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
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 151
view profile
History
who has more rights? Page 7 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
well deux i apologise for mentioning america im my post
because im the first to do so and i hang my head in shame.

i guess im just so used to canadians getting their knickers
in a twist over something or even anything that happens in the usa
i got carried away

but a good lesson was learned that you believe in majority rule so in
future posts i shall take that to heart and not at all wait on you tripping and falling
on your belief

vlad dracul sitting with slapped wrist and in the naughty corner
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 152
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 12:18:50 PM
What if you were simply refused service everywhere you went because you were white? You can't simply go to another place that welcomes you with open arms because there aren't any.


I notice you don't explain why the poster is wrong to assume he could do business with someone else. Trying to draw an analogy to segregation against blacks a half-century or more ago is less than convincing.


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?


Only to someone who accepts the premises of your argument--which I do not. I believe most people act in their financial interest most of the time. If it is much harder for most homosexuals, at least in the U.S., to find places to work, to eat, to rent, to get medical care, to buy a car, etc., I haven't seen the evidence of it.

Shelley v. Kraemer is a famous Supreme Court case from the late Forties. The Shelleys, who were black, moved into a house in a subdivision in St. Louis. But this subdivision had something called a restrictive covenant which prohibited blacks from owning property within it. The Kraemers, a white couple who lived there, tried to enforce the covenant and failed. But the seller, who was white, hadn't cared one bit that the Shelleys were black. Their money was green enough.

#177

Perhaps it might be easier if you simply explain the contradictions in your arguments...


I can see why someone who does not understand how the government of the U.S. works might see contradictions where there are none. I don't feel like taking the time to explain federalism to you, and anyway I can see your comrades are getting peevish about any mention of the U.S.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 153
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 4:51:07 PM
@ Vlad,
please read a post before commenting. I never stated that I believe in majority rule, I was pointing out the fact that there is a huge ideological difference between democratic rule and mob rule.
In Canada, you can not refuse to provide goods or services based on sexual orientation.
US governance, US constitution, US gun controll really have no relevance here at all.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 154
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 6:31:26 PM

In Canada, you can not refuse to provide goods or services based on sexual orientation.


Do you know if that extends to renting rooms in private single-family houses? I'm curious at what point--if any-- freedom of association and right to privacy trump the duty of landlords to accommodate the public in Canada, and whether it depends on the province or is determined by the national government. In California, the line is drawn roughly at duplexes. A Jew who's renting a room in his house could refuse an applicant who's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Christian could refuse a member of NAMBLA, and so on.

I wonder about private clubs there, too. Here, a strictly private club with only white members may be able to refuse to serve nonwhite guests of those members at its bar and restaurant. At least the fact the state issued the club its liquor license isn't enough to make it race discrimination by the government, which would be unconstitutional.
 Reprmoreons
Joined: 7/22/2012
Msg: 155
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 6:43:16 PM
Matchlight said:


A Jew who's renting a room in his house could refuse an applicant who's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Christian could refuse a member of NAMBLA, and so on.


Oh man, that's a good one. I like the way you equate the Muslim to the pedophile. To funny. Although I must admit, as funny as your shtick is, I think you might of crossed the line on that one. Kind of in poor taste there. But then again, some people thought Andy Kaufman cross the line a couple of times.
 Sciencetreker
Joined: 2/13/2012
Msg: 156
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 6:46:02 PM
What ifs. What ifs. In Canada like most western democrcies we just deal with issues as they arise on a practical basis. We'll let Americans get their nose out of joint because perhaps 'whatever' and Thomas Jefferson, Moses or whoever meant something or another. The slippery slope to tyranny of the state...blah, blah...they'll have to pry this gun from my dead hands...blah, blah...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 157
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 6:52:07 PM
I don't feel like taking the time to explain federalism to you


Well, I seriously doubt you could... even if you tried... but there is no worry about that, you can't so you won't try...

Either way, the point would be utterly irrelevant... The case prompting this discussion wasn't a federal jurisdiction case, it was provincial (that's like state jurisdiction for those who need a little extra help)...

I can see why someone who does not understand how the government of the U.S. works might see contradictions where there are none.

You might stand a vague chance of being right if the OP in this topic had anything to do with the federal gov't or federal jurisdiction... unfortunately for you it doesn't, it is a provincial issue relating to provincial laws as duly enacted by the province of BC (that is like a state issue under state laws for those who need a little extra help)...

