In Britain we have something called Equality Act, a piece of legislation which aims to protect people with a range of characteristics and provide “equal opportunity” for all citizens of Britain. This is the legislation which is used to make businesses pay men and women the same and force Christian bakers to bake gay-themed wedding cakes. Of course, the attentive reader may smell a rat: is it really possible to even out the playing field such that everyone is, indeed, offered the same opportunities by society? And should we?
The Act requires businesses and public institutions to make “reasonable adjustments” to accommodate those less able, to ensure they have as close as possible to equal access to places and experiences as possible. So, there must be a ramp to access your offices, rather than just stairs. Blind people’s guide dogs must be allowed into restaurants. And so on.
A recent case made the news: Sally Reynolds, who is deaf, wanted to accompany her eight-year old daughter to a concert by teenage pop band Little Mix. As a deaf person, it goes without saying, the experience of going to a concert is a bit different from people of normal hearing. But as legislation requires businesses to make “reasonable adjustments” to accommodate disabled people, Ms Reynolds decided to ask the concert’s promoters, LGH Live, to provide a sign language interpreter, to translate Little Mix’s (quite bland) lyrics for her enjoyment. When she met resistance, she upped the ante with threat of legal action, resulting in the promoter panicking and offering her and her family specific staging and lighting, and a set list in advance. Unfortunately, the warm-up acts were not translated, so Ms Reynolds sued anyway, alleging that when she had paid for her ticket she was entitled to partake in the experience of the whole concert, not just the main act. Of course, it is true she paid for her ticket just like everyone else. But she got services worth a lot more, given the special treatment she required. In fact, it was undoubtedly a significantly loss-making event for LGH Live when she booked her ticket – hardly the purpose of laying on the concert. The consequence: in the future, other tickets will be more expensive, to make allowances to accommodate those who need special treatment.
This is the type of law which breeds resentment. Some businesses may be able to survive by passing cost on to other customers; others may fold under the financial strain of meeting the standards required by legislation. Undoubtedly, cases will mushroom as more and more people claim to be unfairly advantaged.
Because, really, where does this type of thinking stop? So far, legislation only protects certain characteristics, such as disability, sex and race, but we are unequal in so many other ways. If a concert is in London and I live in Leeds, it is more difficult for me to attend. Should promoters pay for my travel and accommodation as reparations for not staging a show in my neighbourhood? If I am fat, sport is less enjoyable. Am I entitled to compensation? Unattractive, unemployed people typically don’t date super models. Must footballers and actors compensate them because they have more choice in women? The fact is, we are not equal, and the law can’t make us so. The Equality Act is an attempt at making some disadvantages less of an obstacle, but each of us are unique in ability and circumstance and no amount of pandering to social justice can change the fact that life’s big events are shaped by a reality which legislation is powerless to alter.
What’s more, a business does not have specific “social responsibilities”. Its responsibility is to make a profit, and it just so happens that to do so it must serve its customers: that is the social benefit of business. Shareholders may well instruct a company to incorporate non-profit seeking goals in its mission, such as being environmentally friendly or accommodating towards people with certain disadvantages. Or they may do so because to have such aims are commercially attractive, because they are valued by customers. That’s the market place: it meets customer demands, and as such, there is also a “market in social justice”. But it is not, and should never be, a requirement set in law that they have any such responsibilities.