Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?

[anything I don't mind]

Well it is non of the governments business if a hotel wants to refuse entry to someone because they are black or homosexual. That is their right as business owners. The government getting involved is only going to make matters worse. The hotel will lose that customer and if word gets out, they will lose even more customers and most likely lose customers that do not even fit the original prejudice. So the government does not need to get involved.

I know i would not be too happy shopping at a place that refused to serve black people or homosexuals.

An analogy would be like forcing a massage parlour to massage someone with a terrible skin disease, because he has a right to a massage as much as anyone else or as the comedian steve hughes says that they should mandate ab sailing equipment to allow for people with no legs to ab sail. When the government gets involved it can start to get realy ugly realy fast. Next thing you know they have mandates all over the place.

 

[elmarko]

If I was to stir things up, I'd ask how far people are willing to let eastern culture permeate British culture in the name of tolerance. Should there be some safeguard on British tradition or is that a xenophobic absurdity in the face of natural change?

I think we could objectively examine certain cultural practices & example the social impact & harm causes.

Practices which cause harm should not be permitted & those which do not allowed.

We should never accept anything based on "cultural" or religious grounds, it should all be judged on the same grounds as thought it was being promoted by somebody from our nation.

If we would not accept somebody in England doing X or Y, we should not accept it from visitors to this nation.

 

[RDM]

Except it isn't, and this is just a strawman.

Religious belief is protected under article 9 of the ECHR, as implemented by the Human rights act 1998 in the UK.

Protection against discrimination, including based on sexuality, is covered under article 14 of the ECHR, again as implemented by the HRA.

The law states that the state cannot just ride roughshod over the rights of people to practice and express their religious beliefs in exactly the same set of statutes as the law states that the state cannot just discriminate based on a whole variety of factors.

Their right to hold whatever religious beliefs they like was not infringed in the slightest though. What was curtailed was the right of their business to discriminate. Businesses do not have human rights after all. The law doesn't stop people from not having homosexual guests.

The fact that they run their business from their own home is neither here nor there. The consequence of them running a business from their home is that they have to take responsibility for the laws surrounding businesses.

 

[elmarko]

Well it is non of the governments business if a hotel wants to refuse entry to someone because they are black or homosexual. That is their right as business owners. The government getting involved is only going to make matters worse. The hotel will lose that customer and if word gets out, they will lose even more customers and most likely lose customers that do not even fit the original prejudice. So the government does not need to get involved.

I know i would not be too happy shopping at a place that refused to serve black people or homosexuals.

An analogy would be like forcing a massage parlour to massage someone with a terrible skin disease, because he has a right to a massage as much as anyone else or as the comedian steve hughes says that they should mandate ab sailing equipment to allow for people with no legs to ab sail. When the government gets involved it can start to get realy ugly realy fast. Next thing you know they have mandates all over the place.

One point,

How does that protect the rights of the minoritory.

Let's say as an example.

If in 50 years 95% of the population are atheists - in your scenario.

What would stop the majority of the population from refusing serving religious people?, the loss of 5% of the business is not going to cause anybody the loss of sleep - infact they would act in such a way which pleased the majoritory to maximise business.

If we took that approach it would leave any small group open to abuse & persecution, what if all of the food shops in an entire town didn't like Asians? - then taking into account there is only one Asian family there (nobody is going to open a new shop for one customer).

 

[elmarko]

Their right to hold whatever religious beliefs they like was not infringed in the slightest though. What was curtailed was the right of their business to discriminate. Businesses do not have human rights after all. The law doesn't stop people from not having homosexual guests.

The fact that they run their business from their own home is neither here nor there. The consequence of them running a business from their home is that they have to take responsibility for the laws surrounding businesses.

100% correct.

Businesses are not people.

 

[anything I don't mind]

But people like to get involved in things that are nothing to do with them as they might identify with it. Like this case of a homosexual refused entry, I bet there were some homosexuals that lived 1000km away that had nothing to do with it and would never even go to the town where the hotel was located but took it on to themselves to fix, what they thought was a massive injustice. But realy it is rooted in their own issues with acceptance in society more than anything else. Equality is a myth like multiculturalism.

I am intolerant towards religion but i do not go around attacking religious people and if i had a business i would not refuse to sell goods to religious people. So there is definitely a big variance on intolerance itself.

 

[anything I don't mind]

One point,

How does that protect the rights of the minoritory.

Let's say as an example.

If in 50 years 95% of the population are atheists - in your scenario.

What would stop the majority of the population from refusing serving religious people?, the loss of 5% of the business is not going to cause anybody the loss of sleep - infact they would act in such a way which pleased the majoritory to maximise business.

