Years ago, I worked in the adoption service, where it was my job to interview couples who wanted to adopt. As the government agency for child protection, it was our duty to ensure the child’s safety and to approve all suitable applicants without prejudice. (Very few were turned down.)
The criteria were different for the birth mother. Trusting that we had screened for safety, she was free to be as prejudiced as she liked when choosing parents for her precious child. One woman refused to consider anyone who wore glasses. To be clear, she was perfectly within her rights to choose on this basis, just as it would have been wrong for our agency to turn down any applicants for that reason. The difference is that she was making a personal choice, whereas we were acting on behalf of the state.
In the same way, it would be unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the grounds of height, hair colour, race or gender, but no individual is forced to be an equal-opportunities lover. People are allowed their personal preferences. In sports terms, you might wear the colours of your favourite team and even boo the opposition, but you expect the referee to apply the same rules to both teams.
I find these analogies helpful when considering such things as democracy and free speech. In a free society, individuals can express any opinion. They can be as partisan as team supporters. Equally, others have the right to criticise those opinions and even exclude those people from their private domains. But those in professional roles, such as police, state journalists and civil servants must be like referees, upholding the rules to keep everyone safe. Things go awry when the roles of partisan and referee get confused.
Stephanie Hills ©