| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
You misspelled "immigrants," by the way.  I honestly cannot tell if that was intentional however, lol.Intentional, quoting Moe from the Simpsons. Episode 3f20 'Much Apu About Nothing' fyi. "Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them." | ||
|
TheWorldToCome
United States452 Posts
It's a private property issue. | ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
"We have the right to refuse business to anyone." | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
If the business discriminates based on race, gender, or disability then there is the possibility that the business could be taken to court over the matter. (Though could you imagine someone trying to sue over Ladies Night? They would get laughed right of the court room) | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:43 TheWorldToCome wrote: If your business is a private business and on your private property you can allow or disallow anyone you want based on whatever you want. Just like you can allow or disallow anyone you want into your private home. It's a private property issue. So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://hannahsarahlewis.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/no-colored-allowed-black-americana-cast-iron-sign-10x4_220665307171.jpg) | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
Example: in 2010 the CBC started kicking up a fuss because home insurance companies were using their customers' credit ratings to determine their rates: The funny thing about it was that it was already illegal for car insurance companies to discriminate based on credit rating in certain provinces. Why the disconnect? If a car insurance company can't make the (actuarially reasonable) assumption that you're going to make claims because you're a deadbeat, why can a home insurance company? Also, you might remember we all laughed at the guy who wrote a nasty letter to his car insurance company for giving him a higher quote because he was male but the European Court agrees with him. TLDR: it's complicated | ||
|
VayneAuthority
United States8983 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:49 sc4k wrote: So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler + If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this | ||
|
MooseyFate
United States237 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:49 sc4k wrote: So you are okay with this? You can't see why there would be any reason for a civilised responsible society to prevent this sort of thing?: + Show Spoiler + If the owner of a private business is dumb enough to put up that sign, then he can deal with the consequences. Anyone who isn't an ignorant racist would boycott the business and they would no longer be a business. It's that simple. Society as a whole isn't that stupid. We don't need the government to bubble wrap everything in the world so that no one ever gets offended by anything ever again. If someone wants to discriminate against people who don't tie their shoes in a certain fashion, they can. But everyone has just as much right to call them out on their ignorant bullshit and not give them their money. Let the people speak for themselves (democracy) instead of forcing people to hold to a government prescribed morality. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote: If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this Actually, the ambiguity of our laws and the necessity for contextual interpretation is one of their greatest strengths, but that is neither here nor there. A public storefront and a private home are different entities; a store might be private property but if it is open to the general public for business different rules apply, i.e. the civil rights act of 1964. If the bakery owner wishes to change his business to an entirely private affair without an open storefront and accordingly deny gays wedding cakes, that is his right. But the matter becomes more complicated if his business is to remain open to the public. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote: If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. You are trying to make out like there are no other social issues at play here, but there are. Have you studied anything about the history of racism in your country? It's not about the simple legal right to prevent access to your property. On January 19 2013 02:59 MooseyFate wrote: We don't need the government to bubble wrap everything in the world so that no one ever gets offended by anything ever again. You can't seriously think that outlawing 'no coloureds allowed' signs is bubble wrapping 'everything in the world'. This isn't just about offence. It speaks to the history of your country, the goals of a civilised country, the desire for everyone to suppress racist provocation. Your approach is extremely insensitive and unsophisticated, in my opinion. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote: If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this What kind of comparison is that lmao. That's not discrimination, you have the right to remove EVERYONE from your property. If it was only black people, then yeah, shit would hit the fan. If it holds for everyone, we meet a mutual acceptance, and people are happy with it because "I wont go in peoples' houses, and they wont go into mine, sounds good". If it was "white people can come into my house, and I can't come into theirs". That's when it gets bad. A balance of fairness and equality must be there. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept? | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:47 heroyi wrote: Sucks but it is a right for the owner of the business. "We have the right to refuse business to anyone." That doesn't mean what you think it does. It is illegal to refuse service based on race, color, religion, sex or disability. In some states it goes even further including sexual orientation. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:09 cLAN.Anax wrote: To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept? As far as I'm concerned, the "discount" nature of those mild forms of discrimination changes the manner in which they are legally regarded; if the general public is still offered a normal, unchanged price for goods and services, than preferential discounts are probably ok. In the case of the smoothie shop, the fact that political inclination possibly entails a fee or a higher than baseline price if one belongs to a particular group seems like obvious evidence of an illegally discriminatory business practice. And outright refusal of business in the case of the bakery owner seems utterly inexcusable, at least if the business is to be open to the public. Ultimately, it is the legal recognition of a private business entity's being "open to the public" that is most important here. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:09 cLAN.Anax wrote: To those who support: Are there certain aspects that some would prejudice against (namely gender or race) that you believe would prove more harmful to society than the freedom to discriminate is worth? To those who oppose: What is your opinion on discounts, like those offered to senior citizens, students, and members of the armed forces? It is necessarily discrimination (albeit more positive discrimination), but is that a form of discrimination you would accept? There is certain "discrimination" we tolerate, because our beliefs and values give us respect for certain people and we feel they deserve to be rewarded. This like you said includes senior citizen, and retired military. If you look a couple hundred years back, a portion of the people in the US believed they were better than black people, and deserved more, just as Hitler believed his "Aryan Race" was better and deserved more. Don't really understand why people are trying to make this complicated when it isn't. Severe inequality leads to Racism, Religious Intolerence, and Political View Intolerence. This eventually leads to extreme nationalism and violence. Nothing else can really be added to this situation, logically looking at it, there's no real other outcomes. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4751 Posts
| ||
|
PassionFruit
294 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:54 VayneAuthority wrote: If there is a black guy in your house and you don't want him there, believe it or not you have the right to get him removed from your property. It is no different here. Please try strolling into people's homes and claiming you have a right to be there and see what happens. If the guy owns the land the bakery is on, he can have anyone removed from there that he wants. Thats why our laws are pretty terrible, since there is so much overlap and gray area in things like this lol that's not a gray area. Private business "open to the public" =/= private homeowner living in the privacy of his home. The only gray area is how to define "open to the public," not whether the two situations should be treated the same way. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:19 Silvanel wrote: It is my belive that private buisness should be able to discimanate any way it wants. Be it skin color, faith, height, weight, color of pants, or ability to integrate. It should however lose this right, if its owned by governemnt (even in 0,001%), is benefiting from governemnt grants, or grants by governemnt sponsored organization, or benefiting from any tax reduction or exemption which purpose might be in contradiction with such discrimantion. In a situation where many believe that big multi-national companies have enough money to "buy" spots in government, I'm sure it happens to an extent, to how much, I don't know. This seems like an awful idea. Crazy people running the show can do lots of harm, only way against this would be people constantly campaigning against companies with such policy, which just defeats the purpose. | ||
|
GnarlyArbitrage
575 Posts
| ||
| ||
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Playoffs Day 4
Clem vs SHINLIVE!
MaxPax vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  45281Calm  4689Horang2 1853EffOrt 1485Jaedong 1230Mini 620Light  504firebathero 407ZerO 367actioN 306[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Ladder Legends
Solar vs GgMaChine
Bunny vs Cham
ByuN vs MaxPax
BSL
CranKy Ducklings
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs hero
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs YSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
