Handicap Access...

[Pako]

The sign said, "OPEN".

The sign didn't say,

OPEN FOR BUSINESS
except for poofs, Hispanics, blacks, anglo saxons, smelly old people, or Barber John

 

[Swift]

Why should it be different?

I don't know why. I'm not saying they are but you are saying that it is.

 

[Swift]

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.

But sexuality is SUBJECTIVE since as famine said there isn't genetic proof saying that people are born gay. So it's a choice as much as it's a choice of the type of shoes you where to a club.

 

[Danoff]

The sign said, "OPEN".

The sign didn't say,

​

So? And what if it did?

 

[JacktheHat]

But sexuality is SUBJECTIVE since as famine said there isn't genetic proof saying that people are born gay. So it's a choice as much as it's a choice of the type of shoes you where to a club.

That's not what Famine said.

 

[Swift]

That's not what Famine said.

(despite absolutely no viable conclusions that homosexuality is either choice or genetic, or anything else)

That's what famine said. So it's up to what you believe or think as far as homosexuality goes. Making it subjective.

 

[Famine]

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.

I haven't (though I suspect your second paragraph was incomplete), but you've just proven the validity of the counter-argument...

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.

Pow!

I deem "loitering while being black" as "unacceptable behaviour", so no black people are allowed in my shop*.


*I don't. And I don't have a shop. You get the point though.

 

[Danoff]

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

Jack, I hope you didn't miss this one. I'd like an answer.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Sure, there are exactly two schools - right and wrong.

Just kidding.

Of couse people are going to come to different conclusions. It's the most logical, carefully reasoned argument that wins.

And who decides which is the most logical, carefully reasoned argument? Objectivists? After all, the arguments they espouse are always the most logical and carefully reasoned.

Just kidding...

...but I am being serious about the question, though.

My only point is that legal rights should be determined not emotionally or by considering feelings, but rather, logically - and out of necessity.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Let that percolate for a second...

The sign said, "OPEN".

The sign didn't say...

So? And what if it did?

I find your lack of compassion very disturbing.

 

[Famine]

And who decides which is the most logical, carefully reasoned argument?

Logic does.

I find your lack of compassion very disturbing.

I don't believe for one second that danoff would bar Hispanics, Anglo-Saxons or even Mary Chipperfield from his place of business. But I also don't believe for one second that he would - nor that anyone should - force you to accept someone you didn't want into yours.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Logic does.

So if logic dictates that Blacks or the disabled are discriminated against, nothing should be done about it. Got it.

I find your lack of compassion very disturbing.

I don't believe for one second that danoff would bar Hispanics, Anglo-Saxons or even Mary Chipperfield from his place of business, should he want to.
But I also don't believe for one second that he would - nor that anyone should - force you to accept someone you didn't want into yours.

I don't see the distinction.

White-only restrooms are OK... but if he owned a business he wouldn't discriminate. How does that help me? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's not about help, it's about logic.

 

[Danoff]

So if logic dictates that Blacks or the disabled are discriminated against, nothing should be done about it. Got it.

What? Nobody is saying that anyone should be discriminated against.

I find your lack of compassion very disturbing.

My lack of compassion for who? I find YOUR lack of compassion for store and church owners disturbing.

 

[Famine]

MrktMkr1986 - I think the issue is that you just don't seem to be familiar with logic here.

I wouldn't discriminate against anyone coming into my shop. If I'm selling things it would not be logical of me to bar any person or group of persons as it - and the bad press resulting from it - would harm my sales. However it is also not logical to tell someone that they can bar people from their privately-owned premises that they don't like on the grounds of personal prejudice - such as Mr. Nudey - but not if it's not "socially acceptable" to not like them - such as a homosexual.


What this has to do with my compassion escapes me.

White-only restrooms are OK... but if he owned a business he wouldn't discriminate.

You've lost me.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What? Nobody is saying that anyone should be discriminated against.

Of course not. You're just saying that people should be allowed to discrimate against other people. I don't make that distinction.

I find YOUR lack of compassion for store and church owners disturbing.

I have compassion for store and church owners. I don't have compassion for store and church owners who discriminate against others.

MrktMkr1986 -

You can call me Brian... plus it's a lot easier to type.

I think the issue is that you just don't seem to be familiar with logic here.

^^^^ I saw this coming from a mile away... ^^^^​

OK, then... enlighten me.

I wouldn't discriminate against anyone coming into my shop. If I'm selling things it would not be logical of me to bar any person or group of persons as it - and the bad press resulting from it - would harm my sales.

