Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?

[elmarko]

An interesting point to add into this is (and I'm sure it's been mentioned before):

Were they refused a room outright, or simply refused a double room because they weren't married and instead offered a twin or 2 single rooms?

If the latter, would the same legal implications apply if it were a heterosexual unmarried couple?

It should in my opinion - people should not be able to turn away anybody unless they are breaking the law, have personally caused them trouble (or liable to cause damage by being drunk/high etc) - that should apply to unmarried couples also.

In practice no, it didn't work and probably never would however the theory behind it is sound, other than the fact it doesn't take into account human nature (which is a pretty major flaw!) but democracy is by no means perfect, and in this country at least appears to be rapidly turning into the same state authoritarian dictatorship.

I agree, in some respects other things are getting worse.

In regards to the human nature, I disagree - we don't know what our human nature really is - we do know we are social animals & evolved empathy for a reason.

It's impossible to distinguish between what's human nature & what's propagated by society - I mean, using capitalism as an example - competition is promoted in all aspects of life, either that or co-competitive.

This will have an impact on how humans develop, so without attempting different systems we could never know.

Oh that's an easy one. Religion.

To be fair on religion, it's not just religion which seems to make people feel they have the right to oppress - many people without a belief system have done the same.

 

[citizenx13]

Send them to Tolerance camp, where intolerance will not be tolerated.

 

[peter_hutson]

I'd certainly be interested to see what sort of society we would have if all discrimination laws were swept away. Many of these laws were put in place prior to the spread of community based communications . Why not allow the market to decide? I've no problem with a company refusing to server gay, black or ginger people. But I certainly won't be using their services myself. Any company that chose to discrimiate would rapidly find itself marginalised. Force compaines to publish statistics to how many women, minorities or whatever people they have in their organisations and at what level. Then let their stakeholders and customers make the call as to if this is the sort of organisation they wish to support or invest in.

Equal opportunity laws have by in large failed. They've stopped blatent discrimination, but the more subtle and often more insedious kind lives on. So much so that the next tool of the anti discrimination brigade is postive discrimination.

 

[elmarko]

Where is the line though? I'm sure there are harmless practices that are outlawed. Like what if I wanted to have a tommy tank on the bus? no one is being harmed, but I'd be tazered pretty sharpish. Who judges where the harm lies when we are talking about emotional harm? On what belief system is it grounded? I might be equally upset that I am refused credit on the basis of my income, but a business can do that. Whereas if I say something about a penis in a room full of children I would be "harming" them. Our moral code is what decides these subjective interdictions. Objectively, a 13 yr old girl is perfectly ready to have a sexual relationship. Morally, we recoil at the thought.

I think the issue is who decides what constitutes harm in your ideal system. One day, we might decide that Judaism is causing harm and we've gone full circle.

Well, I agree there are certain things in which the area is grey (not the 13 year old - that ones easy - it's the capacity for informed consent).

In regards to the bus situation the same could apply, children don't have the capacity to give informed consent to be involved (as a spectator) of sexual activities - as bus's are not "adults only" the same logic would apply.

But I agree, it's complicated for a few things - but for most things it's pretty easy to judge what causes harm & what does not.

 

[elmarko]

I'd certainly be interested to see what sort of society we would have if all discrimination laws were swept away. Many of these laws were put in place prior to the spread of community based communications . Why not allow the market to decide? I've no problem with a company refusing to server gay, black or ginger people. But I certainly won't be using their services myself. Any company that chose to discrimiate would rapidly find itself marginalised. Force compaines to publish statistics to how many women, minorities or whatever people they have in their organisations and at what level. Then let their stakeholders and customers make the call as to if this is the sort of organisation they wish to support or invest in.

Equal opportunity laws have by in large failed. They've stopped blatent discrimination, but the more subtle and often more insedious kind lives on. So much so that the next tool of the anti discrimination brigade is postive discrimination.

How would opening it up totally stop the more "subtle and often more insidious" kind?.

Would you not just get the open style (which everybody knows about) and the subtle type by those who wish to keep customers?.

I don't see how your idea solves anything.