Now, would you like to explain those contradictions I pointed out to you earlier...? No...? I didn't think so... I knew you wouldn't try because I know you can't...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 158
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/29/2012 11:49:39 PM
#184

We'll let Americans get their nose out of joint because perhaps 'whatever' and Thomas Jefferson, Moses or whoever meant something or another. The slippery slope to tyranny of the state...blah, blah...they'll have to pry this gun from my dead hands...blah, blah...


It's always a thrill to see such keen intellectual analysis.

#185

Well, I seriously doubt you could... even if you tried


I doubt it too, but I am sure I wouldn't waste my time trying. I saw people like you in law school--but they only stayed for the first month or so.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 159
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/30/2012 12:04:24 AM
I saw people like you in law school--but they only stayed for the first month or so.

I think I can see why they would decide that an answering an ad on the back of a matchbook was a bad idea in hindsight...

Now... Did you want to tackle that issue of contradiction in your own arguments...? Hmmm...?
 Sciencetreker
Joined: 2/13/2012
Msg: 160
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/30/2012 7:56:16 AM
matchlight

It's always a thrill to see such keen intellectual analysis


thanks. you could do it too if you remove yourself from the myopic view of the world ending at the U.S. border . Get out of the cliches of Republicans vs Democrats all judged by conservative vs liberal...as judged by how much is endorsed by the word of Jesus and writings of ' the founding Fathers' elevated to godlike status.

It's 2012...fu.k Jesus and fu.k Gorge Washington. deal with issues on their merit. 'Intellectual analysis' in the USA is a joke...it's looking over the shoulder rehashing the past...meanwhile the world moves on while the USA is stuck in a time warp.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 161
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/30/2012 7:57:46 AM
I know this is a bit OT, but since we are talking about restrictions in public and private organizations, I wanted to ask this question since you might know:


Minors in this country have never had all the rights of adults. Public schools can enforce whatever dress codes their administrators reasonably believe are needed for the schools to work well. I'm pretty sure the details of a code are up to each school board. In general, there is no constitutional right to express a certain "lifestyle," so within reason a state (and therefore its school boards) can regulate how students dress and act on school grounds.

I think when public school students say or do anything at all that hurts the feelings of a member of any recognized victim group, it's a violation of correct, multicultural values that we can't allow to go unpunished. On the other hand, students should have the right to heap all the abuse they please on other students who are white, male, and Christian. Fair is fair, and those no-goods have it coming.

#189

It's 2012...fu.k Jesus and fu.k Gorge Washington.


There stood Gorge at Valley Forge . . . I can see how much thought went into your advice, and I will give it all the consideration it deserves.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 162
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/30/2012 12:27:41 PM
I can see how much thought went into your advice, and I will give it all the consideration it deserves.

It seems as though you have forgotten to address this point I raised earlier...

"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..."

Can you explain that contradiction...? I suppose you could try some evasive nonsense about "how federalism works" (not that you actually understand the concept)... Oh, but wait, this is a provincial jurisdiction issue (that's like a "states' rights" kind of thing for the 'Bill and Ted's Most Excellent School of Law' crowd) not a federal issue... Darn, guess you won't be able to weasel your way out that way...

We're quite excited to hear how you will attempt to justify such a blatant and obvious contradiction... Will you abandon your worship of "all things states' rights"...? Will you try to link it to a "grand jihadi conspiracy"...?

My bet would be that you will actually develop enough intellectual honesty to admit you had no clue what you were talking about and were ranting just to read your own typing, as usual... but then, I always have been a sucker for the 'long shot'...
 MOTD2010
Joined: 5/18/2010
Msg: 163
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/31/2012 3:05:52 PM
yeah you're right funcuz I missed the beginning post about it being a canadian B&B

There is a similar incident going on in Colorado right now where a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. It appears that state law there does not allow a licensed business to discriminate..However the owner has stated he'll close his business before he makes wedding cakes for gay couples.

Personally if I was his attorney, I'd tell him to quit offering wedding cakes as part of his business..He serves gays in other ways such as birthday cakes etc. it's just the wedding cakes he won't make..

We'll see how this ends up..I only bring this story up because of the poster that said something about how white of me and intimated that what if everyplace I went they refused to serve me..