Just like it harmed the sales of business owners during the time of Jim Crow? Even if people were to discriminate today in the absence of anti-discrimination laws, it would not be blatant and "in-your-face" (like signs that say "no _____ allowed"). It would be a much more insidious form of discrimination.

However it is also not logical to tell someone that they can bar people from their privately-owned premises that they don't like on the grounds of personal prejudice - such as Mr. Nudey - but not if it's not "socially acceptable" to not like them - such as a homosexual.

I'd agree with that.

You've lost me.

Dan claims that discrimination should be legal but that he personally would not discriminate. That's what I was trying to say... it was rhetorical.

 

[Famine]

OK, then... enlighten me.

Logic negates opinion. Nobody's logic can be better than anyone else's - just their understanding of it.


And people DO discriminate today. See the Affirmative Action thread.

Dan claims that discrimination should be legal but that he personally would not discriminate. That's what I was trying to say... it was rhetorical.

Nope. He advocates the removal of specific laws which dictate what people can and cannot do on their own privately-owned premises (note that this doesn't mean people should be allowed to do anything on their own privately-owned premises - since there are already extant laws against murder, rape, false imprisonment and so on).

 

[Danoff]

Of course not. You're just saying that people should be allowed to discrimate against other people. I don't make that distinction.

How can you not distinguish between allowing someone to do something and advocating that they do it. Those are two completely separate things.

Example: Sure, jump off the bridge. I don't think you should, but I'm not going to stop you.

I have compassion for store and church owners. I don't have compassion for store and church owners who discriminate against others.

You're the only one lacking compassion here. You're the one judging people, not me.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Logic negates opinion. Nobody's logic can be better than anyone else's - just their understanding of it.

Who decides who has a better understanding of logic (since apparently it's not open to interpretation)?

And people DO discriminate today. See the Affirmative Action thread.

Of course. I don't deny that.

Nope. He advocates the removal of specific laws which dictate what people can and cannot do on their own privately-owned premises (note that this doesn't mean people should be allowed to do anything on their own privately-owned premises - since there are already extant laws against murder, rape, false imprisonment and so on).

So what happened before these specific laws existed?

How can you not distinguish between allowing someone to do something and advocating that they do it. Those are two completely separate things.

Example: Sure, jump off the bridge. I don't think you should, but I'm not going to stop you.

So, according to logic, I'd be doing the wrong thing by preventing them from committing suicide whether I try to talk them out it or physically restrain them.

 

[Famine]

Who decides who has a better understanding of logic (since apparently it's not open to interpretation)?

Logic does. Covered this before.

So what happened before these specific laws existed?

"Socially acceptable" law was practised.

Are you comparing practises in a society in which racism was acceptable to potential practises in a society in which racism is not acceptable (in one direction alone)?

So, according to logic, I'd be doing the wrong thing by preventing them from committing suicide whether I try to talk them out it or physically restrain them.

Nope. According to logic, you wouldn't be doing the wrong thing if you didn't try. Notice how this is different from the concept that you would be doing the wrong thing if you did.

Fun fact: If you physically restrained them, they could, in theory, sue you later for assault.

Nevertheless, this isn't the point of the example. Allowing someone to commit suicide isn't the same as standing there chanting "Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump!". The analogy is that allowing someone to be a dick (by, for instance, not allowing Welsh people in their shop) isn't the same as saying that they should be.

 

[Danoff]

So, according to logic, I'd be doing the wrong thing by preventing them from committing suicide whether I try to talk them out it or physically restrain them.

So quick to hop around with the topic. You obviously see the distinction between advocating someone do something and allowing them to do it. So my point is made.

Glad that you see you were wrong.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

"Socially acceptable" law was practised.

I see.

Are you comparing practises in a society in which racism was acceptable to potential practises in a society in which racism is not acceptable (in one direction alone)?

No. I'm just not willing to take the risk... even you said it yourself -- "potential practices". There's no way to tell what will or what will not happen if these laws are revised or removed completely.

Nope. According to logic, you wouldn't be doing the wrong thing if you didn't try. Notice how this is different from the concept that you would be doing the wrong thing if you did.

I see the difference, but I disagree with the conclusion.

Fun fact: If you physically restrained them, they could, in theory, sue you later for assault.

Is this next weeks fun fact?

Allowing someone to commit suicide isn't the same as standing there chanting "Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump!".

I see the difference, but I disagree with the conclusion.

The analogy is that allowing someone to be a dick (by, for instance, not allowing Welsh people in their shop) isn't the same as saying that they should be.

You already know what I'm going to say.

You obviously see the distinction between advocating someone do something and allowing them to do it. So my point is made.

Quite well, actually.

