Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

[miotas]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i have a similar view when it comes to things like burkas.

progressives ties themselves in knots trying to justify the anti-discrimination laws that are 'demanded' by the multitude of victim groups whose interests they claim to represent, but then find themselves in a sticky position with things like burkas which represent a problem for the liberal paradise they 'think' they're building.

the answer; ban the burka.

wrong.

ditch the anti-discrimination laws, and leave to people to act in their own interests:
> Want a bank-loan; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
> Want a job; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
> Want a date; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"
> Want a favour; "sorry, i am not in a position to properly assess your trustworthiness"

Take part in our society, or ostracise yourself from it, understand the consequence of your own actions. that doesn't mean you have to have tea and crumpets at elevensies, or turn up at the cricket pitch on sunday afternoon, but walking around like a ninja and expecting to be treated like a normal human being is rank stupidity. whatever the law says I think you are a idiot!

I don't see what burkas have to with this debate at all. Thinking someone looks stupid in their clothes or being unable to provide someone with a certain service because they won't prove their identity has nothing to do with racial discrimination.

[Whacker]

I'm a bit confused here, somebody please help me out. I have always been of the understanding that anti-discrimination laws apply to employment only. They do not apply to choosing a customer base. Look at the women's health clubs for example, like Curves. They simply do not and will not accept male customers for a number of reasons, ranging from it can make the other female patrons uncomfortable, to simply not having the facilities to support males.

[Furunculus]

I don't see what burkas have to with this debate at all.

Thinking someone looks stupid in their clothes or being unable to provide someone with a certain service because they won't prove their identity has nothing to do with racial discrimination.

yes it does.

[miotas]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

yes it does.

If I try to get a service that requires me to prove my ID but I wont remove my motorbike helmet and they can't serve me, that isn't discrimination. If I walk downtown in a chicken suit and people laugh at me because I look stupid, that isn't discrimination. My home town was very much a beach town, and seeing someone in a suit was quite rare, would it be discrimination if I were to stare and openly discuss with my mates why he's wearing a suit?

Clothing choices have nothing to do with discrimination. I fear that this may derail the thread, so if you want to talk about this any more then it will have to be somewhere else.

I'm a bit confused here, somebody please help me out. I have always been of the understanding that anti-discrimination laws apply to employment only. They do not apply to choosing a customer base. Look at the women's health clubs for example, like Curves. They simply do not and will not accept male customers for a number of reasons, ranging from it can make the other female patrons uncomfortable, to simply not having the facilities to support males.

If you don't have the facilities to support a certain group then that is fine. If however, a Greengrocer for example were to refuse to serve women or black people or christians or any other group, then that would be discrimination as they can obviously eat fruit and veggies.

[rory_20_uk]

Yet provision of facilities is required in most cases - e.g. Disabled access, toilets for both genders etc etc.

In most other cases it would be up to the patrons to decide whether the facilities are adequate not. A butcher sells his wares to all, it is up to the customer to decide whether it is suitable - not for the butcher to state otherwise.

[Whacker]

[spoil]If you don't have the facilities to support a certain group then that is fine. If however, a Greengrocer for example were to refuse to serve women or black people or christians or any other group, then that would be discrimination as they can obviously eat fruit and veggies.

Let me clarify a bit. I'm asking for someone to quote me a specific law and/or case study that clearly states a private business owner may not discriminate as to whom they can choose to do business with.

[miotas]

Yet provision of facilities is required in most cases - e.g. Disabled access, toilets for both genders etc etc.

In most other cases it would be up to the patrons to decide whether the facilities are adequate not. A butcher sells his wares to all, it is up to the customer to decide whether it is suitable - not for the butcher to state otherwise.

Disabled access ect. is to do with the building itself, not the product they're selling, but there is actually nothing to stop a person from buying a product that is completely useless to them. Hmmm, I've never actually heard of these women's only gyms, they do actually sound like discrimination. I'm gonna have a look see.

Let me clarify a bit. I'm asking for someone to quote me a specific law and/or case study that clearly states a private business owner may not discriminate as to whom they can choose to do business with.

Ah, well someone else will have to help with that, I could find the relevant acts in Australia, but not the US unfortunately.


EDIT
On a closer look, Curves provides facilities that are tailored to women, and would have little benefit to men. If however, for some odd reason a man did want to join, then it would be discrimination to refuse just because he's a man.

[rory_20_uk]

On a closer look, Curves provides facilities that are tailored to women, and would have little benefit to men. If however, for some odd reason a man did want to join, then it would be discrimination to refuse just because he's a man.

A gym full of women is a reason in itself to join.

[Beskar]

Women only car insurance is discrimination.

[Furunculus]

If I try to get a service that requires me to prove my ID but I wont remove my motorbike helmet and they can't serve me, that isn't discrimination. If I walk downtown in a chicken suit and people laugh at me because I look stupid, that isn't discrimination. My home town was very much a beach town, and seeing someone in a suit was quite rare, would it be discrimination if I were to stare and openly discuss with my mates why he's wearing a suit?

Clothing choices have nothing to do with discrimination. I fear that this may derail the thread, so if you want to talk about this any more then it will have to be somewhere else.[/spoil]



If you don't have the facilities to support a certain group then that is fine. If however, a Greengrocer for example were to refuse to serve women or black people or christians or any other group, then that would be discrimination as they can obviously eat fruit and veggies.

Yes it is, the discussion is wider than merely race because the OP defined the topic more broadly:

Maybe this is another topic I'm coming on to, but if the anti-discrimination laws are themselves against the most fundamental laws of the land (those by constitution, whether written or unwritten, since both US and UK constitutions are based on these fundamental rights), surely citizens have no obligation to obey them?

anti-discrimination employment laws may well be used against you if you binned a job application on learning that the applicant worse a burqa, regardless of whether the job was for a back-office or public-facing position.

i merely used this relevant example as a device to illustrate the ridiculousness of legislating against a piece of clothing, an act deemed necessary in some european countries because the shear quantity of anti-discriminatory legislation prevents society from dealing with atypical behaviour in any other way.

i declare it relevant, bite me.