Property rights and anti-discrimination laws

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A shop is generally considered to be a kind of semi-public space. Anyone can enter and browse or buy and so long as their actions remain within those activities then they have every right to remain in the shop. A person's home is an entirely different matter and you can refuse to let anyone you wish in for whatever reason you want.

Where did this right come from?

And why would a shop be treated any different from a house? It's the fact that it is the owners property that allows him to allocate whatever use to it.

[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.

[miotas]

Where did this right come from?

And why would a shop be treated any different from a house? It's the fact that it is the owners property that allows him to allocate whatever use to it.

It's different from a house because the shop owner has allowed part of the property to be accessible by the general public. I'm sure that if a person ran a more exclusive business and their doors were always shut, only letting people in if they knock and request entry, that he could turn them away or let them in as he sees fit, just like with a house.

[Whacker]

Miotas, I think we get that these are your opinions. Can you cite us specific laws or cases to back this up? I understand you're an aussie, so showing us some examples in aussie law would be fine.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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'm a progressive and I don't feel myself in a sticky position when it comes to burkas. I uphold the freedom of religion right we all have and let women wear the burkas. I want to make progress towards more liberty and more freedom and I don't see how banning religious clothing is making progress in anyway.

Your last paragraph has me divided. I can fully understand European nations with thousands of years of unique culture to want to preserve such culture, but I have always seen American culture (as an American myself) to be a never ending mix of everyone else's cultures, overtime the mixture has changed from European to a Euro, African, Latin American, Asian combination in varying percentages and now there is just a new ingredient (Middle Eastern) being added, which will have pluses and minues just as every other culture has brought (damn Catholic Irish!).

As for the actual topic in this thread, my way of thinking is that history has shown and we ourselves in the present have acknowledged that no right is absolute or utterly available at all given times. The rights we all enjoy have been for hundreds of years subjected and have bent to the publics interest when it calls for it in order to prevent social self destruction. Americans love to be individuals with rights inherent that cannot be broken upon by the will of others, but to me that just seems like a bit of hyperbole or at least has been since the beginning of the twentieth century.

I want property rights to be absolute and I would love freedom of speech to be absolute (especially during times of war), but people use them irresponsibly in a way that restricts other people's freedoms. Either way someone's freedom is being restricted (the bigot or the discriminated) so I have to look at which would be more beneficial to us all having the bigot not be able to discriminate against blacks, or letting people be discriminated against to protect property rights. Well, I have to say I much rather enjoy having all races, genders and sexual orientations buy what they want to buy where they want to buy it, because that will at least generate additional commerce then disallowing blacks etc... Then with additional money coming in, I could lower taxes on property owners to compensate them for restricting their bigotry (cue "buying away our freedoms" hyperbole). That's just my thought process on the whole matter.

[Beskar]

Unless you are alone on a desert island, you are part of some part of society/community. The communities interests are ultimately more important than your own. So with everyone working towards the community, everyone benefits.

While in modern times, technology has expanded the communities to the n-th degree, leading to depersonalisation on the mass scale, which in itself, causes problems.

In order to cope with this, rights have to be re-invented in a structural framework which all benefit from.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Unless you are alone on a desert island, you are part of some part of society/community. The communities interests are ultimately more important than your own. So with everyone working towards the community, everyone benefits.

While in modern times, technology has expanded the communities to the n-th degree, leading to depersonalisation on the mass scale, which in itself, causes problems.

In order to cope with this, rights have to be re-invented in a structural framework which all benefit from.

The problem is though, who/how re-invents the rights. It's easier to protect rights when they are considered absolute then if we all agree that rights are simply something we all made up to make our lives better, that could lead to problems (when we are in war we must give up our right to criticize the government since we all know that the community will benefit more from a solid adherence to the war effort then if we let people undermine us from within and have those Japs/Germans/Soviets destroy us).

[miotas]

Miotas, I think we get that these are your opinions. Can you cite us specific laws or cases to back this up? I understand you're an aussie, so showing us some examples in aussie law would be fine.

Certainly.
The relevant passage in the racial discrimination act

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

11 Access to places and facilities

It is unlawful for a person:
(a) to refuse to allow another person access to or use of any
place or vehicle that members of the public are, or a section
of the public is, entitled or allowed to enter or use, or to
refuse to allow another person access to or use of any such
place or vehicle except on less favourable terms or conditions
than those upon or subject to which he or she would
otherwise allow access to or use of that place or vehicle;

(b) to refuse to allow another person use of any facilities in any
such place or vehicle that are available to members of the
public or to a section of the public, or to refuse to allow
another person use of any such facilities except on less
favourable terms or conditions than those upon or subject to
which he or she would otherwise allow use of those facilities;
or

(c) to require another person to leave or cease to use any such
place or vehicle or any such facilities;

by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that
other person or of any relative or associate of that other person.

And the relevant line from that passage "that members of the public are[...] allowed to enter or use". So a buisness with open doors and a floor that allows anyone to wander in and look around would be subject to this, but a home or small business that only lets people in by invite only would not. It also says you are not being discriminatory if you kick out a person of another race for being a

I could find passages from the Age, Sex and Disability acts as well, but I imagine they would be very similar in wording. Instead I will link to the site if anyone is actually interested. http://www.antidiscrimination.gov.au/