- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Legally, it is not within their rights as a business owner to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender.
Here's my thing, and I can see the validity of laws as applicable to a business license, even though I disagree with compelled commerce. I don't want to do business with bigots, period, bigots don't want to do business because of x, why not let everyone just be adults and decide for themselves what commerce they want to engage in? Minus necessities of courseIn the EU you can add sexual orietation to that list, as a loyal European, I'm proud of that commitment to non-discrimination, even if it isn't very well policed.
Here's my thing, and I can see the validity of laws as applicable to a business license, even though I disagree with compelled commerce. I don't want to do business with bigots, period, bigots don't want to do business because of x, why not let everyone just be adults and decide for themselves what commerce they want to engage in? Minus necessities of course
I figured from earlier posts here they were denied on site after reserving but wasn't sure, that is what the focus should be on IMO. That is most certainly misrepresentation and that would be acceptable as a fine or charge in any circumstance. Of course I found out after posting it was the UK so I don't have a dog in this fight, but wanted to speak theorhetically about commerce and rights theory. So my opinion here really should be taken with a grain of salt.Well, the guys refused room had reserved their room, probably by internet (in the UK over 90% of hotel/room reservations are now done online) and were not informed of this BnBs illegal attitude until they arrived. That suggests that the owners are not open about their attitude. So, to add to their illegal discriminatroy attitude, you can add misrepresentation.
Again, I think society has progressed to the point that if bigots want to go on record as being discriminatory and enforce those policies they should have every right in the world to screw their bottom lines up. But then again I am more market oriented.It used to be legal for people to discriminate on all kinds of grounds. When I was a kid it was common to see notices in the doorways of pubs saying, "No Blacks, Irish, Gypsies or Dogs". Perhaps the owners could post a "No Homos" notice on their website and see where that led them.
I figured from earlier posts here they were denied on site after reserving but wasn't sure, that is what the focus should be on IMO. That is most certainly misrepresentation and that would be acceptable as a fine or charge in any circumstance. Of course I found out after posting it was the UK so I don't have a dog in this fight, but wanted to speak theorhetically about commerce and rights theory. So my opinion here really should be taken with a grain of salt.
Again, I think society has progressed to the point that if bigots want to go on record as being discriminatory and enforce those policies they should have every right in the world to screw their bottom lines up. But then again I am more market oriented.
I agree with that.Fair enough. As far as I can see, you CAN discriminate as much as you like and let the market dictate the success of your policy PROVIDED you stick to the law. Whether one believes that anti-discrimination legislation is a good thing or a bad thing is a different debate. We don't get to cherry-pick the laws we obey. We can protest them, it's called civil disobedience, if we don't like them but we must accept the consequences of that disobedience.
I hope the owners were cognisant of the legal ramifications of their actions before they decided to make their stand. I have no doubt they will be bleating to the Daily Mail when they get hit with a fine and revocation of their BnB status.
I know what the law is. The question was not about the law. It was about what we thought it should be. And it's not straight up discrimination. It's discrimination against a "protected class". Not all discrimination is illegal.
This kind is.
What if blacks, mexicans, jews, or women staying at my establishment was against my religious beliefs?
Anyone, for any reason.
But it shouldn't be.
Exactly. What if this were a Black or interracial couple who were refused on those grounds?
No, it's a question of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That is specifically outlawed in UK legislation. It's not the same as racial discrimination but it has the same status in law.For some people it is not a question of racial discrimination, it is a question of moral discrimination.
That being the case should they be forced to accept ANYONE regardless of their positions on any and everything? Should organizers of gay only couples getaway events be forced to accept cross waving Christians without reservation and also be forced to protect their rights to speech at their events without molestation or harrassment?
At what point do people finally get the message that life isnt fair...
I'm surprised at the number of people who feel that 'it's their business, their rules"
It's not a religious-business such as a church. In a church I feel that, yes, their religion their rules - but not a business open to the public.
If you open a business then you welcome everyone, barring your personal feelings about their lifestyle. The only thing permitted to be discriminated against are those who want to enter an establishment while presenting a danger or hazard - thus the no shoes, no shirt, no service signs . . . and so on. You cannot discriminate according to age, race, sexual orientation and all that jazz. . . because all those things are either A) someone's personal life and no one else's business or B) their unaltered state of being - like race or gender.
Religion and moral things aren't up to the owner's discrimination.
If someone has religious issues then they shouldn't be opening and operating a business in which they'll be privy to such things. . .
No, it's a question of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That is specifically outlawed in UK legislation. It's not the same as racial discrimination but it has the same status in law.
Show us the proof of comparable discrimination against heterosexuals and see our response.
It may not be, but there's a big difference in recognising that and saying "that's a good thing" and saying "that's a bad thing, let's do something about it".
And we should sue for age discrimination all those business that pull that seniors eat cheaper bull****. Thats discrimination. i dont eat anything near what all those fat disgusting people in society eat...why should a business be allowed to give preferential treatment? Or those business that give discounts to police and firemen...we should lock those people up. How dare they discriminate against Joe construction worker? Or schools that create clubs for academic elites...thats just terrible....
We can go on and on and on...
Why though. The business owner pays the taxes, the overhead, maintenance, and salaries out of gross sales and gets no help from activist groups or governing bodies, so why then do those that do not have a stake in the business get a say in it? What justification can there possibly be. Again, bigotry is a stupid business decision as the public is a "partner" only in that you seek to do commerce with the public and need their dollars, bigots are not tolerated and your access to customer dollars will be compromised by the negative publicity, this is much more damaging than a law, fine, or civil suit.If you open a business then you welcome everyone, barring your personal feelings about their lifestyle. The only thing permitted to be discriminated against are those who want to enter an establishment while presenting a danger or hazard - thus the no shoes, no shirt, no service signs . . . and so on. You cannot discriminate according to age, race, sexual orientation and all that jazz. . . because all those things are either A) someone's personal life and no one else's business or B) their unaltered state of being - like race or gender.
Again, outside of emotion and theory, what's the realistic and logical justification?Religion and moral things aren't up to the owner's discrimination.
I agree, but from a differing perspective.If someone has religious issues then they shouldn't be opening and operating a business in which they'll be privy to such things. . .
Why though. The business owner pays the taxes, the overhead, maintenance, and salaries out of gross sales and gets no help from activist groups or governing bodies, so why then do those that do not have a stake in the business get a say in it? What justification can there possibly be. Again, bigotry is a stupid business decision as the public is a "partner" only in that you seek to do commerce with the public and need their dollars, bigots are not tolerated and your access to customer dollars will be compromised by the negative publicity, this is much more damaging than a law, fine, or civil suit.
Again, outside of emotion and theory, what's the realistic and logical justification?
I agree, but from a differing perspective.
What on earth is that comparison suppose to mean?
You've failed to understand the difference between discrimination and preferential treatment.
If a firefighter or elderly were NOT allowed to eat at an establishment because they were a firefighter or were elderly then it would be discrimination and people would be pissed.
There's nothing wrong with a business giving a perk or benefit to attract customers or show their appreciation, etc. . . it's widely accepted and breaks no laws.
Outstanding point! I would say I don't want any couple straight, gay, etc. mugging down in communal areas because I don't want to see it........and I'm a pretty easy going guy when it comes to things, so I can only imagine what my more uptight customers would be going through.It should be noted that there is a gray area. For example, if a gay couple is displaying public affection in the main lobby areas (making out, grabbing), the owner/manager has every right to say, "cut that **** out, you could offend someone and it will negatively effect my business/sales".
Whether this is the case or not, people should take a less aggressive approach in expressing their sexuality. If a straight male came into my establishment with a shirt reading, "i love eating shaved *****" i'd tell him to either change or GTFO....
I know you have an obsession for negative freedom. However, in these situations, the risk for full scale bigoted abuse is far too great.
What's next? Claiming its perfectly acceptable to label black and white drinking fountains in private establishments? How about gay drinking fountains?
Says you. The UK and the EU have made a clear moral decision that discrimination on certain ground is illegal. In making that decision everybody has the right to contribute to the debate using their vote, their lobbying ability, the force of their rhetoric in a free(ish) media and through their membership or participation in pressure groups.
I explained earlier how you can make a personal protest against laws with which you disagree and the consequences of such protest. The UK has a General Election in about 6 weeks' time. If you feel strongly about this issue then make your feelings known to your candidates and find out whether they support you.
Why should you have to welcome everyone? Why should a business owner be forced, against their will, to serve someone they find reprehensible? Isn't that in the same boat as slavery? Forcing someone to serve someone they don't want to? It is THEIR business, THEIR property, they should have full control over who they allow or disallow on their own property. For ANY reason.I'm surprised at the number of people who feel that 'it's their business, their rules"
It's not a religious-business such as a church. In a church I feel that, yes, their religion their rules - but not a business open to the public.
If you open a business then you welcome everyone, barring your personal feelings about their lifestyle. The only thing permitted to be discriminated against are those who want to enter an establishment while presenting a danger or hazard - thus the no shoes, no shirt, no service signs . . . and so on. You cannot discriminate according to age, race, sexual orientation and all that jazz. . . because all those things are either A) someone's personal life and no one else's business or B) their unaltered state of being - like race or gender.
Religion and moral things aren't up to the owner's discrimination.
If someone has religious issues then they shouldn't be opening and operating a business in which they'll be privy to such things. . .
I think they have a right to refuse them service if they don't want homosexuals there for religious reasons. However, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in all cases. They shouldn't be allowed to deny blacks or whites or anyone else service based on race.
I know you have an obsession for negative freedom. However, in these situations, the risk for full scale bigoted abuse is far too great.
What's next? Claiming its perfectly acceptable to label black and white drinking fountains in private establishments? How about gay drinking fountains?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?