Two gay men kicked out of a pub for kissing in public

[The Wooster]

Oi, watch what you say please, it's an ambigious question, thuogh before it was used as a trick to jump into straw-manning. Clarity first, then I'll answer.

It's hardly your fault that the other side has to resort to fallacies.

A fallacy is a conclusion drawn from a misconception. An argument for legalized discrimination is an argument for legalized discrimination against any group with differing characteristics, be they a majority or a minority. Asking if Baneat would support the rights of property owners to discriminate against more widely accepted minorities is a perfectly legitimate question. If the extension of your argument makes you uncomfortable perhaps you should reconsider it.

Now, by okay, what exactly do you mean? Would I patronize the bar? would I like it if they did it? would I, if I had my say in how this should be handled, allow the bar to continue to discriminate against blacks?

I've been straw manned from this distinction earlier in the thread, so we need to be super-clear on what exactly "okay" is.

Sorry. Wasn't trying to trap you. I mean would you support his right to do so?

If yes, do you think said business owner should still get the same benefits and assistance from the government (It's a bit late to be doing research into this but here in Canada business, particularly small ones, get several benefits including tax cuts, lowered produce costs etc) when those benefits are paid for, in part, by people they refuse to serve?

Are there any businesses you feel should be denied such rights? (In particular, medical businesses)

Anyway, sleep time for me. I look forward to continuing this in the morning. G'night.

 

[Baneat]

Once again for the hard of thinking in this thread - The law in the UK is quite specific. If you decide to throw people out for kissing, you had better apply the same standard to everyone. If you DON'T, if you only throw out the gay couples but not the straight ones, you have broken the law and you WILL get your fucking face legally stamped on.

If you don't want to serve gays or asian people or Hindus then CLOSE your business and piss right off. When the owner/operator of a business decides to start selling goods and services then they have to obey ALL of the laws, not just the ones that they agree with. So you do have the right to be a racist prick, but you don't have the right to open and business and run it as a racist prick. Personal choice. You can't ignore the health and safety laws, you can't ignore the licensing laws and you cannot ignore the laws that stop discrimination.

Once upon a time, in the UK (to our shame) people would put up signs in B & Bs and pubs that said "no blacks, no Irish". That is not allowed. And they are not allowed to say "no gays".

If the pub in question ends up in court, they might have to prove that they would treat all couples the same. A notion that makes me laugh as I very much doubt that the imaginary straight couples they have kicked out would not come running to help them.

The only thing that matters is that the standard is the same for everyone. A sign saying you have a right to refuse service to whoever you want is fucking worthless if the whoevers are always people of different skin colours, religions or sexual orientations. So take your silly fucking sign and shove it where the sun does not shine.

This thread is full of self-righteous fascists like yourself. My goodness, I'd be in good company except most of the fascists here seem to have an atypical moral compass.

Oswald Mosley is probably laughing in his grave at the moment. One look at today's Britain with all it's hate speech and "equality" laws and it's not all that far off from what he would have wanted.

Bullshit.

I'm Spanish. We were fascist until 78.

You have no fucking clue of what you're talking about. In fact, I take it as a personal offense. You want to know what forty years in a fascist country look like, ask my dad or my grandfather. It doesn't have people banning discrimination for racial or sexual orientation reasons. That's what freedom and democracy look like. We know because we've seen it happening and now gay people get to kiss wherever they want and marry whoever they want without going to jail.

I had a great constitutional law professor in university, a man that worked to bring democracy to the country directly. He used to say "Egality is the right to be different. That right must be actively protected." Otherwise, it is washed away by the extreme power of the normalcy imposed by the masses. That's what democratic systems do: they enable the freedom of the minorities over the imposition of the majority. It's not just about voting or "doing whatever you want".

I guess I shouldn't be so annoyed by ignorance, but when it comes to this issue ignorance turns into something nasty and evil so fast that it's really hard not to.

Actually...Your statement is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy quite literally means "rule of the people." Democracries enable the complete and total domination of the majority over minorities. Which is why some people prefer Republics over true Democracies.