If we took that approach it would leave any small group open to abuse & persecution, what if all of the food shops in an entire town didn't like Asians? - then taking into account there is only one Asian family there (nobody is going to open a new shop for one customer).

Well we are dealing with a hypothetical future scenario that you have thought up. If that scenario developed then it would be within the interest of the asian family to move to an area that they did not experience such problems. I realy can not see that scenario where atheists own all the businesses and refuse to sell to asians. Most shops are run by asians anyway. But most athesists would not be happy about being intolerant in that way towards non atheists, i can't see the other customers supporting business that refuse to sell to religious people.

 

[elmarko]

Well we are dealing with a hypothetical future scenario that you have thought up. If that scenario developed then it would be within the interest of the asian family to move to an area that they did not experience such problems. I realy can not see that scenario where atheists own all the businesses and refuse to sell to asians. Most shops are run by asians anyway. But most athesists would not be happy about being intolerant in that way towards non atheists, i can't see the other customers supporting business that refuse to sell to religious people.

So you think that small groups should have to move to avoid others persecution?.

The two examples are separate, in the latter example the population is racist in this case - the first was about people treated others badly based on belief alone.

You didn't answer the question, it's a theoretical scenario yes - but one that stills needs addressing.

You have not answered how it protects the rights of minorities.

 

[Jonny69]

I think this stems from people having a lack of respect for anyone else's beliefs or feelings and wanting to make a complete scene for seemingly no reason other than they apparently have nothing better to do and want to make a fuss. I'm sick of seeing 'you can't stop me, it's my right...' or 'there's no law saying I can't so I'm going to anyway...' when it means they're going to be a nuisance to someone. Just shut the **** up and get on with your life without being a difficult **** and without deliberately trying to make everyone's life a misery who you encounter. Too many users on here come across like that, so I'm really glad the ones I've met in real life have been normal, nice people.

 

[anything I don't mind]

So you think that small groups should have to move to avoid others persecution?.

The two examples are separate, in the latter example the population is racist in this case - the first was about people treated others badly based on belief alone.

You didn't answer the question, it's a theoretical scenario yes - but one that stills needs addressing.

You have not answered how it protects the rights of minorities.

I did not say that small groups had to move, i said it would be within the interest of those people to relocate. We were not talking about persecution, that is like pitch forks and fires etc. I thought were just talking about businesses that refused to sell to religious people. Which in todays society is difficult to do anyway, they can just order online. Unless an online retailer adds a tickbox that forces people to denounce their faith and people refuse to tick that based on their religious principles etc. Practically speaking it is difficult to enforce, i can't see atheists business asking each customer if they are religious.

Well democratic societies are all about the majority, that is what a democracy is. Where a group of people that out number a smaller group can force them to do whatever they want. We have that today and i am against it, never mind in 50 years in a fake hypothetical.

 

[pingwing]

Britain as a society is free because it is made up of free individual citizens first, so it is up to the state to ensure that the freedom of each individual is not infringed on by another.

So for the BnB case the ruling was quite right as the people were running a public business and had no right to discriminate the type of free people they serve based on their sexual preference (no matter what their religious views are).

Its a pretty clear cut one as religion is more of a choice than sexuality...

 

[elmarko]

I did not say that small groups had to move, i said it would be within the interest of those people to relocate. We were not talking about persecution, that is like pitch forks and fires etc. I thought were just talking about businesses that refused to sell to religious people. Which in todays society is difficult to do anyway, they can just order online. Unless an online retailer adds a tickbox that forces people to denounce their faith and people refuse to tick that based on their religious principles etc. Practically speaking it is difficult to enforce, i can't see atheists business asking each customer if they are religious.

Well democratic societies are all about the majority, that is what a democracy is. Where a group of people that out number a smaller group can force them to do whatever they want. We have that today and i am against it, never mind in 50 years in a fake hypothetical.

What you are talking about is tyranny of a majority - that's not democracy.

 

[anything I don't mind]

What is democracy then, but the majority deciding the fate of the minority ?

The state only infringes on freedom we can not thank the state for freedom that is a contradiction. The state all around the world is the biggest threat to freedom. How you think that we can thank the state for freedom is beyond me, that is completely backwards. Surely when the state decides what it is too protect it is infringing on the freedom of someone else. What about the freedom of the BNB owners to decide who they want to allow in their premises.

 

[elmarko]

What is democracy then, but the majority deciding the fate of the minority ?

The state only infringes on freedom we can not thank the state for freedom that is a contradiction. The state all around the world is the biggest threat to freedom. How you think that we can thank the state for freedom is beyond me, that is completely backwards. Surely when the state decides what it is too protect it is infringing on the freedom of someone else. What about the freedom of the BNB owners to decide who they want to allow in their premises.