I agree that positive discrimination is bad - but because discrimination is bad full stop.

It's logically flawed to allow all discrimination because you don't like positive discrimination .

It's more clear when you swap the words with something else.

I don't like random violence, so i'll allow all violence ....

See how much sense it makes now?.

Also, how does your scenario work if most of the people in a nation are racist/sexist/anti-religious/religious?, would it not work the other way around (shops which sold to X people went out of business - because the market decided that the shops which hate & refuse to serve X group are more popular to the population?).

 

[anything I don't mind]

You deem it harmless, perhaps others may not.

Rights of the hotel owners?, you don't have the right to practice bigotry - it amazes me when people criticise the ECHR then starting wailing to it when they feel there "right to oppress" is being curtailed.

A free society?, your talking about an "anything goes" society, with no laws, no restrictions or anything.

While it sounds good on paper a vast majority of people are small minded & petty fools - our society is not advanced enough to allow for a "free for all society" - party also because we have people (like you) who think it's OK to discriminate against individuals.

Freedom does not mean freedom to discriminate and oppress.

It's not logically consistent for society for individuals in a society to practice what they would not like done back to them.

Would it be OK in your theoretical society for a person who took offence to being discriminated against to burn down the shop in retaliation? - as that's what a free for all society is.

Turning people away from a hotel is barely oppression, i mean come on. They could have easily gone to another hotel down the road and i am sure they did just that. It would have been easier for the hotel to turn them away and give them no reason. The hotel has a right of admission reserved and they do not need to specify the reason.

You are interpreting what i call a free society as a lawless society. I never said any such thing. That is your interpretation of what you think i think.

A free society does mean the ability to discriminate against someone based on any such factors that you chose. I never said anything about oppression, in fact oppression usually comes through government and mandates. I am not demanding the government to force all hotels to turn away gays. I am just saying that hotel owners should have the right turn people away because of any reason they like. That is a free society. Oppression on the other hand is using government to force people to meet the ideals of the majority.

I do not advocate violence and i thought that was pretty clear. People that use violence against someone should be prosecuted for the violence exactly the same, whether they did it because they didn't like the person, whether the person had blue hair, whether the person was black. They all the same crime in my mind. Trying to increase the penalty for violence by saying it is linked to a specific type of discrimination is not compatible with a free society.


So if a white man beats a black man he gets X amount of years for a racist attack and if a black man beats a white man he gets y amount of years for being poor black guy who is a minority and is actually a victim of his race and environment.

If a straight group of guys beat the crap out of a gay, this was a homophobic attack and they should receive extra punishment. if a straight group of guys attack a straight guy then it just an attack that is not as bad.

These are examples that are not compatible with a free society. Violence is wrong no matter the apparent justifications or motivations behind it and they should be tried for the act itself, just the same in my opinion.

 

[Haggisman]

It should in my opinion - people should not be able to turn away anybody unless they are breaking the law, have personally caused them trouble (or liable to cause damage by being drunk/high etc) - that should apply to unmarried couples also.

But according to the religious couple's beliefs, it is a sin for a unmarried couple to have sexual intercourse, and therefore it is personally causing them trouble.

If they treated the gay couple in exactly the same way as they would have treated an unmarried straight couple then I don't see any issue, the fact the couple happens to be homosexual is insignificant. If it was a straight couple who were turned away, I would be surprised if they didn't get laughed it if they tried to take their story to the press or go down the legal route.

 

[hurfdurf]

Like what if I wanted to have a tommy tank on the bus? no one is being harmed

And with that your post was no longer worth reading. The posting quality of GD ladies and gentlmen!

 

[elmarko]

But according to the religious couple's beliefs, it is a sin for a unmarried couple to have sexual intercourse, and therefore it is personally causing them trouble.

If they treated the gay couple in exactly the same way as they would have treated an unmarried straight couple then I don't see any issue, the fact the couple happens to be homosexual is insignificant. If it was a straight couple who were turned away, I would be surprised if they didn't get laughed it if they tried to take their story to the press or go down the legal route.