You are confusing freedom and democracy. Democracy is only inherently freedom for the majority. That said, I support gay marriage, and equal treatment for gays in general, but it annoys me that you percieve democracy as the exact opposite of what it really is.

I believe it is kantian ethics and libertarianism that "enable the freedom of the minorities over the imposition of the majority.", since they are deontological and concern themselves over the rights of the few more than the good of the many..

Does my belief hold any truth to it?

 

[Baneat]

Hey guys, I'm just going to throw out the same thing I did in the "should gays be allowed to marry" thread.

Assuming that they were thrown out not because they were kissing, but because they were gay...

Would it be all right to do the same out of racist grounds? Like, throwing out indians or blacks because of it? If not, then why is it wrong with homosexuality?

It should be legal to let the barman throw them out

It isn't right for the barman to throw them out, but that's not your decision to make.

Uh... No.


Look, I know, the rights of the individual are holy, nobody should be forced to do anything, blah blah blah. This mentality has led to things like the Jim Crow laws in the past. Yes, the government can't discriminate against you... But they won't have to because the government makes up a very small percentage of the people you interact with. People will continue to have irrational opinions, and you know what? I don't think it's reasonable to allow that to interfere with my friends' lives. Where would you draw the line?
-Can throw someone out of a private establishment for being gay/black/other minority
-Can throw someone out of a private business for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse to hire someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can fire someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse to aid someone in dire need for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse an advertised sale to someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse housing to someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can kick someone out of the house they have rented for being gay/black/other minority

...See where I'm going with this? We need to limit the freedom of the individual to protect minority groups in a democracy, in the same way we need to limit the freedom of the individual to protect the life of other individuals. If there were four of us on an island, we could easily get a 3-1 vote "let's not share our food equally 4 ways, but rather exclude bob and let him starve"; it wouldn't make it right, though.

We need to protect minorities. If the bartender threw them out for obscenity, and was consequently and fairly throwing out other people who were kissing in heterosexual areas, then there's no problem (it's simply a poor business decision). But he is actively discriminating against homosexuals, and this is simply not okay.

Can you keep going, and I'll tell you when the line's to be drawn (there are certain conditions which allow the line)

The limit of my understanding is "Sovereignty of liberty unless it infringes directly upon one other person's liberty" - That's the basic maxim. Now, limiting someone's freedom within their own domain, that destroys the whole thing, it's a contradiction, an impossibility. So, when someone infringes on their right to life (not helping someone deliberately, that is murder) - I can draw a line. Only if that housing option is the only thing that stops/actually injures their right to live, is where I can draw a line (so if you kicked a black guy out onto the street, and he couldn't possibly get another house, it's following my maxim) - Same goes for the job. I've put that condition in there because the right to live is fundamental, the right to drink in a pub, is not. If you've ever seen/read lord of the flies, you'd probably figure that all the stuff we use now, all morality and shit, generally is shunted to the side in favour of a consequentialistic approach, especially in crisis when it's just not possible to use anything other than moral intuition. My philosophies (Work in Progress) only work in a functioning and built-up society, I'm aware of this fact. The more functional, and mroe built up, the more intuitive it is to me. I don't know if some other guy's coming to similar ideas as me (I'd love to know if they were) but I'm working on it.

What are Jim Crow laws?

 

[Valksy]

Wrong Equality Act 2010.

Wrong. Equality Act doesn't work unless the reason is about equality. I can't put up a sign saying "No gays", but I can kick a gay guy out in the same way I kick a straight guy out.

Otherwise, you've just given Gay people a right to drink alcohol in the pub after 2 in the morning.

If they can prove that other couples were kissing and ONLY they were chucked out, then the Equality Act works. Otherwise, they're just pandering for media attention.

I believe that the burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt" under the Act) would require that the pub in question demonstrates that it applies the standard equally.

The publican/landlady did say (paraphrase) "it's my pub, I can do what I want" and that is blatantly untrue. That she was allegedly screaming at them for being obscene and disgusting rather suggests that it was because of their sexuality.

