Interesting to see several people here claim that what the innkeepers did was wrong because it was against the law. I didn't realize law was the arbiter of morality.
Interesting to see several people here claim that what the innkeepers did was wrong because it was against the law. I didn't realize law was the arbiter of morality.
Modern law reflects society's values, though. Protecting minorities from tyranny of the majority isn't anything new in modern societies. Don't we call that Civil Rights these days? :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Have you seen any of my discussions with Randblade about statutory rape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not that I can recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I can take it you thought don't ask don't tell was morally justified (until last year), as it was the law? Gay marriage is immoral?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
First of all, I approve of referring to them as "innkeepers".Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm not sure anyone's saying they way they acted was wrong because it was against the law, but rather that they were wrong (as in incorrect) for thinking that their religious belief somehow granted them exemption from the law. And that the idea that they should be exempt from the law because of their beliefs is also wrong (back to morally wrong here, and also wrong as incorrect. And wrong as in fucking stupid.)
I played too many RPGs set in the Middle Ages. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If they genuinely believe what they did was right, what's the difference if they violated the law (from their perspective)? From what I see, the law is rather ambiguous, and it's not unreasonable to have people who think a law is immoral violate that law. You could argue that their beliefs are themselves immoral, but that's a different argument to claiming that what they did was wrong because it was illegal.
Frankly, I'm weary of any law that restricts someone's ability to do something that doesn't do positive harm to another person (as long as A) the former doesn't have a monopoly, and B) most similar people/firms aren't doing the same thing). As long as there are enough inns in an area (and they don't all discriminate against the same group), I see no reason to make it illegal for any one of those inns to discriminate against potential customers.
I thought maybe the couple they turned away could be like a gay Mary and Joesph? No room at the inn (for gayfags)? That sort of thing?
"Genuine belief" is not good enough. You can't just decide you "genuinely believe" something, and then be exempt from societies codes. I genuinely believe that I deserve to have a lot of money, therefore I should feel free to go ahead and steal it? No. Like, if you have a proper reason such as "I don't feel compelled to follow this law, because look at all the harm it causes" then that's one thing. But, no, I'm sorry I don't care how subjective you think morals are "It says so in this book which cites itself as its own authority" is not a good enough fucking reason.Quote:
If they genuinely believe what they did was right, what's the difference if they violated the law (from their perspective)?
It's worth noting that the couple themselves, according to their statements made after case, understand this on one level. They know that their religious beliefs are irrational, and therefore personnel. They said, explicitly, they do not expect others to believe as they do in their statement to the press outside court. What they want is for them to be exempt from the law because their reasons for not following wanting to obey this particular law are religious, which is complete unacceptable for all sorts of reasons.
If one of the fellows can manage to immaculately conceive, the circle will be complete.
You're not exempt from the laws, but you retain the right to claim that what you did was right (i.e. the argument used by the civil rights activists when they broke the law).Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It seems to me that they're saying that they have their religious beliefs, other people have theirs, and each side should respect the other's beliefs. Again, as long as there are other inns in the area that are willing to give rooms to gays, I don't see what the problem is.Quote:
It's worth noting that the couple themselves, according to their statements made after case, understand this on one level. They know that their religious beliefs are irrational, and therefore personnel. They said, explicitly, they do not expect others to believe as they do in their statement to the press outside court. What they want is for them to be exempt from the law because their reasons for not following wanting to obey this particular law are religious, which is complete unacceptable for all sorts of reasons.
Nope, and how did you make that assumption when I said Civil Rights are to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Civil rights are to protect the minority from the government (which is controlled by the majority), not from other individuals.
The law was not ambiguous. They knew what they were doing was illegal, it was widely publicised (and debated) before the law was changed. Its worth noting that many of the Christian activists saying their "rights" are being trampled are the same ones who made the same points years ago when this went through Parliament. They knew it was illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Even if we assume these people knew it was illegal, is doing something illegal automatically immoral?