I disagree,

If they want to do business in the UK they should abide by our laws - this should apply to newcomers & long-standing residents.

They have no right to turn away an unmarried couple either - as the same should apply, when I said causing them trouble - I meant harassment, insulting them, shouting.

Two gay people wanting to stay in a room is objectively causing them no more harm than two straight people.

 

[elmarko]

And with that your post was no longer worth reading. The posting quality of GD ladies and gentlmen!

Actually it may have sounded silly - but the comment does actually make a pretty good point which was very important to respond to.

 

[hurfdurf]

Religion cannot stand the test of logic

 

[hurfdurf]

Actually it may have sounded silly - but the comment does actually make a pretty good point which was very important to respond to.

Nope

 

[peter_hutson]

How would opening it up totally stop the more "subtle and often more insidious" kind?.

By the publishing of statistics and full transparency with regards to pay in the work place.

Would you not just get the open style (which everybody knows about) and the subtle type by those who wish to keep customers?.

I'm not sure you would. For the system to work, it would depend on those being discriminated against publishing the details of their experiences. Communication is key. Obviously people would still get away with some discrimination, but they do now. At least this system would remove the need for the whole "discrimination industry" .

I don't see how your idea solves anything.

In the end it might not. Most likely we'd end up back where we are today. The only difference would be that the role of the state would have been reduced, which would hopefully translate into savings.

It's logically flawed to allow all discrimination because you don't like positive discrimination ..

No more so than promoting positive discrimination because we don't like discrimination. By having discrimination laws you are inherintly infringing on some peoples beliefs. They may be disgusting to you, but they may be very important to themselves. In the case of the B&B, the ruling effectively says that no Christian that belives homosexual behaviour it wrong can run a B&B. By protecting one persons rights are we not infringing on anothers? Removal of discrimination laws would prevent this, while not shielding the individual or business from the consequences of their actions.

I don't like random violence, so i'll allow all violence .....

I see little value in the analogy, I could equally say " I don't like violence, so i'll bad all violence unless I think it's necessary to punch an innocent person in the face to advance the cause of non violence" It's an equally silly statement, and parallels our current system.

Also, how does your scenario work if most of the people in a nation are racist/sexist/anti-religious/religious?, would it not work the other way around (shops which sold to X people went out of business - because the market decided that the shops which hate & refuse to serve X group are more popular to the population?).

.

It won't work, but neither would the current system. If the population was truely racist to the core, then the any law you pass will be completely ineffective. So we're back where we started. The only way to to stop discrimination is through education. Teach people that we are all equal and that providing you're not hurting anyone you should be free to live your life as you wish.

 

[Haggisman]

I disagree,

If they want to do business in the UK they should abide by our laws - this should apply to newcomers & long-standing residents.

They have no right to turn away an unmarried couple either - as the same should apply, when I said causing them trouble - I meant harassment, insulting them, shouting.

I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that the law actually states that business have the right to refuse service to anyone and don't need to give a reason. Having said that, I did a quick google for the exact phrasing of that law and couldn't find one.

Two gay people wanting to stay in a room is objectively causing them no more harm than two straight people.

I agree completely, hence wondering what the reaction and legal implications would be if it were a straight couple in place of the gay couple.

 

[elmarko]

providing you're not hurting anyone you should be free to live your life as you wish.

I think you will find that discrimination is considered hurting them.

I agree that education & a slow social change of attitudes are required, but until we have got to that stage the last thing society needs to do is open the door to hatred & bigotry.

You are ignoring the real prospect of minority's being pushed out of small communities based off nothing more than mindless racism, the popularity of an idea is not linked to how beneficial it is, you will find more often than not the unpopular choice is often the most logical.

If what you suggested went ahead, how would you feel if you got sacked from your job (boss didn't want to employ people he thought were racist, even if you are not).

Your children refused entry to "X fun park" based on the colour of there skin?, told "sorry mate, you can't get on this bus - you are straight".

Think about it, do you really expect people to not be this petty & small-minded if they could get away with it?.

 

[elmarko]

I agree completely, hence wondering what the reaction and legal implications would be if it were a straight couple in place of the gay couple.

It should be treated exactly the same, it should be a blanket law that protects EVERYBODY from discrimination, that includes everybody.

On the subject of crimes being considered "hate crimes"- the entire thing is absurd.

If a kid get's beat up at school for having a "big nose" it's no different than being beaten up for being "black" - neither child had a choice in the matter, both simply being victimised based on a physical characteristic & deserve the same punishment.

I'm not downplaying racism, I'm saying we downplay other kinds of harassment.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I think you will find that discrimination is considered hurting them.

I agree that education & a slow social change of attitudes are required, but until we have got to that stage the last thing society needs to do is open the door to hatred & bigotry.

You are ignoring the real prospect of minority's being pushed out of small communities based off nothing more than mindless racism, the popularity of an idea is not linked to how beneficial it is, you will find more often than not the unpopular choice is often the most logical.

If what you suggested went ahead, how would you feel if you got sacked from your job (boss didn't want to employ people he thought were racist, even if you are not).

Your children refused entry to "X fun park" based on the colour of there skin?, told "sorry mate, you can't get on this bus - you are straight".

If the government did not fine and prosecute the owners of the B&B, that would not be "opening the doors to hatred and bigotry". In my opinion the government fining people in such a way was never the intended purpose of government and is actually an abuse of government power. The government has no jurisdiction over a businesses right to decide who to serve. I even heard you say that the business would have had no right to not serve a married couple. How can you even say that? Do you think that businesses can not chose who they service at all ? When can they turn someone away? Who then decides what is a valid reason and what is not? Do you think that this is a form of oppression when the government tells business that they have to serve people or else ?

There is no evidence to suggest that if the government did not get involved that hotels all over the country would start refusing entry to different types of people. There is no reason to think that people all over the country, without the government stopping them, would start being overly racist and bigotry. You seem to think that it is government that controls the attitudes and opinions of everyone in the country.

Think about it, do you really expect people to not be this petty & small-minded if they could get away with it?.

Yes!

 

[Haggisman]

It should be treated exactly the same, it should be a blanket law that protects EVERYBODY from discrimination, that includes everybody.

I agree, it should be a blanket law, but if the B&B also refused to allow an unmarried straight couple to share a room then it wouldn't be discrimination. The fact that in this instance the couple happened to be gay actually has no relevance to the situation.

Do we know that the B&B hasn't turned away unmarried straight couples in the past?

 

[elmarko]

I agree, it should be a blanket law, but if the B&B also refused to allow an unmarried straight couple to share a room then it wouldn't be discrimination. The fact that in this instance the couple happened to be gay actually has no relevance to the situation.

Do we know that the B&B hasn't turned away unmarried straight couples in the past?

It wouldn't matter - as you said - it's all the same behaviour.

A person does not have to be any specific group to be discriminated against - it could be something as spurious as having long hair - the point is that businesses should not be allowed to discriminated against people full stop.

In capitalism we purchase food, clothing, water & energy - the average person should not have the right to influence who is able to receive these goods based on such petty notions as racism - they are required for survival.

The shop owner is living in the developed country, using the roads, services & benefiting from the hard work done in this country by people of both sexual orientations & skin colours.

They have no right to withdraw services based off these premises when they directly benefit from living a society build & maintained by people of all these groups.

Perhaps if they "made it alone", but they didn't - nobody did.

 

[Haggisman]

It wouldn't matter - as you said - it's all the same behaviour.

A person does not have to be any specific group to be discriminated against - it could be something as spurious as having long hair - the point is that businesses should not be allowed to discriminated against people full stop.

In capitalism we purchase food, clothing, water & energy - the average person should not have the right to influence who is able to receive these goods based on such petty notions as racism - they are required for survival.

The shop owner is living in the developed country, using the roads, services & benefiting from the hard work done in this country by people of both sexual orientations & skin colours.

They have no right to withdraw services based off these premises when they directly benefit from living a society build & maintained by people of all these groups.

Perhaps if they "made it alone", but they didn't - nobody did.

They also have no obligation to provide those services to anyone.