Glad that you see you were wrong.

I don't have a problem admitting that.

 

[Famine]

Though there IS a way to tell what will happen if the laws persist - or Gaia forbid, amended to include other "minority groups". The concept of "ownership" becomes moot, since everyone is entitled to access your private property.

I wonder what would happen if someone morbidly obese - through genetics, rather than pie-eating - can't get into your shop because your doorway is too narrow.

Would all shop space have to be able to accommodate three Motability Scooters abreast (one browsing each shelf, one down the middle)?

Will all shops be forced to remain open at all times, to cater for night-shift workers?


Anyway, this is just musing. The laws are inconsistent and therefore - from ANY perspective - wrong.

A landowner can exclude people he doesn't like the look of, unless they belong to a minority group and thus his dislike can be characterised as "discrimination". But this doesn't apply to a landowner not using his premises as a business (say, a house). Two inconsistencies for the price of one.

 

[Pako]

So, after all that, are the law makers wrong in requiring Swift's church to build a ramp to code to accommodate handicap people?

I would say that the law shouldn't apply to Swift's church in this case because anyone handicap in that church that needed up on the stage would be helped by members of that congregation. Why would there be a need for a ramp? Churches are all about helping others, why would there need to be a ramp for someone to help themselves? There isn't that need.

[EDITED]

Laws are created to help irresponsible people to do the responsible thing, to do the right thing, to do the moral thing, with the end result to protect our rights. It's sad to think that we live in a society where law is created out of fear. What we create to protect us will end of imprisoning us which is sad to think that we have given such people with no regard for others such power as to have our own justice system make us slaves to the very system that is supposed to be protecting our freedom.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So, after all that, are the law makers wrong in requiring Swift's church to build a ramp to code to accommodate handicap people?

Yes.

I would say that the law shouldn't apply to Swift's church in this case because anyone handicap in that church that needed up on the stage would be helped by members of that congregation.

I know some people who would be offended by that.

 

[Danoff]

So, after all that, are the law makers wrong in requiring Swift's church to build a ramp to code to accommodate handicap people?

I would say that the law shouldn't apply to Swift's church in this case because anyone handicap in that church that needed up on the stage would be helped by members of that congregation. Why would there be a need for a ramp? Churches are all about helping others, why would there need to be a ramp for someone to help themselves? There isn't that need.

You can't simply apply your judgement of the situation and say that the law isn't necessary THERE. How can citizens comply with a law that says "what ever pako thinks is reasonable"?

 

[Pako]

I know some people who would be offended by that.

People of 'that' church? We would need to have Swift qualify that. My guess would be that anyone humble in front of God really doesn't care if they are on the stage, on the floor, or in a seat. My reasoning is that the law shouldn't apply to them in this case. I'm sure there are situations where the law is rational, but this is not that situation.

 

[Pako]

You can't simply apply your judgement of the situation and say that the law isn't necessary THERE. How can citizens comply with a law that says "what ever pako thinks is reasonable"?

Why should one persons right be compromised at the right of another? Can organizations be 'responsible' to meet the needs of their patrons, or church members in this case? I also think that a "what ever Pako thinks is reasonable" would be more than reasonable.

 

[Danoff]

Why should one persons right be compromised at the right of another? Can organizations be 'responsible' to meet the needs of their patrons, or church members in this case?

No, organizations are not responsible to meet the needs of their patrons. I'll pose the same question to you that Jack refused to answer.

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

 

[Swift]

I know some people who would be offended by that.

Can someone please show me in the constitution where it says you have the right to NOT be offended?

You can't simply apply your judgement of the situation and say that the law isn't necessary THERE. How can citizens comply with a law that says "what ever pako thinks is reasonable"?

There's a point to that. That's why this ENTIRE law is flawed by very design.

 

[Pako]

No, organizations are not responsible to meet the needs of their patrons. I'll pose the same question to you that Jack refused to answer.

Organizations DO have a responsibility to meet.

Scenario:
Huge outdoor concert. 120 degree weather. No bathrooms. No running water. Dead concert goers. Human feces on the ground.

Who is responsible for that situation? The people, for not supply their own water or the event provider for not supply relief from the extreme temperatures? What about the human feces on the ground, should the concert going be charged for expelling their feces in public or is it the responsibility of the even provider to supply adequate bathroom facilities, i.e. porta-potties?

I have the right that was given to me by the owner. If the owner says that he is open for business, he has given me the right to his good and/or services.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Can someone please show me in the constitution where it says you have the right to NOT be offended?

Where did that come from? I was only making a comment. I never said it was someone's right not to be offended.