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 > >