Several of the articles pointed out there were 4 or 5 other bakeries in the town who had no problem supplying the couple with a cake.

It also pointed out the this guy's bakery was seeing increased sales to people who supported his decision....

My own personal belief is that I could care less. I think marriage whether it be gay or straight is a religious ceremony and the federal government or the state has no business in it.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 164
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 7/31/2012 4:07:57 PM

If it is much harder for most homosexuals, at least in the U.S., to find places to work, to eat, to rent, to get medical care, to buy a car, etc., I haven't seen the evidence of it


Why do you suppose that is? One guess and one guess only.


I only bring this story up because of the poster that said something about how white of me and intimated that what if everyplace I went they refused to serve me


And still, neither of you can answer that question. The reason you don't see "No Gays" signs on wacko Christian businesses is because it is more than likely illegal to do so in most places. Starting with California...


The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on age, sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments. This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified as California Civil Code section 51.


If it were perfectly legal to discriminate against homosexuals you would obviously see more businesses doing so and it would obviously be more of a problem. But what is even more disturbing is seeing older white people suggesting it's okay to discriminate a litle bit, as long as those gay folks can head down the road for better service and as long as it doesn't happen too much. A little bit is okay...might even help buid character for those gay folks God bless 'em anyway.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 165
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/2/2012 4:21:55 PM

Why do you suppose that is? One guess and one guess only.

Hmmm... It appears as though neither of us will get an answer...

Obviously I bet on the wrong horse... That's the risk of going for the longshot...

*listens to the sound of the crickets for a bit*
 IR_SomeBuddy
Joined: 7/14/2008
Msg: 166
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 9:28:47 AM
Although I don't agree with how the B&B owner handled the situation, as business owners it is well within their legal right to refuse business to anyone. They made the mistake of invoking their Religious beliefs thinking it was a trump card and letting the customers know it was due to their sexual orientation.

When I ran a repair shop I had someone threaten to sue me because I didn't want to repair their hopelessly unrepairable electronic item. I asked under what grounds would you launch this lawsuit. They replied, "It says you do repairs in the Yellow Pages so you HAVE to repair my stereo". I told them, "No I don't HAVE to repair anything as I can refuse service to anyone I want and good luck with that lawsuit."

A private business is not a publicly funded establishment and is in fact Private Property... you can ask anyone to leave or refuse service to anyone you want as long as you don't say it is due to sex, religion, race, etc.

Business Owners in the know will just say, "Please leave my establishment immediately". When asked why they are being refused access to the establishment or services all the Business Owner has to say is, "Because I want you to leave". That's all they have to say and they have every legal right to invoke this policy without fear of a lawsuit.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 167
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 9:30:13 AM


In Canada, you can not refuse to provide goods or services based on sexual orientation.
Do you know if that extends to renting rooms in private single-family houses? I'm curious at what point--if any-- freedom of association and right to privacy trump the duty of landlords to accommodate the public in Canada, and whether it depends on the province or is determined by the national government.
Do you know if that extends to renting rooms in private single-family houses? I'm curious at what point--if any-- freedom of association and right to privacy trump the duty of landlords to accommodate the public in Canada, and whether it depends on the province or is determined by the national government.
First of all, this is determined both by the Canadian Human Right's Act and the individual Human Right's Code of Ontario (and each individual province) - so the laws apply for all provinces within this country.

While I cannot discriminate on renting a self-contained apartment that is in my home to a person based on any reason outlined in our Human Right's Code of Canada, I can refuse to rent a room in my home if there is shared bathroom and/or kitchen facilities with myself and my family.

Here is the Q&A exerpt regarding renting to visible minority groups:

1. Can a landlord refuse to rent an apartment or house to me because of:
my place of origin, ethnic origin, race, ancestry, citizenship,
my religion,
my disability,
my age,
my sex,my sexual orientation, same-sex partnership status, marital status,
the fact that I am pregnant or have children,
or the fact that I am receiving social assistance?


NO. The Ontario Human Rights Code makes it against the law for landlords to discriminate against you in any of these ways.

Exception: If you rent a room or an apartment where you live with the owner's family and share their kitchen and/ or bathroom, a landlord can refuse to rent or can terminate a lease for any of the reasons stated above. Be aware that you can be evicted without notice, unless you have a written contract that states otherwise.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 168
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 12:53:24 PM

Hmmm... It appears as though neither of us will get an answer


I'm guessing Matchlight left that one blank when he took the bar exam.


