| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SpiZz
112 Posts
On January 19 2013 02:36 SgtCoDFish wrote: Discriminating against people for the way they were born (i.e. homophobia, racism, sexism) is stupid as fuck and should never be allowed, customer or not. That's it. All the people who say "Oh, the owner of the shop can do whatever he wants ..." directly admit that they support racism, sexism etc. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:30 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: If an entire sector or something all asked what your political affiliation was and wanted proof, and this service was a "basic necessity", would that be considered an invasion of privacy? What if I don't want people to know my political standing, but I must use their services or someone else's in the industries? I mean, sure, I can not buy a car, have insurance and inspection, but I live in a city where I need a car to get around. I'm almost certain that such a practice would be found illegal, though I am not familiar with any precedent on the matter. | ||
|
MooseyFate
United States237 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:03 sc4k wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. 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. How so? Because I think the public is intelligent enough to make this decision themselves instead of having the government mandate it? Let me say this: I do NOT think it is acceptable in any way to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin/nationality/sexual orientation or anything like that. But I also don't think it is necessary to have the government step in and prevent someone from hanging a sign that says "No one with Blue Eyes allowed!". I have faith in my fellow man that they will see how ridiculous such thing is and anyone without their head up their ass will realize such things are no longer tolerated. And those folks with their heads sufficiently up their own sphincter aren't gonna listen to the government anyway. Also, please don't assume I (or anyone from the US) don't know anything about the racist past of the US. I don't assume that you don't know about the massive amounts of racism still present in the UK, and the massive amounts of racism in its past. Suffice it to say, your shit also stinks, so lets keep the criticism with the subject at hand and not where I was born. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:31 SpiZz wrote: That's it. All the people who say "Oh, the owner of the shop can do whatever he wants ..." directly admit that they support racism, sexism etc. but if he does it, and people protest it, then the community discusses it and thinks about it, isn't that progress? | ||
|
Hodgyy
138 Posts
| ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:16 farvacola wrote: 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. But how do you objectively interpret those discounts or price increases? I mean, what if the price in the smoothie shop is "always" $5.95, but he offers conservatives a one dollar discount? (I'm aware that this is not the case in this instance as the owner specifically said "liberals pay one dollar extra," but hopefully I'm making my point. What if these "increases" for some are supposed to actually be seen as "discounts" for the other?) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:33 MooseyFate wrote: How so? Because I think the public is intelligent enough to make this decision themselves instead of having the government mandate it? Let me say this: I do NOT think it is acceptable in any way to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin/nationality/sexual orientation or anything like that. But I also don't think it is necessary to have the government step in and prevent someone from hanging a sign that says "No one with Blue Eyes allowed!". I have faith in my fellow man that they will see how ridiculous such thing is and anyone without their head up their ass will realize such things are no longer tolerated. And those folks with their heads sufficiently up their own sphincter aren't gonna listen to the government anyway. Also, please don't assume I (or anyone from the US) don't know anything about the racist past of the US. I don't assume that you don't know about the massive amounts of racism still present in the UK, and the massive amounts of racism in its past. Suffice it to say, your shit also stinks, so lets keep the criticism with the subject at hand and not where I was born. How could he not assume that you don't know a thing about the racist past of the United States when you claim to "have faith in my fellow man" in regards to discriminatory business practice? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is literally a legislative denial of the notion that "faith in my fellow man" is enough when it comes to societal toleration of discrimination. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:31 SpiZz wrote: That's it. All the people who say "Oh, the owner of the shop can do whatever he wants ..." directly admit that they support racism, sexism etc. What an absurdly ridiculous statement, obviously with no basis in logic or reality. Some people value human rights and freedom of opinion and belief. The fact that you feel the need to try and incite a feeling of guilt in people who read this atrocity of a post is pathetic. Letting ignorant bigots be ignorant bigots will prove itself far more beneficial in the long run than censorship. If their views and beliefs prove to be antiquated or otherwise deemed unworthy by the community, the respective people will just fall to the wayside and fade into irrelevance. But that doesn't lend itself to as much abuse as censorship would, since in one case it's the general population that gets to dictate what happens to the person, and in an indirect fashion (such as not buying their product or service and boycotting their activity, as opposed to outright fining or jailing them) whereas in the other whoever is in charge can get to a point where they dictate what you can and can't say. -_- | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:41 cLAN.Anax wrote: But how do you objectively interpret those discounts or price increases? I mean, what if the price in the smoothie shop is "always" $5.95, but he offers conservatives a one dollar discount? (I'm aware that this is not the case in this instance as the owner specifically said "liberals pay one dollar extra," but hopefully I'm making my point. What if these "increases" for some are supposed to actually be seen as "discounts" for the other?) The "frustration fee" that an Australian electronics retailer charges for IE7 users could (as I suggested in my response to that topic) be easily turned around and presented more positively as a discount for people who use up-to-date browsers. Similarly the "cash discounts" offered at retail establishments are actually the real price of the goods in question, with the retailer not adding a small mark-up to offset charges from their credit card provider. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
