Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?

[peter_hutson]

What about if a heterosexual couple arrived and book a room and then this old couple started to hear screaming come from the room and when they opened the door, they witnessed some crazy BDSM act. Do they then have to go to the government and request permission via a lengthy court case in order to throw this couple out of their premises?

This really made me chuckle, I instandly formed a picture of my Nan walking in on two rubber clad hunky men going at it hammer and tongs. Putting that aside, was you post supposed to be serious. I honestly can't tell?

 

[Xordium]

Putting that aside, was you post supposed to be serious. I honestly can't tell?

I would say that is one of his more sensible posts tbh.

 

[elmarko]

Eh? Just because I've highlighted flaws in your argument, it doesn't mean I'm suddenly ignoring the point of the thread.



Actually we do



But not in the eyes of god (or something along those lines), and I would imagine, for someone religious enough, the word of their god transcends any earthly laws.



Of course I wouldn't think it's ok. The sexuality of the couple in question should have no significance, and there is no evidence in the B&B case that it does.

The significant factor, which you are repeatedly overlooking, is that the couple weren't married. If the B&B's policy was "no gays" then you would have a point, but it wouldn't have mattered if they were gay/straight/lesbian/threesome/transgender - not married = no double room.



You're the one defending women only institutions in the same paragraph as demonising white only ones.

I've said TWICE I don't support women only institutions.

I simply out that men & women have different traits & characteristics which have different requirements which gives them a better reason to cater to each group differently.

Also, skin colour is not a notable physical difference in the same way gender is - black men & white men can engage the exactly the same activities.

 

[elmarko]

You're the one defending women only institutions in the same paragraph as demonising white only ones.

Give me a single believable reason for needing a whites only institution.

 

[elmarko]

Precisely....this would not be the first thread in which elmarko's position is often at odds with his own words....

Give me a single believable reason for needing a whites only institution (in the same way I could give reasons for needing a women's only institution).

 

[elmarko]

The key difference is,

Women's only institution = Not wanting to suffer potential male sexual advances, not worry about appearances/self confidence issues/rape victims.

Whites only institution = ...... not wanting to be around black people...

Yeah, exactly the same.

 

[Castiel]

Give me a single believable reason for needing a whites only institution (in the same way I could give reasons for needing a women's only institution).

Why would I support something I don't agree with????

We have no need of either if society didn't demand it....also harassesment is illegal so any woman, or man for that matter only needs make a complaint if they feel they are being harrassed in any club.....discrimination based on gender is not necessary, enforcement of the law is.

I made the point that we have various levels of discrimination in society and some are more acceptable than others....

You are the one who keeps repeating that implied discrimination against non married couples is the same as discrimination against Black people....and now you are arguing the opposite concept.

You are the one who cannot seem to grasp that fact at the same time as using examples which only support what I am saying.

You are explicitly stating that there should be zero discrimination...then again you are implicitly supporting gender discrimination..You are consistently contraditing yourself.....you don't really know what you are saying do you?

The same was also pointed out to you by more than one member in this thread

 

[Haggisman]

Give me a single believable reason for needing a whites only institution

There aren't any

(in the same way I could give reasons for needing a women's only institution).

So go ahead and do so, humour me

 

[elmarko]

There aren't any



So go ahead and do so, humour me

Women's rape victims.

 

[Haggisman]

Women's rape victims.

Are you going to elaborate on that statement, or just expect me to read your mind and know what you mean by it?

 

[Castiel]

Women's rape victims.

How many rapes have happened legally (or not for that matter) in a non discrimination Gym?

Are you implying that women who attend the local council leisure centre are at seious risk of being raped???

This is something that surely should be bought up in Parliament....Council Leisure Centres are havens for rapists.....

 

[peter_hutson]

Women's rape victims.

Equally, if a women was subjected to a serious sexual assult by a Black women. Would that women be justified in requesting no black people in her therapy group?

With one or two exceptions, women only groups exist because of social prejudices and are no different to any other kind of intolerance. It mightly peeves me off that I sometime scan't make use of a swimming pool (funded by my council tax) because they have "Women only" sessions. Like most people I know, when I go swimming I swim, I can't be bothered with anything else. In my experience most men are the same. There are equally as many female as male oggerlers.

EDIT

Women only groups only exist because of the social inadequacies of women that feel they need them. It's no different to a social group claiming that their "culture" is such that they too should have specific sessions. Why not "Muslim women" only sessions. I've met several muslim women that feel very uncomfortable outside their limited social group, should we cater to their inadequacies too. Before someone starts jumping up and down, in no way an I implying that all if at all many muslim women are like this. I'm just using it as an example of another group that could legitimately deman special treatment using the same logic that supports women only sessions.

 

[RDM]

Probably, I will confess I have no idea how devout Christians would look at that, but then it comes down the scenario where, if they are turning everyone away because they don't fit with their beliefs, they are very quickly going to go out of business!

I would hazard a guess that they would have no problem with it and their actual issue was against homosexuality.

Where does that leave religious organisations like the Church of England?

It leaves them with specific exemptions in the relevant legislation. B&Bs do not have said exemptions.

• It's not a "no gays" policy, it's a "no unmarried couples" policy.
• It's not even a "no unmarried couples" policy, it's a "no unmarried couples in our double rooms, you're still welcome to have a twin room or 2 single rooms" policy
• Race is a factor protected by the government, marital status isn't.

However as the couple were in a Civil Partnership, for the sake of the law they are considered married. Because of this the exclusion will be because of their homosexuality which is a factor protected by the government. The fact that they choose not to recognise Civil Partnerships is neither here nor there, the law recognises them and gives them the same status as marriage.

 

[elmarko]

Sexual preference is not the same as racial traits

Says who?, you? - it is in reference to discrimination.

We have no need of either if society didn't demand it....also harassesment is illegal so any woman, or man for that matter only needs make a complaint if they feel they are being harrassed in any club.....discrimination based on gender is not necessary, enforcement of the law is.

Harassment is illegal yes, but being looked at sexually & judged (which some women (ie rape victims) may not feel comfortable with isnt.

I made the point that we have various levels of discrimination in society and some are more acceptable than others....

And?, I said that homophobic discrimination is as bad as racist discrimination, which it is - half of the comment you replied to were not even aimed at what you said, perhaps you should try responding to things said to you.

You are the one who keeps repeating that implied discrimination against non married couples is the same as discrimination against Black people....and now you are arguing the opposite concept

Hang on hang on, I said homophobic discrimination (which others in this thread have supported) - I'm not just talking to you, perhaps you should consider that.

You are the one who cannot seem to grasp that fact at the same time as using examples which only support what I am saying.

I've only supported single sex groups which has justifiable reasons, there is no justifiable reason to not allow unmarried couples, gay people or black people to not use any business services (I'm not talking about social clubs).

I think you will find it's you who is unable to grasp that half of my comments are responding to somebody is clearly saying they think people SHOULD be able to discriminate based on skin colour, gender or race.

Obviously some of my comments won't match what you said, because I wasn't speaking to you.

You are explicitly stating that there should be zero discrimination...then again you are implicitly supporting gender discrimination..You are consistently contraditing yourself.....you don't really know what you are saying do you?

Firstly - it's spelt "contradicting"

Utter tosh.

Women's only groups with justifiable reasons (not all do I agree) are not discriminatory in the same way as a group which didn't want "black/gay/unmarried people in it".

If they can justify a valid logically consistent & valid reasons for the requirement it's not discrimination.

It's discrimination when there is no valid reason other than personal bigotry, something you clearly seem totally incapable of comprehending.

Valid Reason for isolated groups = not discrimination.

Refusal based without reason other than bigotry = discrimination.

Now repeat that 500 times.

The same was also pointed out to you by more than one member in this thread

Yes, I had to suffer the same kind of flawed illogical & mindless arguments from people like you there.

