On 10/04/2016 07:20, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/9/16 11:01 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
One could mention sodomy laws in Texas; we have met in Houstaon and
Dalls, I believe, there times.
That goes, I think, to the question of unenforceable laws
(Lawrence v. Texas). I'm interested in the question of where
the line is between issues that the IETF needs to deal with
and matters of personal conscience, and I tend to think it
comes down to questions of whether or not meeting participants
will be treated equally when it comes to public accommodation,
etc.
I think that's the point, and unfortunately, like so many things, it
ends up as a judgment call.
Are transgender people treated equally when getting haircuts? Not always,
it turns out:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11618046
Does this disqualify Auckland? Probably not, and it's less serious than
being denied a hotel room or worse. But my point is: this issue just goes
in the balance along with everything else, and the problem here seems to be
that the IAOC overlooked it. I sympathise, because I'd probably have
overlooked it too.
otoh, the IETF boycotting SG would not have the same impact as Springsteen
boycotting NC.
Brian
As we're seeing, businesses are responding to the recent spate of
anti-gay legislation and transphobic potty laws by announcing that
they're not opening planned facilities in those states, not allowing
their employees to take business travel there, and so on. So, there's
an actual question about whether or not the IETF would be able to
meet in a place that's recently passed anti-gay legislation, given
some corporate travel restrictions. As far as I know there are
no corporate bans on travel to Singapore, but civil liberties
organizations like Civil Rights Watch have identified Singapore as
a place where LGBT people still face active legal discrimination
and it seems clear that there's a legitimate question about what
sort of treatment some meeting participants can expect to receive.
Melinda