EJ, Loki is asking you to define civil liberties. Minorities can't vote their way to equality, because they are a minority.
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.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
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.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.
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.
Congratulations America
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]
Again that's your interpretation. If a country does decide that this is a right, than you are wrong.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.
Last edited by earthJoker; 01-25-2011 at 03:24 PM.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Yes it does, which is why that's viewed so in every single nation, there isn't a single nation that agrees with you.
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.
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?
If every nation agrees with something, that must be the morally correct view.
Hope is the denial of reality
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?
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
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).
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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?
They should make it a club with membership cards where only members can stay. Then they can discriminate to their hearts' content.
As long as they're running a public business, they're subject to public rules. Which means no discrimination - be that sex, ethnicity, marital status or physical condition.
I don't quite see where there's the problem.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I explicitly stated the right for demonstration as I have foreseen your example.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Exactly.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
What exactly is a "public" business? What other types of business are there?
Out of curiosity, do you think it should be illegal for someone to prevent a gay person from coming into their house (let's say it's a block party and everyone on the block was invited)?
Hope is the denial of reality
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I was hoping for a more in depth explanation of his form of discrimination, instead we're talking about block parties now?
A block party is not exactly a business, is it? And I gave an example: A membership-only club - not open to the public. You seem to read only half of the text, my dear.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
So simply by merit of being open to the public, someone loses all rights to decide who to transact with?
Hope is the denial of reality
If there's no legal reason, I don't see why you should be allowed to withhold your business.
Didn't you learn anything from your history lessons? We Germans had the Jews, you had the Black people, other countries discriminate women...
Counter question: What purpose exactly does your discrimination serve? What do you intend with it?
And don't give me the "freedom!"-crap. It isn't even good business sense, so that goes right out of the window.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
In case you haven't read anything I've written (likely), I said this wouldn't apply to situations where most firms in an area discriminate against the same groups. And I'd flip your question around. The burden of proof should be on someone trying to limit a person's liberty. What harm is there from an individual business discriminating based on sexual orientation (or race, or religion, or hair color)?
As for your last point, it's not the government's job to outlaw ineffective business practices.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote