Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 126
who has more rights? Page 6 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

But I would rely first on financial self-interest to overcome personal animosities, rather than use government to outlaw discrimination.

So then, you agree with, say, the Civil Rights Act of '64...? I'm pretty sure "economic pressures" weren't doing anything to alleviate the issues it addressed (considering those "economic pressures" had been in play for close to 100 yrs without effect)...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 127
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/25/2012 9:14:55 PM

Well, they're still discriminating against slobs and nudists, aren't they? Some discrimination is all right, but other discrimination is not, is that about it?


Good grief! To answer your question...no. Discrimination is never all right but what you're referring to is not discrimination. Clothing hardly represents someone's personal characteristics. Burka's, hijabs, kirpans [cerimonial daggers] etc. are sometimes included as personal characteristics but just as often they are not. Most definitions of discrimination include the wording "personal characteristics" "defining characteristic" "identifiable characteristic". Clothing is none of those things.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 128
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/26/2012 9:51:27 AM
When a customer buys something--a hamburger, a hotel room, a theater ticket, a can of tennis balls, or whatever--he's entering into a contract with the person who owns the business that's selling it. Hiring also involves a contract--the private employee agrees to sell his labor to the private business owner in exchange for wages. The issue in the case in this thread, or in any case where there's a private buyer and a private seller of some good or service, is the authority of government to force either one to contract with the other.

I don't know how this works in Canada. But some of us in the U.S. believe the federal government, at least, has almost no such authority. It's pretty clear states have it, but whether to make laws prohibiting private persons from discriminating by race, religion, sex, or anything else in choosing their customers or employees is for the voters of each state to decide. In all but a few special circumstances, I support everyone's right to refuse to deal with anyone else purely because he happens not to like them--no explanations needed. A truly free society tolerates the bigot's right to be bigoted, in what he does as well as what he says.
 Soul Union
Joined: 6/9/2007
Msg: 129
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/26/2012 5:49:22 PM
Just curious, but what about a restaurant or club that has a dress code? If you don't wear certain clothing, you aren't allowed to enter. How is that different? - GreenThumbz18


Well said, man. Unfortunately, the majority of people writing on this thread don't wish to acknowledge this issue or deal to it. The minorities come first in today's politically correct society, where the sheeple baaaah when the government brands them and herds them into the appropriate pens. If they only knew the agenda behind this.

Here in New Zealand, where I have lived since 1993, watching standards crash and morals decline, to the point where anything goes now, an owner refused to serve alcohol to a Maori woman who came into his club. She was covered in tattoos, on her face and arms and hands, to the point where she looked like the map of Scotland.

Customers, especially the children of customers, were frightened by what they saw, so the club owner refused to serve her. And before you could say Jack Robinson, this woman - whose human rights were offended because she couldn't get a drink - took the club owner, a decent and principled man, to the Court of Human Rights, at the taxpayers' expense because she was on a government benefit.

The bottom line? The club owner, who has no rights worth a nickle, was made to grovel before the Court and retract his position, after which his punishment was meted out by that particular branch of the United Nations, always baying for the blood of the majorities. The man was so incensed, he sold his club and moved to Australia with his family. The old saying 'Management Has the Right of Refusal' is now in the dustbin. The United Nations has seen to that. If I had been the club owner, I would have done the same. I would have burned my club to the ground and raked the ashes into the earth first.

If I go into anyone's club, or shop, or house - or whatever - I ensure that I behave according to their standards. I don't flout their laws or their dress code or their standards of ethics or try to offend them. But 'When in Rome, Do As the Romans Do' is now pathologically defunct, because the Romans are outnumbered to a man - oh, sorry, to person.

Happy holidays, everyone.
Peter
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/26/2012 10:22:47 PM

Last time I checked, there was this little sign in most stores that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."


So, how long were you stuck the first time you ever saw a stop sign? Just because you put a sign up that says you're going to break the law, doesn't mean you automatically get to break the law with immunity? Or like on Survivor? You can win the immunity challenge by just making a sign that says so? Signs rule.


Well said, man. Unfortunately, the majority of people writing on this thread don't wish to acknowledge this issue or deal to it.


Dress codes have nothing, zero, to do with discrimination. Discrimination deals with characteristics of a person, not clothing. I can force people to wear furry bunny rabbit suits in my restaurant if I want to. At that point, everyone who is left without a bunny suit has the right to go somewhere else for dinner. Can't say the same for reasons that do relate to discrimination such as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, age. That's why you can't say homosexuals can just go somewhere else to sleep and eat breakfast.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 131
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/26/2012 11:48:30 PM

Discrimination deals with characteristics of a person, not clothing.


That may be how you define it. But where is that principle written? I suspect many nudists would say their nudism is one of the things that define them as people. Why are you discriminating against nudists? Maybe you are just afraid of things that are different from the norm.


I can force people to wear furry bunny rabbit suits in my restaurant if I want to.


Really? What country is your restaurant in? If it were the only place to eat for miles around and it wasn't easy to buy a bunny suit, what then?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 132
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/27/2012 12:33:29 AM

That may be how you define it. But where is that principle written?


Matchlight...This is the legal definition of discrimination in Canada. It's well more than likely that your country, state, city, township or other such jurisdiction has a similar if not essentially same definition in use for legal purposes. But for an example, we're using Canada because that's what is in the original post. Have a go at it and then I have a question.


Discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society. Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capacities will rarely be so classed


Does it say anything about bunny suits? Do you define a bunny suit or lack of bunny suit as a personal characteristic?


Really? What country is your restaurant in? If it were the only place to eat for miles around and it wasn't easy to buy a bunny suit, what then?


Canada. And oh well. I'm not going to try to convince a judge that my personal characteristics have been exploited by people in bunny suits.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 133
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/27/2012 11:22:20 AM
#159

It's well more than likely that your country, state, city, township or other such jurisdiction has a similar if not essentially same definition in use for legal purposes.


I don't know what Canadian law prohibits. But from what I've heard of the kangaroo courts people are dragged into there and forced to recant for having said something that wounded the exquisite sensibilities of a homosexual, Muslim, left-handed Eskimo, or member of whatever the latest grievance group may be, there's not much freedom of speech. So I imagine actually *doing* things that slight people for whatever reason (except, of course, the way they dress) must be *streng verboten.*

But so far, at least, bigotry is not always illegal here--in fact bigotry against conservatives, especially if they are white and male, is regularly encouraged by liberals as a good thing. To repeat--with a very few possible exceptions, I do not believe the U.S. Constitution gives Congress power to prohibit discrimination by private persons, as opposed to government. There are quite a few Supreme Court decisions on this question.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had been similar to the 1964 version. But in 1883, the Court held in The Civil Rights Cases that neither section 2 of the 13th Amendment nor section 5 of the 14th gave Congress power to ban private discrimination. The Court said discrimination in public accommodations had nothing to do with slavery or involuntary servitude, and that the 14th Am. only applied to actions by a state. But the dissent argued that discriminating in public accommodations imposed a "badge of slavery" and that the discriminating persons were acting as agents of the state.

In U.S. v. Guest in 1966, a majority of the justices suggested that the Constitution did give Congress power to outlaw private discrimination. This implied that it might be time to overrule the Civil Rights Cases, but the Court did not go that far. The Court picked up on one of the dissent's arguments from the 1883 decision in Jones v. Alfred Mayer in 1968, where it upheld a federal law that banned private race discrimination in the sale of housing. The Court held that Congress could rationally have concluded that private race discrimination in the housing market imposed a badge of slavery, which the 13th Am. gave it power to prohibit.

But at least as far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, the trend has gone the other way. In City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997, the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment. In U.S. v. Morrison three years later, the Court made clear that the Constitution, and in particular sec. 5 of the 14th Am., did not give Congress power to reach private discrimination.

There are also several private discrimination cases in which the question was whether the discrimination was a state action, making the 14th Amendment applicable. They have gone both ways, depending on the degree of the state's involvement.

The limitations of the 13th and 14th Amendments in banning private discrimination help explain why Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, the Swiss Army knife of the Constitution, has been pressed into service for that purpose. It is the basis of part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of two Supreme Court private discrimination decisions from the same time, Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel.

Whether those laws are legitimate is debatable. However noble the goal is, it is never worth destroying the meaning of the Constitution--the foundation of all our personal freedoms--to achieve it. If everyone wants a thing that badly, let them get it legitimately, by amending the Constitution to authorize it. Some of us think the Commerce Clause has been stretched far beyond any reasonable interpretation. So did most of the justices recently, when they said Congress' power to regulate commerce among the states does not include the power to make us all buy medical insurance policies.

I don't know what each state's laws say about private discrimination, and I don't much care. I have explained how I think the law should treat it, and why. It makes no difference to me why a private person refuses to serve or hire someone. Barring the traditional exceptions I already talked about, I believe he should be able to do that for any reason.



Imagine that YOU were thrown out of a movie theater because you're a white male . What's wrong with that ? Everybody else can go in but you look different and you're scaring the kiddies by being different . No soup for you !


I would probably think the owner was a son of a b----, but unless he somehow put me in danger by refusing me, I wouldn't question his right to do it. Open another theater down the street, admit everyone, and put him out of business--sweet revenge.



Either you live in a free society or you don't . If you don't like the freedoms you have then perhaps North Korea is more suitable ? Hell , either you conform of risk death there . Is that some sort of utopia to you ?


That's just the point, and this one is getting less free all the time. A truly free society looks to moral sanctions to encourage good behavior, rather than trying to pass a law or regulation for everything. That is exactly how totalitarian states control people. I realize that is a statist's vision of utopia, but it sure as he!! is not mine.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 134
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/27/2012 8:26:50 PM
Imagine that YOU were thrown out of a movie theater because you're a white male . What's wrong with that ? Everybody else can go in but you look different and you're scaring the kiddies by being different . No soup for you !


I would probably think the owner was a son of a b----, but unless he somehow put me in danger by refusing me, I wouldn't question his right to do it


Spoken like a true white male.

What if that scenario happened to you everyday, all the time and in every conceivable situation? Because, as a matter of fact and as we discovered earlier with the meaning of "personal characteristic", you will always be a white male everyday of your life and wherever you go for the rest of your life. What happens when you're the odd one out and are treated as such?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 135
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/27/2012 11:15:14 PM
That's just the point, and this one is getting less free all the time. A truly free society looks to moral sanctions to encourage good behavior, rather than trying to pass a law or regulation for everything.

OK... Let's just see if I understand your argument... States are free to pass any laws the majority sees fit to pass as long as they don't violate the Constitution (as written and understood at ratification or the date the amendment was ratified if applicable, original intent, strict interpretation and all that)... The states have a right to 1) enforce moral sanction and exert moral suasion, supported by the majority, by way of law and 2) Allow or disallow whatever discrimination the majority chooses to allow or disallow by way of law and that there is no tyranny in either of these and that it is, in fact, the proper role of the state (you've argued both of these points on numerous threads about same-sex marriage, sodomy laws, transvaginal ultrasounds, etc)... And yet, somehow, it is an anti-freedom, anti-Constitution, statist practice to exert moral sanction/suasion through laws against discrimination...

Somehow, it seems as though your understanding of the issue is determined by the extent to which you wish to see a group discriminated against...
 Sciencetreker
Joined: 2/13/2012
Msg: 136
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/28/2012 1:52:50 PM

The gay couple goes to the BC human rights tribunal and launches a complaint


As a Canadian I say...thanks to the gay couple for not bowing to bigots. At one time it would have been an unmarried couple..or native indians.

The B&B couple is losing money? Gee whiz, it would be funny if one of them had to go out and find a job but their resume was refused because they were heterosexual white christians.
 MOTD2010
Joined: 5/18/2010
Msg: 137
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/28/2012 5:06:00 PM
Going at this from an entirely different angle. If I own a business and I use my own money to build it, take no public funds whatsoever then I believe I have a right to serve who I please. Now if I make that choice like this couple did and gay couples use a boycott to make others aware of my policies and customers choose not to use my business because of it then of course I have no one to blame but myself for a poor business decision.
However to have the state tell me who I have to serve in my private business is not freedom, or free market. It's statism. And it's what is driving this once free and prosperous country into the dirt.
 Sciencetreker
Joined: 2/13/2012
Msg: 138
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/28/2012 6:29:32 PM
However to have the state tell me who I have to serve in my private business is not freedom, or free market. It's statism


Label it what you want...it's fine with me. We live in a democracy and I want the state to be stamping out bigotry. Democratic socialism is alive and well in Canada.

Golly gee however, we can't possibly be as free as all Americans south of the border. they have the Bible and the Constitution showing them the light. Everybody sing freedom and praise be the Lord but cry out for more government censorship when Janet Jackson exposes her nipple for 3 seconds.
 MOTD2010
Joined: 5/18/2010
Msg: 139
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/28/2012 7:50:20 PM
of course it's fine with you, you're a statist..and by the way we live in a republic in the US not a democracy. The state can't stamp out bigotry because the state can't control what is in people's hearts....some people do change over time and become enlightened but it's never because of the state it's almost always a more personal reason or experience...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 140
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/28/2012 8:33:39 PM

and by the way we live in a republic in the US not a democracy.

Well... you've just destroyed any credibility you might have with that little bumpersticker platitude...

It is completely meaningless and meant only to appeal to those unwilling to think... Anyone using that as a rebuttal only proves they have no understanding of the basics of governance or are unwilling to engage with intellectual honesty...
 MOTD2010
Joined: 5/18/2010
Msg: 141
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 8:26:18 AM
I love the arrogance of you Canadians who supposedly know more about America than the people living in it..The American form of government is a constitutional republic... Democracy is nothing more than mob rule
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 142
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 8:57:05 AM
Democracy is majority rule,not mob rule. Huge difference.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 143
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 9:16:06 AM
''Democracy is majority rule''

except when the majority dont subscribe to the latest pet projects. now if as is stated
that '' Democracy is majority rule,not mob rule. Huge difference'' then the majority
according to the poll below want to protect the right to keep guns. i take it that there is no
problem with that seeing as how 'democracy is majority rule'?

US conservative on guns, liberal on gay marriage – poll
WASHINGTON – Americans are becoming more conservative on gun control, but more liberal on gay marriage, a public opinion poll that put the hot-button social issues under the microscope suggested Wednesday.

Forty-nine percent of respondents to the Pew Research Center survey said it was important to protect the constitutional right of Americans to own guns – compared to 45 percent who thought gun control should take precedence.
From 1993 through 2008, it was the other way around, with a majority of respondents putting greater importance on controlling gun ownership, said Pew in a statement on its website (www.pewresearch.org).
Pew also found that 47 percent of Americans now favor allowing gay and lesbian couple to marry – well up from 39 percent in 2008 and 31 percent in 2004. Forty-three percent remain opposed.
Pew’s survey was conducted April 4-15 in the aftermath of the controversial shooting death of black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin by a white neighborhood watch volunteer who was arrested two months after the killing.

Pollsters canvassed 3,008 adult respondents by telephone or cellphone, giving a margin of error of around 3.0 percent.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/182889/us-conservative-on-guns-liberal-on-gay-marriage-%E2%80%93-poll

or is that 'different'?
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 144
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 10:22:51 AM
Vlad, the discussion is about an incident that occured in a Canadian B&B, and has nothing to do with the US and gun controll.
Please read the OP, as your post contributes nothing, and is trying to derail the discussion.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 145
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 10:30:03 AM
I love the arrogance of you Canadians who supposedly know more about America than the people living in it


Believe us when we tell you....simply being born in the United States doesn't mean you have a clue about what's going on around you.


A majority of Americans from all backgrounds struggled to come up with the correct answers in a quiz about American history by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). More than 2,500 randomly selected Americans took ISI's basic 33 question test on civic literacy and 71% of them received an average score of 49% or an "F."

The quiz reveals that over twice as many people know Paula Abdul was a judge on American Idol than know that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

The study finds that only half of U.S. adults can name all three branches of government, and just 54% know that the power to declare war belongs to Congress. Almost 40% incorrectly said that it belongs to the president.


In fact, most of the people who immigrate to the US know more than its natural born citizens....


When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.


It may even be time to listen when we tell you, it's okay to protect minority rights.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 146
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 10:38:45 AM

I love the arrogance of you Canadians who supposedly know more about America than the people living in it..The American form of government is a constitutional republic... Democracy is nothing more than mob rule


I think it's quite possible (likely, even) that some Cdn.s know more than some Americans about the US systems, as many Americans are quite ignorant of their own system..as are many Cdns., or other people in the world about THEIR country's own systems.

also , I think mungo is a US citizen/Cdn. resident..so..

BTW WTF as an American are you horning in on this topic/thread? the OP clearly states a case in CANADA so WTF does the US system have to do with it?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 147
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 10:58:45 AM
#163

And yet, somehow, it is an anti-freedom, anti-Constitution, statist practice to exert moral sanction/suasion through laws against discrimination...Somehow, it seems as though your understanding of the issue is determined by the extent to which you wish to see a group discriminated against...


I won't speculate on what determines *your* understanding of the issue--or more accurately, your lack of it. States have authority to regulate all sorts of things the United States has no authority to regulate. And with few exceptions, discrimination by private persons is one of those things. Whether the Constitution gives the U.S. Congress power to do something does not depend on whether you think it should.


#166

We live in a democracy and I want the state to be stamping out bigotry.


I'm not sure you mean by "the state." And I don't know enough about the form of government Canadians live under to give it a name. But in the U.S., government may or may not have authority to do something the majority favors. It's true that laws normally pass by a simple majority vote, but that by itself is not enough. A state law against discrimination by private persons renting rooms in their houses probably would not be valid, for example, even if a majority of the state's residents wanted to ban that as part of "stamping out bigotry."
 MOTD2010
Joined: 5/18/2010
Msg: 148
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 11:03:56 AM
well mungo said I had no credibility because I correctly stated the form of government we have in the US which is a constitutional republic..there is no disputing that.. Got that OOC? By the way if MJ is an american citizen then he also proves the point that many Americans don't know about their own form of government.
As for democracy being mob rule..majority rule mob rule it's the same thing as has been often said it's like two wolves and a chicken deciding what's for dinner.
It's fine as long as you're part of the mob.

As I stated earlier I really don't care if two gays weren't served in a B&B, go on and go to one that is happy to take your money..And as a white man I would not be upset if refused service because I was white, I'd just go to another establishment. If an establishment thinks it is good policy to turn away customers for whatever reason then that is their decision(with the caveat that they are not using government funds to run their business). In the end I doubt a business like that will survive especially with a boycott by other potential customers that don't like the policy.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 149
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 11:19:53 AM
well mungo said I had no credibility because I correctly stated the form of government we have in the US which is a constitutional republic..

Allow me to "edumacate" you a bit...

The US is a liberal representative democracy structured as a federal presidential republic...

the 'liberal representative democracy' part is the source of power and authority for governance, the 'federal presidential republic' part is the structural form of that governance... THAT is what the US is... ANYONE who declares "the US isn't a democracy" is either ignorant or trying to be deceptive...

I won't speculate on what determines *your* understanding of the issue

No, of course not... That would only lead to 'putting your foot in your mouth" and significant embarrassment for you... Perhaps it might be easier if you simply explain the contradictions in your arguments...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 150
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 11:34:02 AM

As I stated earlier I really don't care if two gays weren't served in a B&B, go on and go to one that is happy to take your money..And as a white man I would not be upset if refused service because I was white, I'd just go to another establishment


Again spoken like a true white person. Let me ask you the same question Matchlight has no answer for. What if you were simply refused service everywhere you went because you were white? You have no concept of what that would be like. You can't simply go to another place that welcomes you with open arms because there aren't any. No one likes you because you're white and it's legal to discriminate against you because all the otehr people have decided that's okay. Maybe in certain areas you can hang out with all the other white people. We'll call these areas ghettos, because that's what they are. And you can live there and try to find employement there too because, again, you're white and no one else will hire you. So now it seems pretty smug, maybe even slightly dumb to suggest you'd simply toodle off down the happy street to the next place of business and stay there, doesn't it?
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?