Uh...innocent until proven guilty has always been the law, even in Britain. Which would mean that the burden of proof rests on the homosexual couple/the local government, because they have accused the owners of the bar of committing a crime.

Because the Bar Owner is the accused, burden of proof rests on the government to establish that the owner did not kick out heterosexual couples for the exact same thing.

Read the legislation. I did.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about criminal law, this is civil law. Not the same. The expected quality of the proof must be "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a criminal mechanism. But cases under the Equality Act are civil and the burden of proof requirement is as I described.

So you are saying that people accused of violating the Equality Act are considered Guilty until proven Innocent?

What are the punishments for violating this law? Despite it's verbose nature, the act doesn't seem to say.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

The law says that if, on a reading of the facts of the case, the court can find that A contravened the law, then the court will find that the law has been contravened. Unless person A can prove that they did not.

Guilt and innocence...well..how long have you got? Those concepts arguably do not exist in civil law as civil cases are more about determining liability. Is it semantics? Possibly. It is not necessarily useful to try and confuse British criminal and civil law (I know it sounds complex, unnecessarily so, but that doesn't make it not the law). I suspect the burden of proof was orientated this way to equalise the balance of power between plaintiff and defendant. It isn't a new or unique concept for this particular legislative document - it is normalising the burden as in the past, in terms of employment, discrimination, disability, race the burden was all over the place.

Before you cry on how unfair it is I believe that the Equality Act burden of proof is actually far higher than standard civil law. The difference between a balance of probability and beyond a reasonable doubt is relevant, but complex. Simply put, a balance of probability would be acceptable if you were 51% sure, 49% unsure. Reasonable doubt would not be satisfied by that.

As for punishments. The remedy is financial (and an expectation of future compliance). No one goes to jail over this document. I have no idea how the financial amount is settled on. The last case tried under this act that I read about led to the plaintiffs (another gay couple) receiving about £6000.

 

[Baneat]

Snip, just want the prompt

The business subsidisation thing, I was unaware of. Now, in my opinion the government extending its hand to aid the business is fine, provided it then surrenders the rights to the government. You can refuse any help from the government if you like, and can be racist, but you will lose your assistance for maintaining the right to kick non-blanket people out (as in, fine to make a dress attire code, no shirts, no shoes, blah blah, but no gays? the government should stop paying you)

Gives an incentive to toe the line, and it's a contractual, legitimate agreement, you don't have to take their money, to be honest, without this governmental support, but given the current attitude of the people your business would sink, as it should, since it does not cater to the people's wants.

I have a thing for medical businesses, a slightly earlier post I made actually covers that, since it refers to the right to life, which is categorically important, I might even consider elevating that right. We in the UK have the NHS, which although seems socialist in a way I couldn't agree with given my stance, I think I have it worked out, for me at least.

 

[Megacherv]

...and if they were lesbians they probably wouldn't have either.

They'd have been hired as evening entertainment

 

[coldshadow]

they were probably making others uncomfortable and even if the owner is ok with it he still would have to kick them out if he gets enough complaints because its just business.

It will be a while yet til our society is ok with seeing men kiss in public.

 

[Baneat]

What are Jim Crow laws?

Laws that discriminate against black people (long story made short).

OBVIOUSLY you must support laws that force people to discriminate against black people, because you're against laws that force people to not discriminate, Yup. =/

Ah, a false dilemma thing going on here?

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Uh... No.


Look, I know, the rights of the individual are holy, nobody should be forced to do anything, blah blah blah. This mentality has led to things like the Jim Crow laws in the past.

Hahaha oh wow. So supporting the freedom of private property and the rights of business owners is equivalent to discriminatory laws enacted BY THE GOVERNMENT? Amazing.

I like how you go on to talk about democracy while advocating fascist concepts. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny. Forcing your concept of morality on others = not ok. Letting people discriminate = part of living in a free society.

A fallacy is a conclusion drawn from a misconception. An argument for legalized discrimination is an argument for legalized discrimination against any group with differing characteristics, be they a majority or a minority. Asking if Baneat would support the rights of property owners to discriminate against more widely accepted minorities is a perfectly legitimate question. If the extension of your argument makes you uncomfortable perhaps you should reconsider it.