The Christian B & B owners probably saw it that way, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well I don't think that I am so positive about that law. But if it is in place it people have to follow it, otherwise they should vote for a party that opposes it or if possible start a referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What I can't agree with is to call the law "disgusting" or "stupid". They grounds of the law is clearly "anti-discrimination", so I share the goal but maybe not the means.
And if we flip this around and have a law that states black people shouldn't be able to use the same facilities as white people, you'd still think black people should try to get change purely through the ballot box (let's assume they're a minority)?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
He was strangled not shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
Citation, please. I also recall that the toothpaste thief was shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yes, of course they have the right of demonstration too. But if they just ignore the law, we can get rid of laws in the first place, don't we? You think it would be better to have a dictator to set up laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
EJ, Loki is asking you to define civil liberties. Minorities can't vote their way to equality, because they are a minority.
Isn't the question rather "who should define them?" I think we can all agree that I won't be the one, unless I should dictate them.
I don't like the idea of discrimination, I think it's stupid to judge someone by sexual orientation, skin colour, religion etc but I'm not going to force a person to accept someone onto their property if they don't want to based on such grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Then the UK and any other Western country who has such laws is not a truly free/democratic state. People should have the liberty to do what they want with their property, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, and being denied accomodation at a hotel, by the owners, does not infringe on your rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Quite to the contrary, the law ensures us that personal morality choices can't bind others than yourself. The law is not the arbiter or morality in the least, it just keeps it in its place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Says who? [I believe that any country that forbids owners to build the Burj khalifa in front of a runway not truly free/democratic. The same goes for smoking pot, and for any countries that has patents./irony]Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
Again that's your interpretation. If a country does decide that this is a right, than you are wrong.Quote:
People should have the liberty to do what they want with their property, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, and being denied accomodation at a hotel, by the owners, does not infringe on your rights.
Yes it does, which is why that's viewed so in every single nation, there isn't a single nation that agrees with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
In Brown vs the Board of Education, this event is what helped push the decision for the idea that seperate is not equal. One of the justices was staying at a hotel, after being driven around all day. Hotel wouldn't allow colored people, which forced the driver to spend the night in the car (justice didn't find out till morning), because the driver had no other option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
At least thats how I remember it from one of those documentary movies.
So the blacks who refused to sit in the back of the bus (which was the law) were in the wrong? Should have called their Congressman instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
If every nation agrees with something, that must be the morally correct view.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If I book a hotel room, travel 150 miles and arrive late at night to stay only to be told I can't stay there afterall because discriminatory reason here that doesn't affect my rights? Of course it does.
And what happens if you book the hotel room knowing that they don't allow gay couples to sleep in the same bed?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which of your rights is being violated? The only rights you have via other individuals is to not be physically harmed, have your property taken, or your contract broken.
If I'm not aware they have such a precondition?
From what I've read, the gay couple knew what they were getting into, and seemed to do it to make a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
They would have harmed the couple by forcing them to find a new place to sleep at short notice. I'd make them pay the difference between what the couple paid them and what they'd have to pay to stay elsewhere (and to get to that place).
What if its too late to find a place? What if you're too tired to safely drive elsewhere? What if you need to be there? What if you've been drinking so can't now drive?
Then it's a question of the inn not being transparent with its policies, for which it's reasonable to punish it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So if you're a minority thats in an area that its not profitable for your own "group" to support itself (or for another group to survive the backlash in supporting you), you're SOL.
awesome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
seperate but equal has already been shown not to work loki ;)
You really can't read, can you? Has Dread not said something that you could attack recently?
Do a forum search. Lewk is right, the guy was choked to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Stay on point Loki. Perhaps you can break it down a little better, because this is what I see so far:
You want to regulate how businesses can discriminate based on their proximity to each other, how they each treat their potential customers, the services and/or goods they offer, and hopefully the quality of said service.
Instead of saying: Hey, lets not allow any discrimination.
So if a Jew wanted to stay at the 4/5 star hotel in downtown, they can be turned away because the Muslim owners can point out the HoJo in the next city, or even on the other side of the same city, doesn't discriminate during that time of the year?
:noob: