Handicap Access...

[Danoff]

Because it isn't socially acceptable any more to refuse service to individuals because of their sexual orientation, there was a time it was acceptable. So it comes down to socially acceptable behavior, don't you think?

Should it? Should we legislate what is socially accetable, or should we allow people to make up their own minds with their own property?

 

[Swift]

Should it? Should we legislate what is socially accetable, or should we allow people to make up their own minds with their own property?

Reality and what should be are two different things. Reality is that if I turned away a homosexual, I'd be looked at like I'm a bigot. Whether it was my property or not.

 

[Danoff]

...all the more reason why if left to your own devices you wouldn't do it.

 

[Pako]

Should it? Should we legislate what is socially accetable, or should we allow people to make up their own minds with their own property?

Like I said, some rights are just wrong.

The answer is no, you should NOT base law on what's socially acceptable but that's what happens. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. The problem with legislation is that it makes you draw that line in the sand as you noted. Individual situations need to be considered and not fall under a blanketed law such as what Swift's church is experiencing. I'm sure the county laws were put in place for a good reason, but that reason clearly doesn't apply to Swift's church. So why do we rely on these blanket laws and not look at individual situations? Because of Time, Money and Resources to accomplish such a task as analyzing each case that might come up.

 

[Danoff]

Like I said, some rights are just wrong.

The answer is no, you should NOT base law on what's socially acceptable but that's what happens. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. The problem with legislation is that it makes you draw that line in the sand as you noted. Individual situations need to be considered and not fall under a blanketed law such as what Swift's church is experiencing. I'm sure the county laws were put in place for a good reason, but that reason clearly doesn't apply to Swift's church. So why do we rely on these blanket laws and not look at individual situations? Because of Time, Money and Resources to accomplish such a task as analyzing each case that might come up.

Everyone must be treated equally under the law and by the government, it's your constitutional gaurantee (even though it isn't practiced - see affirmative action). The rules have to be laid out clearly and easy to understand so that people can know the law. And the rules have to be applied to each person regardless of that person's circumstance (race, religion, age, wealth, etc.). That means that we have to come up with laws the work for everyone. If the law doesn't work in every situation it needs to be redefined.

We can't simply say "we're requiring handicapped access, unless... well unless we think it's ok for you not to."

There is no line to be drawn in the sand if you make the law from a principled point of view.

 

[JacktheHat]

Rules should be based on what is right and what is wrong.

Like:

It's right that homosexuals should be treated with the same respect afforded to everybody else.

and:

It's wrong to be in a public place naked and carrying a shotgun as this woud be threatening to anybody that witnessed it, which could potentially include children.

 

[Famine]

Because it isn't socially acceptable any more to refuse service to individuals because of their sexual orientation, there was a time it was acceptable. So it comes down to socially acceptable behavior, don't you think?

But if I don't like poofs, why should I be forced to allow them onto my private property?

Remember - at one time, hating and discriminating against black people (as an example) WAS socially acceptable behaviour.

Like:

It's right that homosexuals should be treated with the same respect afforded to everybody else.

and:

It's wrong to be in a public place naked and carrying a shotgun as this woud be threatening to anybody that witnessed it, which could potentially include children.

Remember that I said "assuming he isn't breaking any laws"?

This man is legally allowed out in public, naked but for a Winchester Pump. So it boils down to discriminating against him for his lifestyle choice.

What, in particular, is threatening about him anyway? Many people carry guns and somehow find the time not to kill people. Naturists are the least threatening group of people on Earth - "Gimme all the cash in the till" isn't usually well-accompanied by a lazy lob-on. 0.81mg/l is enough to stop you from driving, based on safety principles but again, many people manage to exceed this level without even once committing murder.


It seems that it is "right" to discriminate against someone who seems a bit weird, but "wrong" to discriminate against someone whose personal choices (whether or not homosexuality is a choice is another debate entirely, but most people who hate homosexuals seem to think it is) you find abhorrent - even on your own premises.


So you have two people - one odd, one gay - in your shop, neither of whom is breaking the law. You can refuse to serve one through personal prejudice, but the law (or "socially acceptable behaviour") says you mustn't refuse to serve the other through personal prejudice. That would be an inconsistent law.

 

[JacktheHat]

But if I don't like poofs, why should I be forced to allow them onto my private property?

Remember - at one time, hating and discriminating against black people (as an example) WAS socially acceptable behaviour.



Remember that I said "assuming he isn't breaking any laws"?

This man is legally allowed out in public, naked but for a Winchester Pump. So it boils down to discriminating against him for his lifestyle choice.

What, in particular, is threatening about him anyway? Many people carry guns and somehow find the time not to kill people. Naturists are the least threatening group of people on Earth - "Gimme all the cash in the till" isn't usually well-accompanied by a lazy lob-on. 0.81mg/l is enough to stop you from driving, based on safety principles but again, many people manage to exceed this level without even once committing murder.


It seems that it is "right" to discriminate against someone who seems a bit weird, but "wrong" to discriminate against someone whose personal choices (whether or not homosexuality is a choice is another debate entirely, but most people who hate homosexuals seem to think it is) you find abhorrent - even on your own premises.


So you have two people - one odd, one gay - in your shop, neither of whom is breaking the law. You can refuse to serve one through personal prejudice, but the law (or "socially acceptable behaviour") says you mustn't refuse to serve the other through personal prejudice. That would be an inconsistent law.

I wasn't talking about pesonal prejudice, I was talking about acceptable behaviour.
Personally, the presence of a homosexual in a restaurant isn't going to put me off of my food but a gun wielding naked man (regardless of his sobriety) would. Which is why the proprietor would be perfectly within his rights to ask the forementioned armed naturist to leave.

 

[Swift]

I wasn't talking about pesonal prejudice, I was talking about acceptable behaviour.
Personally, the presence of a homosexual in a restaurant isn't going to put me off of my food but a gun wielding naked man (regardless of his sobriety) would. Which is why the proprietor would be perfectly within his rights to ask the forementioned armed naturist to leave.

So if it makes you uneasy then it's ok to send them packing?

 

[Famine]

So a business owner should only be allowed to throw people out if the other customers decree it? That makes even less sense than before.

I say again, if you have two people - one odd, one gay - in your shop, neither of whom is breaking the law and can refuse to serve one through personal prejudice, but the mustn't refuse to serve the other through personal prejudice then there is inconsistency.

I was talking about acceptable behaviour.

As I said before, it was once "acceptable behaviour" to hate black people. Does that make it right?

I wasn't talking about pesonal prejudice...

Personally, the presence of a homosexual in a restaurant isn't going to put me off of my food but a gun wielding naked man (regardless of his sobriety) would.

Looks like you ARE talking about personal prejudice after all. Gun-holding naturists would appear to nauseate you.

 

[JacktheHat]

So a business owner should only be allowed to throw people out if the other customers decree it? That makes even less sense than before.

I say again, if you have two people - one odd, one gay - in your shop, neither of whom is breaking the law and can refuse to serve one through personal prejudice, but the mustn't refuse to serve the other through personal prejudice then there is inconsistency.



As I said before, it was once "acceptable behaviour" to hate black people. Does that make it right?



Looks like you ARE talking about personal prejudice after all. Gun-holding naturists would appear to nauseate you.

Famine, now you're just being facetious.

We both know that walking around naked with a gun is a choice, the person has opted to do that. Which is why it is acceptable for the restaurant owner to ask them to stop acting in an irresponsible manner.

Being homosexual, or black, or disabled, are not choices. Which is why it would be unacceptable for the restaurant owner to ask someone to stop being black, homosexual or disabled.

 

[JacktheHat]

So if it makes you uneasy then it's ok to send them packing?

Being naked and carrying a fire-arm is inappropriate behaviour for a restaurant. Being of a certain ethinicity, gender, sexuality or physical ability is not.

 

[Swift]

Being naked and carrying a fire-arm is inappropriate behaviour for a restaurant. Being of a certain ethinicity, gender, sexuality or physical ability is not.

We're not talking just a restaurant here. Any private place that services the "public"

If it's legal to carry a gun(and it is in some places) along with being naked and that person is asked to leave by the owner, that's discrimination.

Either way it's a personal thing. As it SHOULD be for a private owner. If he doesn't want to let gay/disabled/black people into his private business then why should he HAVE to?

 

[JacktheHat]

We're not talking just a restaurant here. Any private place that services the "public"

If it's legal to carry a gun(and it is in some places) along with being naked and that person is asked to leave by the owner, that's discrimination.

Either way it's a personal thing. As it SHOULD be for a private owner. If he doesn't want to let gay/disabled/black people into his private business then why should he HAVE to?

Swift, are you being intentionally asinine?

Expecting people to act responsibly and prejudicing are not the same thing.

 

[Swift]

Swift, are you being intentionally asinine?

Expecting people to act responsibly and prejudicing are not the same thing.

I'm trying to show you that your view of "acting responsible" is completly up for opinion, situation and location. So it shouldn't be part of the equation.

 

[JacktheHat]

I'm trying to show you that your view of "acting responsible" is completly up for opinion, situation and location. So it shouldn't be part of the equation.

It would be the owners view on "acting responsibly".

It would also be the equation.

 

[Swift]

It would be the owners view on "acting responsibly".

It would also be the equation.

So if he feels that homosexuality, drug abuse or smoking isn't acting responsibly, why can't he kick them out?

 

[Danoff]

It would be the owners view on "acting responsibly".

Right!!!

So the owners are the ones who get to choose who to discriminate against based on their own views. The rest of us can't tell them what to do with their property.

 

[JacktheHat]

Right!!!

So the owners are the ones who get to choose who to discriminate against based on their own views. The rest of us can't tell them what to do with their property.

As long as they discriminate on subjective criteria, yes.

 

[Famine]

Famine, now you're just being facetious.

"Now"?

We both know that walking around naked with a gun is a choice, the person has opted to do that. Which is why it is acceptable for the restaurant owner to ask them to stop acting in an irresponsible manner.

Being homosexual, or black, or disabled, are not choices. Which is why it would be unacceptable for the restaurant owner to ask someone to stop being black, homosexual or disabled.

It seems that it is "right" to discriminate against someone who seems a bit weird, but "wrong" to discriminate against someone whose personal choices (whether or not homosexuality is a choice is another debate entirely, but most people who hate homosexuals seem to think it is) you find abhorrent - even on your own premises.

Which, of course, is why I picked that example.

Your "logic" has moved us on from that point. To this one:

I say again, if you have two people - one odd, one gay - in your shop, neither of whom is breaking the law and can refuse to serve one through personal prejudice, but the mustn't refuse to serve the other through personal prejudice then there is inconsistency.

You're doing this right now - claiming that naturist gun-owners are "irresponsible". Why do your personal prejudices allow you to discriminate against this person, but other people's personal prejudices cannot, depending on the nature of the prejudice, allow them to discriminate against people, on their own private premises?

 

[JacktheHat]

"Now"?





Which, of course, is why I picked that example.

Your "logic" has moved us on from that point. To this one:



You're doing this right now - claiming that naturist gun-owners are "irresponsible". Why do your personal prejudices allow you to discriminate against this person, but other people's personal prejudices cannot, depending on the nature of the prejudice, allow them to discriminate against people, on their own private premises?

Because carrying a gun is subjective, being homosexual is not.

Oh, and I never said being a naturist gun-owner was irresponsible. I did say, however, that being naked and carrying a gun in a restaurant is irresponsible.

 

[Swift]

As long as they discriminate on subjective criteria, yes.

I'm going to fall out of my chair. Seriously.

What is and is not subjective changes from person to person. Some people think being over 25, female and single means that you have some serious issues.

Man, come on Jack. That's about as slippery a slope as I've ever seen.

 

[Danoff]

As long as they discriminate on subjective criteria, yes.

So you're saying that it's only ok for the restaurant owner to discriminate based on things that are lifestyle choices...

You have yet to address the fact that it is HIS property and he should not be forced to let ANYONE patronize his establishment. Why do you think you get any say in what he does with his property?

 

[JacktheHat]

I'm going to fall out of my chair. Seriously.

What is and is not subjective changes from person to person. Some people think being over 25, female and single means that you have some serious issues.

Man, come on Jack. That's about as slippery a slope as I've ever seen.

Of course it changes from person to person, as do the criteria for entrance to different places. It still doesn't make discriminating because of a person's gender, sexuality, ethnicity or physical ability subjective.

If a night-club won't let you in because they have a shoes only policy and you're wearing trainers you have the choice of not going in or of putting on some shoes to conform.
In this case the night-club owner is discriminating subjectively.

 

[JacktheHat]

So you're saying that it's only ok for the restaurant owner to discriminate based on things that are lifestyle choices...

You have yet to address the fact that it is HIS property and he should not be forced to let ANYONE patronize his establishment. Why do you think you get any say in what he does with his property?

Because consumers have rights too.

 

[Swift]

Of course it changes from person to person, as do the criteria for entrance to different places. It still doesn't make discriminating because of a person's gender, sexuality, ethnicity or physical ability subjective.

If a night-club won't let you in because they have a shoes only policy and you're wearing trainers you have the choice of not going in or of putting on some shoes to conform.
In this case the night-club owner is discriminating subjectively.

And that's different from the naked gun carrying guy how?

 

[Famine]

Oh, and I never said being a naturist gun-owner was irresponsible. I did say, however, that being naked and carrying a gun in a restaurant is irresponsible.

Why is it?

(and my example is currently taking place in a shop, rather than a restaurant)

Because carrying a gun is subjective, being homosexual is not.

The sort of person likely to want to throw a homosexual out of his shop would probably believe that homosexuality is a choice (despite absolutely no viable conclusions that homosexuality is either choice or genetic, or anything else). Therefore they are, to their mind, discriminating against the person on subjective criteria - that person has chosen to be gay, just as Mr. Nudey has chosen to carry a firearm.

You're allowed to throw law-abiding Mr. Nudey out of your shop, but you don't want someone else to throw the gay man out of theirs.

 

[JacktheHat]

And that's different from the naked gun carrying guy how?

Why should it be different?

 

[Danoff]

Because consumers have rights too.

What right do I have to someone else's property or service?

 

[JacktheHat]

Why is it?

(and my example is currently taking place in a shop, rather than a restaurant)



The sort of person likely to want to throw a homosexual out of his shop would probably believe that homosexuality is a choice (despite absolutely no viable conclusions that homosexuality is either choice or genetic, or anything else). Therefore they are, to their mind, discriminating against the person on subjective criteria - that person has chosen to be gay, just as Mr. Nudey has chosen to carry a firearm.

You're allowed to throw law-abiding Mr. Nudey out of your shop, but you don't want someone else to throw the gay man out of theirs.

The place these ludicrous examples take place is irrelevant, be they a restaurant or a shop, if the owner deems the behaviour to be unacceptable then he can ask them to leave.

The fact that some people may feel that discriminating due to someones sexuality is the reason why we have anti-discrimination laws...

...so you've just proved their validity.