Intolerance dressed up as 'equality'

Post Reply New Topic

Intolerant to who? The Christian hotel owners who discriminated against the gay couple?

It's a private business. They should be able to choose who they want to deal with.

I wouldn't like patronising a service if I knew that the people running the show didn't like me because I was autistic.

I've stopped in places before that had some very unsafe bedroom arrangements for me, but I didn't know about it beforehand. They were nasty covert hostiles too. If I had known that the radiator was white-hot and left no room for me to get out of the shower, I would never have stopped there.

I disagree. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of the cafes in America that used to have a sign outside saying "No n****rs". Would you find that acceptable too?

Yup.

It shows you don't have a lot of faith in people if you think that people don't discriminate overtly or covertly already. It shows that you think that racism, homophobia and whatever lie just under the surface and is itching to get out.

I think it's an interesting litmus test of our society in that we can show that we've progressed from that.

If you're a B&B that won't accept black people? OK, you can have your business ruined by simple ostracisation and peer pressure. All without anything going near a courtroom.

In any case, in many communities in Britain, racist discrimination is still quite openly practiced. Black Caribbeans may not rent to black Africans, Pakistanis might not rent to Indians, and often vice versa.

Last edited by Tequila on 29 Nov 2013, 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

You give me a hotel where they say they don't want autistics staying there, and I'll give you a happy and relieved man that can find a much better experience elsewhere.

I won't go where I'm not wanted.

Normally, I'm generally in favor of letting people do what they want without interference, but not in this instance. I think that Tequila has a point when he says that simply making anti-discrimination laws won't change racists, homophobes, etc. But the thing is, these laws aren't necessarily made with them in mind, but for the generations after them. It may be a tired cliche, but humans ARE social creatures; they learn what is and what is not okay by watching others. This is especially true for children. Do you think that having children see signs outside businesses saying things like "no n****rs" helps perpetuate racism? You had better believe it does!

In the US, it's been nearly 50 years since the landmark civil rights act that made this kind of display illegal. And looking at the country now, the idea of putting out a sign saying "no n****rs" is so unbelievably appalling to most people that it would likely never be done, even if it weren't still the law. Why the change? I'd say it's because, almost 50 years ago, the American public as a whole decided to declare the practice utterly unacceptable and ban it, which helped make overt public racism far less common over time. In turn, the US is now far less racist than it was in the 50's and 60's, and I think that's a very good thing.

Would this change have happened on it's own, without interference? I imagine that, eventually, yes it would. But it would likely have taken much longer. And I think that artificially speeding up the process through these kind of laws is, in this instance, worth giving up some of our freedom. Of course, those on the other side who are against these changes will disagree, but their views will seem horribly outdated and bigoted just two generations from now, just like "no n****rs" signs are now.

So you think private schools or wash-salons should be allowed to invent funny rules again as, "no n****rs"? Yop, really, we should do a funding for these poor people, not being allowed to discriminate their neighbors in public.

You are as a private person absolutely allowed to create rules, that go for EVERYONE. The moment you invent rules, that have things in it like: You are allowed to f**k, but not if you are homosexual/black/white/catholic... you are simply an racist bad-ass full of sh***y prejudices, and as the majority of the people wanted and so created laws for it, its the governments job to protect the public from such people, and not otherwise. But because of them being in a democratic country, they are free to seek themselves other people that have their sh***y oppinion, and so maybe become a majority.

Or the gay couple who discriminated against the Christian hotel owners?

The gay couple were the ones who were denied a single room to sleep in because they weren't heterosexual and married. If I were them then I would of complained too because they were the ones affected by the hotel owners homophobic views. I wouldn't call complaining about it discrimination, should they be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals because they are Christian?

So they complain ... what does that accomplish?

Free advertisement for the hotel owners, who now have a reputation for favoring heterosexual clients.

Watch as more Christian fundies ring them up for reservations...

People have a right to run businesses in accordance with local laws. They do not have a right to pick and choose which laws they follow, according to their religious or personal beliefs. Laws can make specific accommodations for such beliefs, but these must be explicitly stated.

In this case there is no such exemption, so the B&B owners must comply with anti-discrimination laws, along with all the other laws that businesses have to follow. Where a business does not comply with such laws, members of the public have the right to have that business held accountable – whether or not the business owners have religious beliefs (or any other kind of beliefs that might make them feel justified in breaking the law).

People can, of course, lobby for specific exemptions for businesses that serve the public, such as the B&B. Keep in mind that repealing anti-discrimination laws, in part or full, has wider social implications, so they may have a hard time convincing lawmakers in countries such as the UK to go along with it.

It is private business, but this doesn't mean that newspapers should be forbidden from writing about it. Spreading awareness about it, means that it will backfire against them from an economic perspective.

I would find it annoying, but the principle is sound. A private firm owned privately and run privately should have complete control over who it does businesses with.

You are confusing bad manners with the rights of private property owners.

ruveyn

While I would find the sign objectionable, I have never felt the need to inquire about a business-owner's prejudices before doing business with him or her.

If people feel that the hotel owners are wrong, then the solution is simple: Don't do business with them. Find another place to sleep and be joyful in your righteousness, for you will have surely stung them with your absence.

Meanwhile, people who agree with them - or who simply don't care at all - will keep them in business for years to come.

In other words, religion doesn't get you a free pass through anti-descrimination laws.