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
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 182
view profile
History
who has more rights? Page 9 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

I never said I would put up a sign refusing service to gay people etc., as that would be violating a Canadian Human Rights Charter. You seem to have manufactured a scenario so that you can have some sort of rebuttal with my point. I don't have to give you any reason whatsoever for refusing service period. No Soup For You!


Okay...you don't get it. That's fine. please just read this from the government of canada web site describing what you can and can't do as a business owner....


Provision of goods and services: Businesses cannot refuse to provide a good or service to an individual simply on the grounds of some personal characteristic


Personal characteristics are then described as age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious beliefs and a few others.

So my question to you is this....when you say things like...


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


...you must realize that you are completely and totally wrong. And when you say things like....


I never said I would put up a sign refusing service to gay people etc.


...it absolutely begs the question....what the hell is the difference between politely and quietly refusing service to gay people and outrightly and obviously refusing service to gay people? The answer...absolutely nothing.


I don't have to give you any reason whatsoever for refusing service period. No Soup For You!


Just so we're completely clear...you don't have to give me or anyone else a reason for refusing service...but you do have to provide that reason to the human rights commission when you are called to account for your actions.
 IR_SomeBuddy
Joined: 7/14/2008
Msg: 183
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 9:15:57 PM
Your attempt to twist things your way is failing. Where did I say I would refuse service to gay people? You manufactured that. Your going to call the human rights commission on a store owner who tells you he doesn't want to do business with you? Just wow. What part of ,"I don't want to do business with you" do you not understand? Are you truly that dense?

You cannot force a private business into doing business with you no matter how loud you scream to the human rights commission. You live in a dream world if you think there would even be a case. If the human rights commission ever did inquire I would simply state to them, "Because I didn't feel like working at that moment", or "I had to go take a poop". Should I goto jail now, be forced into servicing you, whipped, please elaborate as I somehow know you will.

Curious as to how many years have you run your business?
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 184
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 9:25:53 PM
If the human rights commission ever did inquire I would simply state to them, "Because I didn't feel like working at that moment", or "I had to go take a poop".

So then, clearly your position is -- It is OK to discirminate against gays, blacks, women, whichever group you choose so long as you can lie your way out of it if someone complains...

Does that just about cover it...?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 185
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/3/2012 9:49:05 PM

Your attempt to twist things your way is failing. Where did I say I would refuse service to gay people?


You never said you would refuse service to gay people. In fact you said you didn't agree with what the B & B owners did. But you did say very clearly that there are no laws preventing business owners in Canada from refusing service to people because they are gay. That's incorrect. It's patently incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about.


Your going to call the human rights commission on a store owner who tells you he doesn't want to do business with you? Just wow. What part of ,"I don't want to do business with you" do you not understand? Are you truly that dense?


If you violate my rights based on this countries definition of those rights then I would call the HRC. However, as a youngish, whitish, straight (no ish there) male, I'm not likely to be refused service for any reason that has to do with my "personal characteristics". If you want to throw me out because I'm drunk, obnoxious, smelly, not wearing a shirt, etc, then by all means, do so. If I'm causing you and your business headaches because you can't figure out how to fix my widget, then fine. Don't do business with me. My widget has nothing to do with my personal characteristics. Lord have mercy this is really hard for you people. Here's a simpler equation...

personal characteristic=can't refuse service

Any other reason=can refuse service


You cannot force a private business into doing business with you no matter how loud you scream to the human rights commission


Yes. You are correct. As an example the B & B owners decided to close their business because they refuse and always will refuse to serve gay people. Fair enough. They will no longer be forced to deal with gay people. Your other option however is to pay your fines and then serve gay people. Or keep paying your fine after fine after fine. That's it.


Curious as to how many years have you run your business?


Thirteen years. Plus eleven years as a landlord. If there is anything else you'd like to know about operating a business in Alberta feel free to ask.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 186
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 9:07:18 AM

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.
One of the scenarios you gave was a child witnessing an unnatural act between same sex partners as having to be accepted in Canada. What you failed to understand is that public displays of sexuality are not reasonable regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. I would no more allow a heterosexual couple to have sex in my hallway in front of my minor child… hell, in front of anyone in a common area of my home. Under Canadian law, I have the right to refuse renting a room in my home to anyone that acts in such a fashion – the Human Rights Code would not defend such actions.