You clearly don't understand what democracy is.

By your logic in a democratic nation it would be perfectly acceptable for 51% of the population to vote to strip the rights of the other 49% so they can no longer vote & live in slavery.

By your logic a person in theory could destroy the life of another by using money to pay all of the local food shops/stores to not do business with them.

Do you not comprehend how open to abuse this kind of illogical & flawed system would be?.

Stop trying to hide behind democracy & the will of the people to justify your prejudice.

By your logic we could all have a vote & kick people like you out of the nation assuming that 51% of the people agreed.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Democracy allows for people to vote people in to power. If a party existed that wanted to send people back to their country of origin and they got the majority vote, then democracy allows for this. Maybe it is you who does not understand democracy. Of course it is unlikely that the majority of people would ever vote for a party that wanted to murder the minority, because human nature is better than that, i hope. But that does not change the fact that democracy as system is all about the majority ruling over the minority. As an anarchist i am a major minority. Where is the "none of the above" on the voting form or "no government" on the voting form. I am not represented in a majority rules democracy. When the majority increase taxes or decide whatever they may, i have to adhere to that or i can go to prison. This is democracy my friend. But now we are going off topic.

Name one instance in the history of man kind where someone has paid all the business to not do business with someone and as a result their life was destroyed. I don't like these sorts of fake hypotheticals. I work on real examples, well i try to. I am not hiding behind anything. I am not trying to justify my prejudice.

 

[elmarko]

Democracy allows for people to vote people in to power. If a party existed that wanted to send people back to their country of origin and they got the majority vote, then democracy allows for this. Maybe it is you who does not understand democracy. Of course it is unlikely that the majority of people would ever vote for a party that wanted to murder the minority, because human nature is better than that, i hope. But that does not change the fact that democracy as system is all about the majority ruling over the minority. As an anarchist i am a major minority. Where is the "none of the above" on the voting form or "no government" on the voting form. I am not represented in a majority rules democracy. When the majority increase taxes or decide whatever they may, i have to adhere to that or i can go to prison. This is democracy my friend. But now we are going off topic.

Name one instance in the history of man kind where someone has paid all the business to not do business with someone and as a result their life was destroyed. I don't like these sorts of fake hypotheticals. I work on real examples, well i try to. I am not hiding behind anything. I am not trying to justify my prejudice.

What you are talking about is mob rule, nothing more.

A reasoned & logically consistent democracy is preferable to that.

If we had "mob rule" the rights of the minority would always be oppressed by the majority, free speech would be eroded overnight, minor political parties would be banned & our society would stagnate.

I also have a vast number of problems with democracy (I believe the system is flawed by design) - but outright mob rule (which you are talking about) is even worse.

You don't have to go back far in history to see what happens when a country abandons the responsibility of protecting the minority (WW2) against the tyranny of the majority.

 

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

Name one instance in the history of man kind where someone has paid all the business to not do business with someone and as a result their life was destroyed. I don't like these sorts of fake hypotheticals. I work on real examples, well i try to. I am not hiding behind anything. I am not trying to justify my prejudice.

How about sanctions on Jews owning property/businesses in nazi germany, in the years preceeding ww2?

Voting to end democracy is not democracy.

 

[pingwing]

Democracy allows for people to vote people in to power.

No it doesn't. Plenty of societies have done that without the option of choosing someone who represents them.

Democracy is the act of partaking in the process of creating and ensuring the running of a legitimate state who's interests represent ALL the people who reside inside of the state (regardless of opinion, citizenship, ethnicity and so on). One of the functional aspects of this is voting for representatives, but is not the soul action. Paying your taxes is partaking in democracy (as you are legitimising the state that is collecting them). Driving legally is partaking in democracy, again by legitimising the state who holds the authority on driving. Not voting is being a part of democracy in that you are consciously accepting that the state ultimately will run in your best interests without your input.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Well in modern day democracies the majority like the pretend to protect the minority so that they feel better about themselves. But realy democracy is still nothing more than the majority dictating to the minority, everything from how they throw away their rubbish to how much they must "contribute" in taxes etc.

I am not talking about mob rule, i am talking about democracy.

definition mob rule from google: Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.

This is not what was i referring to.

 

[anything I don't mind]

How about sanctions on Jews owning property/businesses in nazi germany, in the years preceeding ww2?

Voting to end democracy is not democracy.

Well how do you think hitler came to power ? democracy. He was popular in germany at the run up to the war and he had many followers. This is definitely not a good example of democracy, but it is one none the less.

on another note, i am sensing a bit of intolerance regarding my views on intolerance... hahah better phone the PC police.