I wasn't referring to you specifically when I said that. Also, it wouldn't be "legalized discrimination" insofar as the law would allow owners of businesses the freedom to do as they please, which allows for discrimination. The way you phrase it makes it look like the government itself is discriminating against a certain group(which both the UK and US governments do, but that's not a discussion for this thread).

The extension doesn't make me uncomfortable, I simply think you're attempting to phrase your words in an attempt to make it look like you have some sort of moral high ground - which would be an emotional appeal, which would indeed be a logical fallacy(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion).

I have no problem admitting that I'm all in favor of businesses being allowed to discriminate in whatever manner they please. If the owner of a restraunt/club/whatever doesn't want one-legged jewish eskimos with mental disabilities in his or her establishment, then that's his or her choice. Not yours, and not the governments.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I've worked in a pub for 4 years and have had to break up a few kisses in that time. We ask you to stop, if you don't...you get the feck out.

The article was actually pretty undetailed where it mattered. A peck is different to a long kiss. They claim it wasn't anything indecent, but I know full well that some people have funny(extremely liberal) ideas about what is decent.

When news stories are so vague, it usually leads me to the conclusion that if you knew exactly what happened, there wouldn't be a story. At-any-rate, not enough information.

 

[Baneat]

Actually...Your statement is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy quite literally means "rule of the people." Democracries enable the complete and total domination of the majority over minorities. Which is why some people prefer Republics over true Democracies.

You are confusing freedom and democracy. Democracy is only inherently freedom for the majority. That said, I support gay marriage, and equal treatment for gays in general, but it annoys me that you percieve democracy as the exact opposite of what it really is.

No, sir, that hasn't been accepted as being true for about 2500 years. That's how badly behind the curve of political understanding the level of discussion in online forums is. Greek people that lived before our society set its time zero point already were capable of distinction between democracy, which requires checks and balances to protect minorities from abuse and demagogy, which is its populist, majority-driven bizarro-self.

Every democracy since Greece and Rome has enabled devices to protect minorities. Every constitutional theorist of a democratic country ever has stated the need to protect minorities and implement failsafes to prevent majorities from having absolute power. The entire theoretical basis of European democracy, from Locke and Hobbes to Madison and Tocqueville has identified the issue and proposed solutions for it.

And then stupid bigoted teenagers on the internet decided to get it wrong. How we let people make it through high school without drilling this into our heads and continue to function as a society is a miracle to me.

I love the system of checks and balances, but are you sure the UK has them? They're like.. implied but it's not like the US where they're written and very, very rigidly maintained.

 

[RelexCryo]

Hey guys, I'm just going to throw out the same thing I did in the "should gays be allowed to marry" thread.

Assuming that they were thrown out not because they were kissing, but because they were gay...

Would it be all right to do the same out of racist grounds? Like, throwing out indians or blacks because of it? If not, then why is it wrong with homosexuality?

It should be legal to let the barman throw them out

It isn't right for the barman to throw them out, but that's not your decision to make.

Uh... No.


Look, I know, the rights of the individual are holy, nobody should be forced to do anything, blah blah blah. This mentality has led to things like the Jim Crow laws in the past. Yes, the government can't discriminate against you... But they won't have to because the government makes up a very small percentage of the people you interact with. People will continue to have irrational opinions, and you know what? I don't think it's reasonable to allow that to interfere with my friends' lives. Where would you draw the line?
-Can throw someone out of a private establishment for being gay/black/other minority
-Can throw someone out of a private business for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse to hire someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can fire someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse to aid someone in dire need for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse an advertised sale to someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can refuse housing to someone for being gay/black/other minority
-Can kick someone out of the house they have rented for being gay/black/other minority

...See where I'm going with this? We need to limit the freedom of the individual to protect minority groups in a democracy, in the same way we need to limit the freedom of the individual to protect the life of other individuals. If there were four of us on an island, we could easily get a 3-1 vote "let's not share our food equally 4 ways, but rather exclude bob and let him starve"; it wouldn't make it right, though.