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.
There are other ways of gaining additional income rather than renting out a room in my home. If I felt that I required a few dollars more each month, I could easily get a part time job. While you see limitations on my options, I see protection against censure for minority groups.

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.
For someone that doesn’t seem to care how another country mandates it’s laws to protect it’s citizens, you are coming out with some pretty outrageous scenarios of who has more rights.


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?
Wrong. As others have stated, you can refuse service to that person because he is violating the Human Rights Code of another person. The person in question, while they have the right to their opinion, they do not have the right to express their opinion in such a fashion as to be insulting or denigrating to another human being.


I don't have to give you any reason whatsoever for refusing service period.
Actually, you do… or you could have your business license revoked. Nice try though…
 IR_SomeBuddy
Joined: 7/14/2008
Msg: 187
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 9:43:51 AM
I don't have to give you any reason whatsoever for refusing service period.
"Actually, you do… or you could have your business license revoked. Nice try though…"

You would be on private property and I DO NOT have to give you any reason whatsoever. I could have you charged with trespass if you didn't leave. Please enlighten me where there is a Law that states I have to tell you anything or have my business license revoked. I would just say to you, "Leave my property, leave right now!". I anxiously await a link to the supporting Canadian law you are insisting binds me to tell you anything.

If the human rights commission ever did inquire I would simply state to them, "Because I didn't feel like working at that moment", or "I had to go take a poop".

So then, clearly your position is -- It is OK to discirminate against gays, blacks, women, whichever group you choose so long as you can lie your way out of it if someone complains...

Does that just about cover it...?

I never said its OK you did. Do you know how to have a conversation without insinuation, and twisting things around?
I'd like to see anyone prove that I didn't feel like working that day or didn't have to use the washroom. Go ahead try and prove it.

I don't think it was right for the B&B owners to do what they did nor do I support it. However being a Business Owner myself I know my rights and just stated them. You guys cant accept reality and come back with unsubstantiated claims of Laws that do not exist in order to attack me. Please post links to these magical mystery laws so that I may become enlightened.

I've said my piece and I'm done dealing with endless rebuttals with no substance... stating something as Law without support or proof of your statement in order to spout your rhetoric bores me. I know you won't be able to substantiate your claims so I am done with this thread. Have a nice day :)
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 188
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 10:07:13 AM

I don't have to give you any reason whatsoever for refusing service period.
"Actually, you do… or you could have your business license revoked. Nice try though…"

You would be on private property and I DO NOT have to give you any reason whatsoever. I could have you charged with trespass if you didn't leave. Please enlighten me where there is a Law that states I have to tell you anything or have my business license revoked. I would just say to you, "Leave my property, leave right now!". I anxiously await a link to the supporting Canadian law you are insisting binds me to tell you anything.

If the human rights commission ever did inquire I would simply state to them, "Because I didn't feel like working at that moment", or "I had to go take a poop".

So then, clearly your position is -- It is OK to discirminate against gays, blacks, women, whichever group you choose so long as you can lie your way out of it if someone complains...

Does that just about cover it...?

I never said its OK you did. Do you know how to have a conversation without insinuation, and twisting things around?
I'd like to see anyone prove that I didn't feel like working that day or didn't have to use the washroom. Go ahead try and prove it.

I don't think it was right for the B&B owners to do what they did nor do I support it. However being a Business Owner myself I know my rights and just stated them. You guys cant accept reality and come back with unsubstantiated claims of Laws that do not exist in order to attack me. Please post links to these magical mystery laws so that I may become enlightened.

I've said my piece and I'm done dealing with endless rebuttals with no substance... stating something as Law without support or proof of your statement in order to spout your rhetoric bores me. I know you won't be able to substantiate your claims so I am done with this thread. Have a nice day :)
Here's your link... and while you have stated that you won't be back... I have this niggling feeling that you will.

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins_sheets_booklets/bulletins/when_is_discrim_body.asp

As you can see you do indeed need to give a reason for not serving an individual and I highly doubt any professional person would accept the excuse of your having to relieve yourself.

Furthermore, while the property might remain private, you would have to give a really good reason to have someone removed on those grounds if you're operating a business that is otherwise open to the public.

Personally, I doubt you're a business owner... any business owner or operator worth their salt would never even think to act in such a petty and irresponsible manner as to say they can refuse service to anyone they want.
 IR_SomeBuddy
Joined: 7/14/2008
Msg: 189
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 10:26:22 AM
You are right I had to come back... so please substantiate your point with a direct link to the relevant Law in the Human Rights Charter. You will not find one. Simply posting a link to the whole website doesn't count, you have to find the substantiation and point it out. I read the relevant sections to refusing service and didn't find any law forcing me to tell you why I refused service, did you?

Here is an actual question and answer from a legal site discussing a scenario where someone is refused service without explanation.
I asked for substantiation so I think its only fair I give some to you;

"Customer Question

Can a former employer (nightclub) refuse service without providing a reason to a bartender who was terminated? When asked why she couldn't go, the answer was "I don't want to discuss it."

Optional Information:
Province/Territory relating to question: Alberta

Already Tried:
Asking the employer to explain. Looked up Alberta employment standards.

Submitted: 84 days and 12 hours ago.
Category: Canada Law
Value: CA$36
Status: CLOSED
Accepted Answer
Picture
Expert: Copperlaw replied 84 days and 12 hours ago.


Copperlaw :
Hi there
Copperlaw :

Employment standards wouldn't have any bearing on this issue now after the employee was fired
Copperlaw :

a nightclub being a private establishment, they are within their rights to refuse entry or service to any person they choose
Copperlaw :

there is no inherent right for people to be allowed access to a business
Copperlaw :

In addition, a property owner or it's agent, does not have to provide a reason to a person to whom they are denying access.
Copperlaw :

If the person refuses to leave after being asked, or enters the premises after being denied, they are then trespassing and can be charged with same

Expert Type Lawyer
Category: Canada Law
Pos. Feedback: 98.8 %
Accepts: 482
Answered: 4/29/2012

Experience: 20 year cop. Now a Lawyer. Former drug expert, breath tech, negotiator, traffic specialist. Criminal, Family, Civil and more.

So is this Lawyer wrong and you are right simply because you say so?

I am in fact a business Owner and have invoked my right to ask someone to leave my Business without giving them a reason and seen many other Business Owners exercise their rights. Do you understand you are on Private Property when you enter a business? Do you also understand there is no Law forcing me to do Business with you? Do you also understand that I do not have to give you any reason why I asked you to leave or not do business? And do you understand that you could be charged with trespass if you stood there and argued with me about some magic law that exists only in your mind.

Can you not accept reality?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 190
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 10:33:41 AM
You guys cant accept reality and come back with unsubstantiated claims of Laws that do not exist in order to attack me. Please post links to these magical mystery laws so that I may become enlightened.


I already quoted you the magical mystery law as written in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Look. Here it is again from several posts ago...


Provision of goods and services: Businesses cannot refuse to provide a good or service to an individual simply on the grounds of some personal characteristic


What more proof do you want?


I'd like to see anyone prove that I didn't feel like working that day or didn't have to use the washroom. Go ahead try and prove it.


So you're going to close up shop for the whole day to go to the bathroom? You're going to keep all yor other customers locked out too? What if the person you want to toss just comes back five minutes later when you're open for business again? You really don't think these things through very well do you?


I am done with this thread. Have a nice day :)


You're done with this thread because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh man buddy. You are a tough cookie. Here's the part of the link lintspotter provided that you didn't read...


The hospitality industry-made up of hotels [1], restaurants, bars, and nightclubs-serves Albertans and visitors from around the world. Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, hospitality service providers must treat customers, guests and clients fairly and equitably. Among their legal responsibilities, the province's hospitality-industry operators have a responsibility to ensure that the services they provide are free of discrimination. By providing a service free of discrimination, hospitality operators help to protect both the dignity of their customers and their own business interests.

The Alberta Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in many areas of public life, including the provision of services, facilities, goods, and accommodation that are customarily available to the public in the hospitality industry. The AHR Act prohibits discrimination in Alberta on the basis of any of the following characteristics: race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status, or sexual orientation.


Why can't you just read that and put an end to your tortured thinking. You can't refuse service to someone because of the above mentioned reasons. If you have no reason for refusing service, you will lose your case with the human rghts commission.

And just so you know, the "proof" you listed in the above post has to do with refusing service to a bartender that was fired. That does not fall in the definition of a "personal characteristic" so you would be allowed to refuse him service all day. Duh.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 191
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 10:47:40 AM
#206


how the hell else would you define sharing a house!?!?!?!You can't just rent the room! No bathroom privledges or kitchen!?!? If a tenant has their own kitchen and bathroom you're renting them a suite in a house, not sharing a house.


I was going by the poster's statement of the law. I assume there is a reason it distinguished arrangements in which neither the kitchen nor a bathroom was shared. I don't know about Canada, but the distinction is common here. And the question is whether the law that was cited considers renting a suite as not sharing a house--not whether you choose to define it that way.



Because it's more than likely illegal to rent someone a room and not let them use the bathroom for gawd's sake.


Obviously you don't know that it is illegal. I don't know about Canada, but most houses in the U.S. have more than one bathroom. If someone were renting a room with its own bathroom, it would be ridiculous to say that the homeowner, by specifying that the renter had the use of only that bathroom and none of the other three in the house, he was "not letting him use the bathroom."



But in fact our laws are essentially the same as yours in California.


The law the poster cited, as stated in the post, does not sound "essentially the same" as the law here. But maybe you know California law on this issue in more detail than I do. It's not my area of law--just something I once looked into briefly for a friend. I was asking about how it works in Canada purely out of curiosity.



This is in no way a crime.


But voicing anything but officially approved opinions seems to be pretty close to it. You can refuse someone service because you happen to think statements you overhear him making in conversation prove "he's being an ass."

#216


public displays of sexuality are not reasonable


Having sex in the hallway of a private residence would not be a "public display of sexuality" in this country. But maybe it would be in Canada.



Under Canadian law, I have the right to refuse renting a room in my home to anyone that acts in such a fashion


Really? Maybe the two in my hypo were just trying something new and daring to spice up their sex life. Is it reasonable to expect them to know that little Susie was going to get up at 1 am for a glass of water and see them there? What if they'd just left the door partway open, instead, and she had happened to glimpse them in flagrante delicto? I suppose the homeowner should be able to evict them for that, too! I'm beginning to wonder if you're biased against gay people.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 192
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 12:09:59 PM

Having sex in the hallway of a private residence would not be a "public display of sexuality" in this country. But maybe it would be in Canada.
When you rent out an area of your home to someone, the common areas of the house are often referred to as public areas.

I can't imagine that even in the US, someone would be allowed to engage in sex in a public or common area otherwise there wouldn't be such scandals about celebrities or politicians being caught masturbating in theatres.

Your scenarios are obtusely idealistic. I suggest a huge dose of common sense be applied when you next post.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 193
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:20:30 PM
Your scenarios are obtusely idealistic.


Please don't confuse me with those big words. What do you mean, exactly? Common sense is an important part of the law, but that's not the standard courts apply when they decide cases. Laws have to be written to apply to all sorts of situations--not just the most common ones.

If you're talking about hypotheticals, more often than not the facts are purposely made extreme to see how--or if--a law would cover a situation that might come up. I can tell you that the two I made up off the top of my head are not nearly as far out as the facts in many actual published cases. The first of the Supreme Court's three "gay" decisions, for example, involved an act of homosexual sodomy police happened to witness through the partly-opened door of a room in an apartment another occupant had consented to let them enter. The police were there for completely different reasons, and the arrest for sodomy, which was then against Georgia law, was pure coincidence.


otherwise there wouldn't be such scandals about celebrities or politicians being caught masturbating in theatres.


It's pretty clear to most people that a movie theater is a public place, just like the City Hall lawn. Whatever it may be customary to call shared areas inside a private residence, they are not public in the same sense.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 194
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:36:46 PM
I never said its OK you did. Do you know how to have a conversation without insinuation, and twisting things around?

No, you did not openly say it was OK... If it was not your intent to imply so, then why are you giving advice on how to get away with it by claiming that you can discriminate if you don't give your real reason away (leave evidence or can lie to the courts about you actions)...?

Can you not accept reality?

I would ask the same question considering you continue to deny that you are doing what I described above...

Your scenarios are obtusely idealistic.

The scenarios are completely divorced from reality... He has already admitted he has no clue what he is talking about and has clearly demonstrated that he cannot be bothered with reality when it diverges from whatever delusion he is going off about...
 Happy Dude 63
Joined: 5/3/2009
Msg: 195
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 2:40:53 PM
When in a public service business, the only thing you should care about is giving great service and collecting money.

IF the customers is not to your liking too bad. Smile and give the same service you would anyone else.

And oddly, the Christian way is to turn people away because they are different? So strange that many religions speak so highly of compassion and kindness, but teaches hatred in the same sentences?
 IR_SomeBuddy
Joined: 7/14/2008
Msg: 196
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 6:24:42 PM
Grace did public or Government money fund this building? If not then it is most certainly considered private property in Canada. All I am stating is that business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as its not for reasons listed in the Human Rights Act. Whether its good business or not is irrelevant.

I saw a Chinese lady kick a man in a wheelchair out of her restaurant... she yelled at him, " Get out, you get out now! " She didn't give him a reason but I suspect his chair took up extra space and was blocking the aisle to the kitchen. My new date and I looked at each other when we saw this, and without saying a word to each other we both got up and left. I have not been there since and its been 15 years. She didn't get sued and she didn't have to tell him squat why she wanted him out.

Like I said before I do not condone what the B&B owners did nor I personally discriminate against people myself unless they are total ass hats, and then out the door they go regardless of their sexual orientation, etc.. Anyone who thinks there are laws to make me do business with them if I do not wish to are mistaken and have not substantiated their facts one bit.
Also as the Lawyer stated a Business owner doesn't have to give you any reason why they refused service and asked you to leave.

I proved every one of my points by posting the Lawyers advice on the topic at hand. Some people chose to ignore the facts stated by a Lawyer in black and white plain English words, and yet insist continuing with tirade after tirade thrown in with personal attacks, and unsubstantiated claims. These self righteous people who insist that I must kiss their asses and serve them just cannot admit they are wrong. Obviously Business and Law are not their strong suits as well as comprehension for some.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 197
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 7:18:30 PM

All I am stating is that business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as its not for reasons listed in the Human Rights Act.

It is all fine and dandy that you say that, but that is not what you originally stated...

What you stated was:

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.

You are suggesting that all one has to do to discriminate is to not give the real reason for refusal, just make up an inocuous excuse and you can get away with it...

You then went on to further state:

You cannot force a private business into doing business with you no matter how loud you scream to the human rights commission. You live in a dream world if you think there would even be a case. If the human rights commission ever did inquire I would simply state to them, "Because I didn't feel like working at that moment", or "I had to go take a poop".

Now, I don't care how you want to spin it... That is clearly saying that you can escape a human rights complaint by lieing about it...

I proved every one of my points by posting the Lawyers advice on the topic at hand.

No, you didn't... What you quoted didn't say one word about having the right to be deceptive to accomplish discrimination as you clearly advised as a means to avoid a suit... I can pretty much guarantee that if you lie to the customers or the courts about the basis for your refusal, and get caught doing it, you will lose your case...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 198
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/4/2012 7:51:25 PM

Grace did public or Government money fund this building? If not then it is most certainly considered private property in Canada. All I am stating is that business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone


The ownership of a property used for commercial purposes has absolutely no importance in deciding who gets to enter it during business hours. You can own the property, own the business, but during business hours it must be open to everyone. This is from the registry of Alberta, you know the place that set you up with your business number and everything you needed to know to open your store...


This address must be accessible to the public during regular business hours,
and must either be a street address or legal land description


That's a no brainer.

But look at how crazy you are Buddy...


All I am stating is that business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as its not for reasons listed in the Human Rights Act


Ok. Well done. You get it now. The reason you refuse someone service has to be something other than those listed as personal characteristics in our charter and commission's description of discrimination. Beautiful.

But then.......


Also as the Lawyer stated a Business owner doesn't have to give you any reason why they refused service and asked you to leave


Arg! Now you're back to saying you can refuse service with no reason at all. Gawd! You're maddening. The charter of rights and the human rights commission say you need a reason other than personal characteristics to refuse servcice. End of story. Quite being wrong. If the person you refused service to for no reason decidess to file a complaint against you you will have to provide a reason.