Assuming people agree with this scenario, I think it can be expanded to all viewpoints, even ones we may find distasteful, such as anti-homosexual views. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:41 cLAN.Anax wrote: But how do you objectively interpret those discounts or price increases? I mean, what if the price in the smoothie shop is "always" $5.95, but he offers conservatives a one dollar discount? (I'm aware that this is not the case in this instance as the owner specifically said "liberals pay one dollar extra," but hopefully I'm making my point. What if these "increases" for some are supposed to actually be seen as "discounts" for the other?) Well this is where the legal concepts of "fair" and "reasonable" are to be regarded with a great deal of importance, or else that sort of price wangling will occur. In keeping with the history of the genesis of legal precedent, I can only assume that it would be a matter of time before a case with exactly the sort of behavior you describe comes before the Supreme Court, and I think they would come to the conclusion that arbitrary price manipulation in pursuit of discriminatory business practice is illegal. Giving some women half off drinks seems far more legally defensible than coming up with some sort of silly pricing scheme in order to charge people of a certain identification more money. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote: What an absurdly ridiculous statement, obviously with no basis in logic or reality. Some people value human rights and freedom of opinion and belief. The fact that you feel the need to try and incite a feeling of guilt in people who read this atrocity of a post is pathetic. Letting ignorant bigots be ignorant bigots will prove itself far more beneficial in the long run than censorship. If their views and beliefs prove to be antiquated or otherwise deemed unworthy by the community, the respective people will just fall to the wayside and fade into irrelevance. But that doesn't lend itself to as much abuse as censorship would, since in one case it's the general population that gets to dictate what happens to the person, and in an indirect fashion (such as not buying their product or service and boycotting their activity, as opposed to outright fining or jailing them) whereas in the other whoever is in charge can get to a point where they dictate what you can and can't say. -_- The history of the United States tells us this is simply not true. And, in the US, our legal system relies on historical precedent. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:41 Hodgyy wrote: So, if a man comes into my store, shit faced and half gone. I should still sale him liquor ? Why does it have to be a race issue? You can refuse service to someone who is intoxicated. You however cannot refuse service solely on his race. How can you possibly have trouble understanding this? | ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
| ||
|
MooseyFate
United States237 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:41 farvacola wrote: How could he not assume that you don't know a thing about the racist past of the United States when you claim to "have faith in my fellow man" in regards to discriminatory business practice? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is literally a legislative denial of the notion that "faith in my fellow man" is enough when it comes to societal toleration of discrimination. That was 50 years ago, a lot has changed since then. Look at Europe 70 years ago. Notice any similarities? Yes, I still have faith that reasonable minds will prevail. I happen to like people and think they are a lot better at working things out among themselves than the government/media would like us to believe. And if me having faith in humanity = me being ignorant to racism in my country's past then I'm just gonna have to check out of this discussion. I read your post often farva (you tend to post a lot in the controversial threads, which I like reading) so don't take this the wrong way, but you sometimes dig in and get into mud slinging instead of discussion. Not in the mood for that. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
shit, the building i work in is kicking all small businesses in suites out in favor of corporations taking whole floors, this community of 100 years is about to be dispersed, people are pissed but can't take legal action because its not illegal. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 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? I really appreciate your questions; you sound like a teacher at heart. However, I take issue with, "albeit more positive discrimination." Discrimination is discrimination. it just is what it is. In order to have positive discrimination, you have to have negative. The very definition implies the segregation of two things, the differentiation between two things, the discrimination between two things. Discrimination is not inherently bad. It's just a catchword now-a-days for the evilest of evils - so says society. The baker didn't want to bake a cake for the gay couple because he thought it was wrong for them to get married. Is that wrong? I suspect most people would say 'yes.' What if a murderer had just killed 10 young children, got off on some extreme technicality (go with me -.-), and then came in and wanted a cake but the same guy refused him as well. Would that be wrong? I suspect most people would say 'no.' These are only two scenarios but there are an infinite number possible. Don't be so hasty to look at it only from your point of view. There will always be two sides to this question. The people sitting on the bar stools, and the people pouring flour on their heads. These decisions become very difficult in a society where truth is all relative. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On January 19 2013 03:33 MooseyFate wrote: How so? Because I think the public is intelligent enough to make this decision themselves instead of having the government mandate it? Let me say this: I do NOT think it is acceptable in any way to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin/nationality/sexual orientation or anything like that. But I also don't think it is necessary to have the government step in and prevent someone from hanging a sign that says "No one with Blue Eyes allowed!". I have faith in my fellow man that they will see how ridiculous such thing is and anyone without their head up their ass will realize such things are no longer tolerated. And those folks with their heads sufficiently up their own sphincter aren't gonna listen to the government anyway. Also, please don't assume I (or anyone from the US) don't know anything about the racist past of the US. The history of your country is relevant because there is a huge difference between disallowing blue eyed people into your shop and disallowing black people. Your view insensitive because you probably don't know what it's like to be discriminated against on the grounds of your race and any responsible and caring individual would see why it's not acceptable to allow people in a public setting to express their racism by barring people from their establishment. Your view is unsophisticated because it is the standard, 'I've just watched a bunch of Milton Friedman videos on Youtube' response that will come from someone who is interested in the concept of the government getting out of the way of the common man. The damage you will do to society is FAR greater if you allow people the right to exclude blacks from their shops than if you don't allow it. Like I say, the intractable, zealous attachment to completely unregulated free speech belongs in 1776, not in 2012. I get where you are coming from, but it is NOT a responsible attitude. And there are some things the 'free market' is not the only and best solution to. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
@sc4k: I lol'ed at the "I've just watched a bunch of Milton Friedman videos on YouTube" remark. I've done that before, watch Milton Friedman videos I mean.  | ||
|
peekn
United States1152 Posts
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," these signs are illegal and provide a way for a business to excuse illegal discrimination against certain consumers. I had no idea that these signs were illegal. I would be pissed if I was a business owner, and there was some dick a-hole at my store and it would be illegal for me to refuse their business regardless of how much of a douche the person is. I'm sure that there are places that do in fact refuse peoples' business based on their race, sexual orientation, religion etc. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
BASILISK vs Shopify Rebellion
Team Liquid vs Team Falcon
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Shopify Rebellion vs Team Liquid
BASILISK vs Team Falcon
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
MaNa vs Gerald
Rogue vs GuMiho
ByuN vs Spirit
herO vs Solar
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
