this should open an interesting can of worms

[Flyndaran]

Boozy - as Raps has indicated, businesses (in some parts of the world) do have certain rights regarding who they serve and who they don't. 'Discrimination' - ie, choosing not to serve someone based on a completely irrelevant bias, is out in this country. That doesn't stop them from having legitimate reasons to not serve someone. And it's also the reason that businesses have the right to 'evict' someone and have them charged with trespass. It is also why businesses must have insurance to cover against personal injury (rather than it being public space, and thus would fall under public space).

Well - at least the subject of this is good... it's opening up a can of worms.

I believe it is still legal to refuse service to gays as they aren't protected under the consitution or the americans with disabilities act.

[Slytovhand]

I believe it is still legal to refuse service to gays as they aren't protected under the consitution or the americans with disabilities act.

Say what??? While I get they aren't 'protected' under the constitution, they're still human..(aren't they? Not sure about my co-worker J ).

Don't spose you've got any examples of this one happening?? I'd be shocked to see it.

[Flyndaran]

Say what??? While I get they aren't 'protected' under the constitution, they're still human..(aren't they? Not sure about my co-worker J ).

Don't spose you've got any examples of this one happening?? I'd be shocked to see it.

Only protected groups are protected. I can refuse service to those under 35 if I chose. The young are not protected.
Only gender, race, ethnicty, and religion are protected. The elderly have effective protection because they vote every local law for themselves.

I'ld rather have a list of who you CAN discriminate against rather than a list of who you can't.

[smileyeagle1021]

Don't spose you've got any examples of this one happening?? I'd be shocked to see it.

there are quite a few places that can and do refuse service to homosexuals... many bars refuse service, I've heard of restaurants doing similar. More common is people denied employment... if my manager so desired he could fire me at any time for being gay.

[AFPheonix]

There have been an assortment of ballot measures put forth in different states to make it legal to discriminate against gays as well.

I recall one in particular when I was in Junior High, Measure 9 The public voted it down, but more than 40% of people that went to the polls voted for it, and it had gotten enough signatures initially to pass through the initiative process. Not all that long ago, either.

[smileyeagle1021]

AFPheonix... that link truly terrifies me... the fact that so many people thought it acceptable to legalize discrimination of any form.

[Slytovhand]

My question would be - how on earth (well - that part of the democratic bit of the Earth) could such ballots even be proposed in the first place??? Isn't that against the Human Rights Convention?

[smileyeagle1021]

Isn't that against the Human Rights Convention?

sense when has the United States cared about the Human Rights Convention?
For that matter, look at how long it took for us to care about any human rights... much less those that people misunderstand and think is a choice, not something that you are.

[AFPheonix]

Yep, OCA was full of shitheads. Between them and Bill "Dickhead" Sizemore, our initiative process gets good and hijacked every election.
Oregon has a very active citizen's initiative process for submitting stuff for vote. It's pretty cool in a lot of ways, but it's gotten to the point with a few of these professional signature-getters that I look at who submitted the initiative before I even read the text to get an idea of how crappy it's going to be. Pretty much anything from Sizemore or Kevin Mannix gets an automatic no vote from me.
Fortunately, Sizemore's been getting pretty dogged about some naughtiness happening in his organizations, so hopefully he'll get pushed out of the way eventually.

[Pedersen]

Meh, Don't worry about it. I think we both like to stir the pot a bit from time to time. That's what makes us both valid targets to each other (oh, that and when we do lock horns in a nice logical straight-forward way). I am curious, though... what has gotten you riled up??

Took some time away from this thread before replying. Needed some cool down time.

What's had me so riled up, I think, is the fact that I could, trivially, find myself in that man's shoes. One accident somewhere, and I'm suddenly blind. I'd be left incapable of doing things that, right now, are trivial for me to do. My current profession would become extremely difficult without sight. I'd probably lose my home over it.

And here's someone who would tell me that the one thing that gives me a respectable measure of independence in those circumstances should not be allowed. And, before you (or anyone else) says he's not saying to get rid of it entirely, I'll respond: Yes, he is. By his (and, judging from what I've read elsewhere, most) interpretation of Islamic law, the dog would not be allowed to go most places with me, thereby stripping me of much of my independence.

Such actions and attitudes are, simply put, revolting.

I didn't get that he refused to confirm his religion with the reporter, though. I figure that's just misinterpretation or misunderstanding...

Go back and re-read the article. The reporter got confirmation from the owner's brother, not the owner himself. And that tells me that the owner was only willing to do so much to stand up for his beliefs. Once he realized just how bad of a shitstorm he'd started, he backpedaled away.

Which also means that his beliefs aren't worth much, even to him.

I know of at least 5 people who would disagree with you... those being the 5 people I know who are blind who depend solely on their cane... granted they do get help, you'd be amazed the kindness of strangers in telling them when it's safe to cross streets, where they are, etc... but they've told me (and I believe them) that even all by themselves they can handle with minimal difficulty sense they have learned how to deal with it... much like a diabetic will learn how to deal with controlling blood sugar, a deaf person will learn how to read lips, and a paralyzed person will learn how to get around quickly in a wheelchair. No it's not easy but it's doable.

Interesting. Since I made the statement "Option 1 makes hardship where none is required, and thus does harm.", and your rebuttal of that statement amounts to "No it's not easy but it's doable."

If anything, it sounds like you are agreeing with me. Hardship happens. I have no reason why we should try to create more of it. And yet, you take exception to my statement by agreeing that hardship happens.

I've missed something in the translation, though I'm sure I don't know what that something is.

[AdminAssistant]

Not why this was opened, but this is what SHOULD have happened.

The blind guy was there for a birthday party, right? Whenever he was refused service, the entire party should have said, "It is obvious that you do not want our business, since you are refusing service to our friend. We'll take our business elsewhere"

We can all posit all we want on the legality and ethics of the situation, but the solution is ultimately financial.

[smileyeagle1021]

We can all posit all we want on the legality and ethics of the situation, but the solution is ultimately financial.

thank you admin assistant.

That is exactly the way to get things like this to change. The business owner can tell people all he wants that he will not allow dogs in his business. There are plenty of other businesses that will allow the service animal in the restaurant that he can go to. Eventually either enough people will leave stop going to the restaurant that doesn't allow service dogs (either because they can't go there themselves or out of distaste for the business practice) and the owner will either have to close or allow service dogs or it's not a big enough issue and he continues operating, just without the revenue of those customers who have decided to stop coming. Let the market decide on this one.

[Boozy]

Let the market decide on this one.

The market is amoral, and is not an acceptable force in deciding on issues of civil rights.

This is about what society we want to live in, not what kind of rights you can afford.

[smileyeagle1021]

The market is amoral, and is not an acceptable force in deciding on issues of civil rights.

the market may be amoral... but people are... and people do help decide where the market goes... public pressure can do a lot.

[Boozy]

I disagree with your assertion that the masses will demand civil rights for minority groups.

Did Prop 8 not pass in California?