I proved every one of my points by posting the Lawyers advice on the topic at hand


So funny. The lawyer you quoted from some "Ask Geeves" sort of site may not be a lawyer at all. What is for certain is that he wasn't talking about discrimination issues. He was talking about a fired bartender. And as we have seen from first hand experience here, lawyers are not the best and brightest to say the least. Why don't you just read the laws as quoted for you here in this thread and then if you still say business owners in Alberta do not need a valid reason to refuse service to someone you're absolutely crazy and we should just move on.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 199
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/5/2012 2:50:02 AM
I'm just glad to hear that the bed and breakfast is out of business now. Good that it turned out the right way this time. They f***ing deserve it.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 200
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/8/2012 11:25:07 AM
here's a good one for youse folks to debate (there's already a thread about this on the uk
forum but as you lot cannot road trip i think its a valid story for here.) as it ties in with the
topic of this thread.

now is THIS business allowed to pick and choose who they allow on their premises
or do youse lot think that a court case should be brought and the business fined and
brought to its knees in a christian bed and breakfast type stylee?


Sexism row as children's play centre bans fathers and all boys aged over nine

Branded 'disgusting and sexist' for 'no men rule'
Equality watchdog will investigate the centre's policy
Decision made for 'cultural reasons' in the interests of the 'predominantly Asian' community

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2185041/Fathers-banned-play-centres-women-decree.html#ixzz22yolWX4d

oooo dear every ism and ist and ophobe included in that little belter of a story.

play nice now
 LoveMyDog55
Joined: 7/18/2012
Msg: 201
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/8/2012 1:16:53 PM
Geez, I say let them have their play center ~ is that the only play center around?

What if they allow men and older boys to come in and all the women and girls leave? haha

"We're not staying if some stinky men are coming around to spoil our fun"

Then it will be an all male play center. Ah, well. It was fun while it lasted
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 202
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/8/2012 1:39:42 PM

We're not staying if some stinky men are coming around


But maybe it was the stinky women there who attracted them. Stinky women are not my thing, but chacun a son gout.
 LoveMyDog55
Joined: 7/18/2012
Msg: 203
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/8/2012 1:44:05 PM
Of course it was!!! They could smell them stank wimmen from miles away.

What a dilemma

 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 204
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/8/2012 2:10:53 PM

But maybe it was the stinky women there who attracted them. Stinky women are not my thing, but chacun a son gout.

And STILL you haven't been able to answer to your contradictions...

Have you managed to figure out some way to weasel out of this yet...?

""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..."

It seems rather obvious that you cannot "worm your way out"...

It is interesting how rabid, right-wing conservatives never seem to want to answer for their contradictions... It is as if they understand that their lies have no basis and they are too lacking in "testicular fortitude" and personal responsibility to admit their errors...
 Tigmorevad
Joined: 10/13/2009
Msg: 205
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/8/2012 3:36:27 PM
Any business owner should have the right to do business with whomever he or she chooses.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 206
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 8/14/2012 12:59:38 PM
gays are a protected cadre because the Jews control the banking and media etc. and favour them in their war to exterminate the White race.


It must be all those non-white Jews who are waging the war to exterminate whites.


Legally means nothing anymore in the USA or Canada.


I don't know about Canada, but laws mean quite a bit here in the U.S. Every day, lots of people who break them are made to realize that.


Normal people have no rights in a sick society.


If so, the U.S. can't be a sick society, because lots of perfectly normal people have all sorts of legally enforceable rights here.


gays never were tolerated anywhere in History


You might want to read a little about ancient Greece.


these insane Zionist states attack innocent countries.


Yes, it's shocking. Those mean, insane Israelis are getting ready to attack the plants the poor, innocent Islamic jihadist Nazis who rule Iran have built to make atom bombs. And why? All because those poor, innocent jihadist Nazis hate Jews and have sworn to wipe out Israel with those bombs as soon as they get them.


Meanwhile the folks at home are kept fat and stupid like human cattle.


I take it you don't count yourself and your friends among those folks. As for myself, I may be stupid, and I can be bull-headed at times--but I am *not* fat.


yet heteros have been deprived of the sex fun people had in the 70s.


They have? I take it you are speaking for yourself.


Gays spread disease and should be banned.


What form should this "banning" take, in your opinion, and just how should it be accomplished? I hope you're not calling for anyone to break the law.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?