We need to protect minorities. If the bartender threw them out for obscenity, and was consequently and fairly throwing out other people who were kissing in heterosexual areas, then there's no problem (it's simply a poor business decision). But he is actively discriminating against homosexuals, and this is simply not okay.

Okay..first of all I want to say I support gay marriage and equal treatment of gays. Moving on...

Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy quite literally means "rule of the people." Democracries enable the complete and total domination of the majority over minorities. Inhibiting the freedom of individuals is not going to save minorities in a democracy, only the willingness of the majority to treat minorities as equals can save them.

Unless the average person treats minorities unfairly, than such discrimination will happen very rarely. In a Democracy, the will of the majority is law, so if the majority(average person) decides to treat minorities unfairly, they are screwed.

I think what you are trying to say is, we cannot have an actual Democracy, because the majority cannot be trusted. In the example you quoted, where Bob is left to starve, the majority are immoral jackasses. You are quite literally providing an example where the majority cannot be trusted to vote properly...and you are implying that someone needs to override the majority when they do something wrong.

You are implying that Democracy and rule by majority itself is inherently flawed. I would argue that while it is flawed, it is ultimately superior to any other form of government, since the aristocracy who control the government are inevitably worse than the common citizenry. I disagree with the majority on some things, but I still think they are correct on more issues than any major political group here in the U.S.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

And you know what my problem is with this idea? What if everyone does it?

What if everywhere you go, people are turning you away for housing because of your race or sexuality? You literally cannot find a place to live because of it. What if you can't shop at any stores because of your race, your sexuality, your religion? What if the ONLY body you can still rely on is the sole body that cannot discriminate against you, the government? And what if the government itself is under control of the same people who discriminated against you everywhere else?

Then maybe you should stop and consider that perhaps YOU'RE the problem here.

This is another case of "libertarianism doesn't work in practice". We're just not there yet. And while this thing, the ability to get a drink in a pub, may seem inconsequential... This whole mindset HAS TO DIE. And if we need laws to ensure that it will be kept to people's heads and not their actions, then so be it. Remember, this isn't a case of "we're not giving you this opportunity because you are incapable of performing it", it's a case of "we're not giving you this opportunity because we don't like your race/sexuality/religion with absolutely no basis whatsoever".

This is the entire problem I have with today's "liberals." You think you're the authority on morals and that everyone else should think the way you do OR ELSE. What's disgusting isn't that you hold these insane views, but that you've actually managed to gain traction in getting your moral authority laws passed in multiple supposedly free western nations. Reminds me of the old religious blasphemy laws and divine rule by kings.

I've got a newsflash for you: You're not god.

 

[RelexCryo]

Actually...Your statement is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy quite literally means "rule of the people." Democracries enable the complete and total domination of the majority over minorities. Which is why some people prefer Republics over true Democracies.

You are confusing freedom and democracy. Democracy is only inherently freedom for the majority. That said, I support gay marriage, and equal treatment for gays in general, but it annoys me that you percieve democracy as the exact opposite of what it really is.

No, sir, that hasn't been accepted as being true for about 2500 years. That's how badly behind the curve of political understanding the level of discussion in online forums is. Greek people that lived before our society set its time zero point already were capable of distinction between democracy, which requires checks and balances to protect minorities from abuse and demagogy, which is its populist, majority-driven bizarro-self.

Every democracy since Greece and Rome has enabled devices to protect minorities. Every constitutional theorist of a democratic country ever has stated the need to protect minorities and implement failsafes to prevent majorities from having absolute power. The entire theoretical basis of European democracy, from Locke and Hobbes to Madison and Tocqueville has identified the issue and proposed solutions for it.

And then stupid bigoted teenagers on the internet decided to get it wrong. How we let people make it through high school without drilling this into our heads and continue to function as a society is a miracle to me.

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[15] and procedurally.[16] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Demagogy is not a system of government in which minorities are oppressed, it is a strategy to get elected by appealing to bigotry. Demagogy is a strategy for election, Democracy is a system of government. And the potential for "Tyranny of the Majority" does exist in Democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy