never are. You were previously berating me for taking the thread off topic, I'm just not sure what the connection is between small businesses, the state, and cousins marrying each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 when you run a business, even a small one you assume the rights and responsibilities of running a business, when these conflict with your rights as an individual the business rights win you can always reassume these individual rights by stopping being a business but I have to admit I'm not sure where you are going with this point, it seems to have little to do with whether it is time to ban first cousin marriage or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 when you run a business, even a small one you assume the rights and responsibilities of running a business, when these conflict with your rights as an individual the business rights win you can always reassume these individual rights by stopping being a business but I have to admit I'm not sure where you are going with this point, it seems to have little to do with whether it is time to ban first cousin marriage or not The state, and I used the NHS as an example, have a benevolent interest in the nations health and if they did an objective survey that showed marriage between cousins could have dire consequences for the nations health, then I would hope the government would be advised and take the appropriate measures for this (if proven) ill advised practise. While recognising the positive benefits of genuine government involvement in the welfare of it's people I fail to see how government interference in a privately run business is beneficial and can only imo fan the flames of discontent fuelled by a minority of people who insist on the right to stay the night in a B&B where they are not welcome. On the one hand we can perhaps see positive health benefits which the government are not attending to while they vigilantly use a sledgehammer so people can have their tiny little way like spoiled children so that they get their so-called rights while the owners feelings are completely disregarded. If it were a large corporation I could understand but not a small business venture and I am led to understand there is a distinction between to two. In other words government involvement should improve the quality of life for people generally rather than favouring one small section whose health and welfare is not affected either way. To my mind, that is bad government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 The state, and I used the NHS as an example, have a benevolent interest in the nations health and if they did an objective survey that showed marriage between cousins could have dire consequences for the nations health, then I would hope the government would be advised and take the appropriate measures for this (if proven) ill advised practise. But there are other health issues that have far more social and financial implications on society than the relatively small risk of problems with cousins marrying. What do you think the consequences on fiscal expenditure and longevity are of alcohol, smoking and obesity? Yet it isn't illegal to drink, smoke or eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 But there are other health issues that have far more social and financial implications on society than the relatively small risk of problems with cousins marrying. What do you think the consequences on fiscal expenditure and longevity are of alcohol, smoking and obesity? Yet it isn't illegal to drink, smoke or eat. True and they need sorting. All I am saying is that people need to get their priorities in order so that the issues presented in that program cease to be a problem. Please don't lets blur the issue like you are doing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 True and they need sorting. All I am saying is that people need to get their priorities in order so that the mentally and physically handicapped people I saw in that program should be entitled to every bit of help that can be offered them and please don't lets blur the issue like you are doing here. That's fine, but I'm not clear whether you're supporting a ban on first cousin marriages or just advising caution? If the latter then I'm in agreement with you. By the way, I'll not blur the issue by talking about the rights of B&B owners and who they can legitimately refuse to accommodate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.