Something escaped me when I read Bruce’s post on the Australia restaurant “refused a blind man entry because a waiter thought his guide dog was “’gay’”. It hadn’t registered when I first read the post that a government panel is requiring that the bozos at the restaurant pay a fine for their strange behavior:
The Equal Opportunity Tribunal ruled that the Thai Spice restaurant in Adelaide must pay Ian Jolly [blind man] almost $1,400 for barring him from eating because of confusion about the sexuality of his guide dog, Nudge. . . .
The tribunal ruled that on top of the fine, workers at the restaurant — which reportedly displays a “guide dogs welcome” sign — must send Jolly a written apology and attend an Equal Opportunity education course.
Now, of course, Bruce had all this stuff in his post, but I focused more on his clever concluding comment than on the statist aspect of this action.
And as I read it again and check it against other coverage of the event, this state-sanctioned punishment strikes me as silly as the exclusion. I would never patronize a restaurant which refused to serve a blind man because he had a gay guide dog. I believe that people should “punish” the restaurant by similarly refusing to eat there. But, that punishment is not the province of the state.
But, now we’ve got a state tribunal requiring the restaurant and its employees to (1) pay a fine; (2) issue an apology and (3) attend an education course. Seems like someone is carrying things just a little too far. But, then, state officials don’t want to be seen as anything less than perfectly PC.