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

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Why am I not allowed to murder at will? Is there something inherently wrong with murdering?
What about lying in the case of breach of contract?
What about theft?
What about drugs?
What about any number of other things that the government forces upon us?

"You can't force your morality upon us" means ANY morality. This, in turn, means virtually every law is wrong. Or am I missing something here? The government ALWAYS forces its morality upon you, regardless of what laws it has in place.

Did you really just equate murder and theft to the rights of business owners to choose who they wish to serve? I have no response to that which doesn't consist of "Are you serious?"

 

[ramboondiea]

pub rules, dont like it dont go, its that simple.

also you only have there word it wasnt obscene, it may have been, people could have been uncomfortable and complained then they would have been asked to leave.
as far as im concerned they have just been petty and there was no need for the protest

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Honestly i would have kicked a man and a woman for doing the same thing. "Get a Room" fits nicely here.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

Checks and balances anyone? Like, you know, exactly what we have right now?

Pure democracy (which is, by the way, not really present anywhere that I could think of) IS a broken system. It's just as broken and amoral and wrong as every other system; even in its idealistic form it fails to come close to the idealistic forms of Aristocracy or Timocracy (as described by Plato). There's a reason that Plato didn't like it...

IIRC, what we have is defined as a Republic; that is, we have a democractic system checking against itself, which is balanced out by a more or less dictatorial aristocracy (the judicial branch) and it works fairly well.

Also I find it funny that you're claiming exactly the opposite of Pinochet in this argument based on the same principle.

If you honestly think that Aristocracy is better than pure Democracy, there is something deeply wrong with you. And if you want an example of a pure Democracy, probably the closest example today would be Switzerland, which has a comprehensive National Referendum, and where almost every adult is allowed to own a machine gun, allowing the people to easily override the government by brute force if they need too.

Switzerland, last time I checked, is a fairly nice place to live. Compare it to pretty much any Aristocracy. 18 century France, 19th century Mexico...Aristocracies have consistently been hellholes.

 

[zhoominator]

Sure, he can choose who to serve in his own establishment, except it does kind of defeat the whole point of having it called a PUB, because clearly it ain't a public house if somebody can't be served under some arbitrary condition like that. But I guess that is just nitpicking.

While they do have that right, that doesn't mean they aren't assholes for being so discriminatory. I was once refused drinks because of my disabilities, yeah they had the right to do that, doesn't mean it was an okay thing to do. Basically I just formed a pact and convinced loads of the regulars to stop going by telling them this story. Apparently the bar is under new ownership now. But I don't feel sorry for them because that kind of attitude isn't okay and giving people like that no consequence merely makes the homophobic and bigoted attitudes more prevalent.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

In this situation, when we are talking about morals, yes.

Why is it wrong to impose the morality of "you can't discriminate against people for their sexuality, gender, or race" but it's perfectly okay to enforce the morality of "you shouldn't kill people"?

Allow me to answer, murder is something that affects EVERYONE regardless of race, sexuality etc. It denies life which is something everyone has and everyone is entitled to. Example, which would be high on congresses to do list, Gay Marrige or The Economy. One only affects gay people while the other affects everyone. Therefore the latter is more important.

 

[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

You... went to wikipedia.

And quoted it.

Without making an argument. On the face of the whole "my Constitutional law professor in university" in the past tense that heavily implies I know what I'm talking about.

In hopes of latching on to a terminological distinction (which, by the way, is only present because, you know, second language here, Plato's "degenerated democracy" state seems to be tranlated to "tyranny" in English speaking countries, while latin languages go with the "demagogy" translation).

Anyway, moving on.

Your point being? Other than quoting passages of Wikipedia that support my view and deny yours?

They support your view and deny mine? They openly acknowledge that Democracy carries the capacity for tyrrany of the majority, and show that demagogery is a tactic for getting elected, not a name for a system of government, meaning you don't call a government where the majority commit acts of bigotry against a minority demagoguery. For example, Proposition 8 of California was not demagoguery, because it was not a tactic for getting elected. It is just Democracy.

If you look at this, and see your point as being supported instead of mine, you are delusional. Moreover, I did make an argument between the two links I showed...and you claimed I did not make an argument. Why did you claim I did not make an argument when I clearly did?

 

[Jadak]

Good?

Don't get me wrong, from a logical viewpoint I accept that's "wrong", and unfair (unless they kick out anyone making out, which I doubt), and all that politically correct business most people expect someone to say, but honestly, if I'm at the pub, I don't want to see two guys making out.

Hell, I never want to see two guys making out. The act of kicking them out can be as unjust as anyone wants to call it, and I'd hate to be treated that way and kicked out for something like that myself, but at the end of the day, it's not something I want to see, and I'm not bothered by someone helping to ensure that I don't.

Segregation ftw, I'll have my straight bars, gays can have their gay bars. Attractive lesbians can have whatever they want.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

In this situation, when we are talking about morals, yes.

Why is it wrong to impose the morality of "you can't discriminate against people for their sexuality, gender, or race" but it's perfectly okay to enforce the morality of "you shouldn't kill people"?

Allow me to answer, murder is something that affects EVERYONE regardless of race, sexuality etc. It denies life which is something everyone has and everyone is entitled to. Example, which would be high on congresses to do list, Gay Marrige or The Economy. One only affects gay people while the other affects everyone. Therefore the latter is more important.

Not good enough, sorry. You're saying "it's justified because it happens to everyone"? That's ridiculous and not a good basis for morality at all! It's not a question of "more vs. less", it's a question of "yes vs. no". It's not shading, it's black or white.

It's not morality it's justice smart one. Murder isn't a moral issue in the first place, you comparing them is no basis for anything.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Good?

Don't get me wrong, from a logical viewpoint I accept that's "wrong", and unfair (unless they kick out anyone making out, which I doubt), and all that politically correct business most people expect someone to say, but honestly, if I'm at the pub, I don't want to see two guys making out.

Hell, I never want to see two guys making out. The act of kicking them out can be as unjust as anyone wants to call it, and I'd hate to be treated that way and kicked out for something like that myself, but at the end of the day, it's not something I want to see, and I'm not bothered by someone helping to ensure that I don't.

Segregation ftw, I'll have my straight bars, gays can have their gay bars. Attractive lesbians can have whatever they want.

Congrats you just won the game.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Why am I not allowed to murder at will? Is there something inherently wrong with murdering?
What about lying in the case of breach of contract?
What about theft?
What about drugs?
What about any number of other things that the government forces upon us?

"You can't force your morality upon us" means ANY morality. This, in turn, means virtually every law is wrong. Or am I missing something here? The government ALWAYS forces its morality upon you, regardless of what laws it has in place.

Did you really just equate murder and theft to the rights of business owners to choose who they wish to serve? I have no response to that which doesn't consist of "Are you serious?"

In this situation, when we are talking about morals, yes.

Why is it wrong to impose the morality of "you can't discriminate against people for their sexuality, gender, or race" but it's perfectly okay to enforce the morality of "you shouldn't kill people"?

I hate philosophical arguments, I'm terrible at them. That being said, the laws against murder and theft are less the government intervening in morals(everyone knows murder is BAD, but that isn't the point) and more about you denying someone else's right to live/someone's private property rights.

If you call yourself a fan of democracy/freedom then you should agree that the government should never be able to legislate morality.

Do you think porn should be banned? If so, why not? You've clearly stated you have no problem with the government making morality laws?

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

Seriously? You are going to pull that with an avatar depicting a genocidal dictator? Wow. The clinking noise of your brass balls must be really annoying when you walk.

Actually, they're made of steel. While Pinochet wasn't genocidal, I'm not going to argue about that here - not the thread for it. If you want to discuss that, feel free to PM me. I'll be happy to prove you wrong.