Preferring to focus on individual points & completely ignore the overarching point.

 

[Castiel]

Haha..elmarko.....

You might want to read over what you have written..in both threads. If you are not talking to me, then stop quoting me when replying to someone else.....either that or you are dishonestly trying to wriggle out of being called out.

Resorting to pedandtry with regards a typo is also pretty desperate and doesn't make you any superior or any more right either, especially as your own grammar is hardly perfect. At least mine can be attributed to the fact I am using a phone with no recourse to all the tools a PC would offer.

Also you might want to check your bad attitude...I have no time for it.

I also note the absolute hypocrisy and irony in the statement:

"Prefering to focus on individual points rather than the overarching point"

By this statement that you made:

Women's only groups with justifiable reasons (not all do I agree) are not discriminatory in the same way as a group which didn't want "black/gay/unmarried people in it".

I can assume that you also think Couples groups are unjustifiably discriminatory as well....

You should think a little more before you post.....

 

[elmarko]

How many rapes have happened legally (or not for that matter) in a non discrimination Gym?

Are you implying that women who attend the local council leisure centre are at seious risk of being raped???

This is something that surely should be bought up in Parliament....Council Leisure Centres are havens for rapists.....

?I glad you find the need for women's only groups for rape victims to be a funny topic.

Really shows the kind of values you posses.

 

[elmarko]

Haha..elmarko.....

You might want to read over what you have written..in both threads.

Also you might want to check your bad attitude...I have no time for it.

I think you will find "Bad attitude" is as a matter of perspective.

I find your attitude quite disgusting.

 

[elmarko]

I would hazard a guess that they would have no problem with it and their actual issue was against homosexuality.



It leaves them with specific exemptions in the relevant legislation. B&Bs do not have said exemptions.




However as the couple were in a Civil Partnership, for the sake of the law they are considered married. Because of this the exclusion will be because of their homosexuality which is a factor protected by the government. The fact that they choose not to recognise Civil Partnerships is neither here nor there, the law recognises them and gives them the same status as marriage.

+1.

Indeed.

As I was also trying to say, a civil partnership is the same as marriage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/gay-couple-win-case-hoteliers

The law is clearly on my side on this.

 

[fez]

I have to say that in general people should be free to set their own rules within reason but you have to abide by certain principles if you want to run a public establishment. If you want to run a guest house then you can't pick and choose who you let in based on any general prejudice you may have.

I am very tolerant of those that deserve tolerance (might be an oxymoron!).

I do think that we are far too tolerant in the wrong areas and far too strict in others. We allow parents to bring up useless little ***** quite happily yet stop people who are unfit to look after animals.

The average person is not very bright and doesn't like to take responsibility for their own actions. As a society, our tolerance and good faith has lead us to create a culture which absolves any individual of blame in favour of blaming something outside of their control.

You are a nasty person - it was upbringing, mental disorder, drugs, alcohol etc. At no point do we say "I don't care why, I just care that you stop". I know that we can't pin everything on the individual but we have gone too far in the other direction.

Read this morning that network rail are culpable for the death of the two girls that died running over a crossing when the red lights were flashing and sirens were going.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15886610

What part of the sirens and lights were confusing. This sort of this ****es me off like nothing else. There is nothing like a parent unwilling to accept that their child died through their own stupidity. Lets cost the tax payer millions to investigate further.

 

[Castiel]

?I glad you find the need for women's only groups for rape victims to be a funny topic.

Really shows the kind of values you posses.

No, what it shows is that you are dishonest and are attempting to portray me in a derogatory light....in no way did I state rape victims support groups were not needed, in fact I did not mention them at all.

You justified Women Only Leisure Centres by the need to protection from Male rapists...ergo you are implying that mixed Leisure Centres are encouraging and allowing rapists...I asked for evidence of that need...you decided to invent something instead..


Oh! And just to reiterate a point I made your hypocrisy regarding correcting my spelling, you may want to look at the statement of yours quoted....