Although I don't agree with how the B&B owner handled the situation, as business owners it is well within their legal right to refuse business to anyone


No they weren't. And niether are you. How do you people manage to function without getting sued daily?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 169
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 3:08:36 PM

Exception: If you rent a room or an apartment where you live with the owner's family and share their kitchen and/ or bathroom, a landlord can refuse to rent or can terminate a lease for any of the reasons stated above.


That's about what I would have guessed. So unless the renter(s) in your house use your kitchen or a bathroom you also use, you have to rent to them however repugnant you find their lifestyle or beliefs. It's certainly good of the authors of the Human Rights Code to be so liberal in recognizing homeowners' freedom of association and right to privacy in their homes.

I guess if your twelve-year-old daughter happens to stumble on your gay renters committing some unnatural act in the middle of the hallway when she gets up in the night for a drink of water, that's just too bad. And if the rabbi's renter regularly stands in his room and prays to Allah to rid the world of Jews, so everyone can hear it, I suppose the rabbi has to grin and bear it. Hard to think of a much better way to discourage people from renting out rooms in their houses.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 170
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 3:15:14 PM

That's about what I would have guessed. So unless the renter(s) in your house use your kitchen or a bathroom you also use, you have to rent to them however repugnant you find their lifestyle or beliefs. It's certainly good of the authors of the Human Rights Code to be so liberal in recognizing homeowners' freedom of association and right to privacy in their homes.

I guess if your twelve-year-old daughter happens to stumble on your gay renters committing some unnatural act in the middle of the hallway when she gets up in the night for a drink of water, that's just too bad. And if the rabbi's renter regularly stands in his room and prays to Allah to rid the world of Jews, so everyone can hear it, I suppose the rabbi has to grin and bear it. Hard to think of a much better way to discourage people from renting out rooms in their houses.
As you've pointed out at the end of your little tirade, you have the right to keep your home private and not rent to strangers.

I have an apartment in my house that I refuse to rent out to anyone because I like my privacy and although there could be a tennant that I could easily live with, I choose not to go through the issue of the Human Rights Code. This is my choice... I don't understand what the problem is in regards to treating everyone equal when you have a business or rent an apartment from your house.

While I see the limitations on people due to the Human Rights Code, the alternative of open discrimination is abhorrent to me.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 171
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 3:26:28 PM
I guess if your twelve-year-old daughter happens to stumble on your gay renters committing some unnatural act in the middle of the hallway when she gets up in the night for a drink of water, that's just too bad. And if the rabbi's renter regularly stands in his room and prays to Allah to rid the world of Jews, so everyone can hear it, I suppose the rabbi has to grin and bear it. Hard to think of a much better way to discourage people from renting out rooms in their houses.

Well now there's a couple of delusional analogies... and utterly ignorant to boot... Can't you come up with a reply that bears at least some relationship to reality, or at least some vague semblence of good taste...?

And, while we're here...

It seems as though you are still forgetting to address this point I raised earlier...

"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..."

Can you explain that contradiction...? I suppose you could try some evasive nonsense about "how federalism works" (not that you actually understand the concept)... Oh, but wait, this is a provincial jurisdiction issue (that's like a "states' rights" kind of thing for the 'Bill and Ted's Most Excellent School of Law' crowd) not a federal issue... Darn, guess you won't be able to weasel your way out that way...

We're quite excited to hear how you will attempt to justify such a blatant and obvious contradiction... Will you abandon your worship of "all things states' rights"...? Will you try to link it to a "grand jihadi conspiracy" (you're second analogy comes close but you didn't quite make it there)...?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 172
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 5:01:23 PM

I guess if your twelve-year-old daughter happens to stumble on your gay renters committing some unnatural act in the middle of the hallway when she gets up in the night for a drink of water, that's just too bad


Why would gay renters be "committing unnatural acts" in the hallway? Are gay people any less likely to use bedrooms than non gay people? Is there a stat on this somewhere? When was the last time you saw a gay couple "committing unnatural acts"? I mean in real life. Not on the computer.

Also, how did the gay couple get into your home? We've already established you can be as homophobic as you want when renting out a room in your own house. Did the gay couple bust through the wall of your duplex and in to your hallway just to "commit unnatural acts"? My goodness that is scary. Terminator cyborg gays that won't stop for anything.

Maybe you should lock your daughter in her room with several glasses of water just in case a hoard of maurading gays break in to "commit unnatural acts" in your hallway. A good lesson for one and all.


And if the rabbi's renter regularly stands in his room and prays to Allah to rid the world of Jews, so everyone can hear it, I suppose the rabbi has to grin and bear it


Does the rabbi speak Arabic?

What if the rabbi prays to God for the same thing?

Does the Arab speak Yiddish or Hebrew?

I have a solution. Make sure there is a giant wall with lots of check points and armed guards and barbed wire that makes it really hard for Arabs and jews to even shake hands much less share a house. That'll do it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 173
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 6:19:48 PM

Why would gay renters be "committing unnatural acts" in the hallway?


God knows--but it's my hypothetical, and I'll make the facts whatever I please. If you don't like them, make your own.


Are gay people any less likely to use bedrooms than non gay people? Is there a stat on this somewhere?


I don't know, nor do I care.


When was the last time you saw a gay couple "committing unnatural acts"? I mean in real life. Not on the computer.


I never have, either in reality or in a portrayal, nor do I want or expect to. But your tastes may be different.


We've already established you can be as homophobic as you want when renting out a room in your own house.


Have we? That's not the way I read it. The poster cited a law which said people who rent rooms in their houses could not discriminate against renters for the reasons listed unless the renter shared the kitchen or a bathroom. I offered a couple examples of renters I presumed did not share these things and therefore could not be discriminated against, no matter how repugnant the homeowner might find their actions.

The plain fact is that you can't explain why my hypotheticals would not be allowed under that Canadian law, at least as the poster described it. So you try to hide the fact you have nothing relevant to say by making lame attempts at being witty.

#200

As you've pointed out at the end of your little tirade, you have the right to keep your home private and not rent to strangers.


Yes--how considerate of your government to leave you with so much choice! Not so good for the person who could use the extra income, though.


I don't understand what the problem is in regards to treating everyone equal when you have a business or rent an apartment from your house.


I don't care how Canada and its provinces deal with this issue. I don't have to live with it. I was only asking what the law on this was there as a matter of interest, because I've had occasion to look into California law on discrimination by homeowners renting rooms. I suspect the law you described--which as far as I can see would force renting homeowners to accept outrages like the ones I made up, or even worse--would be unconstitutional here. The Supreme Court considers both the privacy of the home and the freedom of association fundamental constitutional rights.

People do all sorts of deplorable and immoral things, but here, at least, we only make some of them illegal. If you want to keep a free society, it's far more important to protect a private person's right to discriminate than to protect the targets of his discrimination. That's why a religious cult did not break the law a few years ago by standing outside the cemetery when a man was burying his son, a Marine, carrying signs claiming that his death was God's punishment for allowing homosexuals in the U.S. military. Their right to express disgusting and immoral views is more important, in the end, than the grieving father's right to be spared the pain they inflicted.
 IR_SomeBuddy
Joined: 7/14/2008
Msg: 174
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 6:29:48 PM
Although I don't agree with how the B&B owner handled the situation, as business owners it is well within their legal right to refuse business to anyone
"No they weren't. And niether are you. How do you people manage to function without getting sued daily?"

So just because you say I or other business owners cant refuse service to anyone makes it a law? I've seen many business owners refuse service to people on quite a few occasions and I have as well... and no lawsuits. Send me a message, I'll give you the phone number to my business and you can call and ask me to sell something to you... I will refuse your business and anxiously await your lawsuit.

Private business ultimately has the right to refuse service for any reason which does not conflict with Canada's human rights laws.
 MOTD2010
Joined: 5/18/2010
Msg: 175
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 6:46:19 PM
IR

some posts back someone from Canada cited something different and said something to the effect that you could not refuse..If you are correct I'm glad to hear it...

Here's a hypothetical for some of you people that have been arguing with match and we'll see how consistent you are..

I own a business and it serves lots of gay people..another customer walks in and begins to denigrate a gay couple calling them names etc.

By your standards I don't have any right to refuse service to him because of his anti gay stance which is based on his religion..right?
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?