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

[fulano]

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.

But that's a slippery slope. What if someone somewhere has no issue with kicking out a brown-skinned dude and a white chick for kissing, or a couple with down's syndrome (yes, those exist), etc.? That's the same exact sort of thinking that made "colored" water fountains, bus seats, rest rooms, and whatnot, possible--the whole "Whatever, I don't mind. To each their own. I don't go there and they don't come here, and everyone is happy."

Wanting to push dated ways of thinking only holds people back.

 

[RelexCryo]

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?

Translation issues aside, yes, they support my view. Go read them carefully.

Prevention of abuse against minorities is an integral part of democracy. It's why all those freedoms listed in the entry (speech, press and others) are called "fundamental" to democracy. The right to dissent, which in some democracies (like mine) is actually called "the right to egality" and in turn is executed as a right to be different is the cornerstone of democracy. The concept of the rule of majority is just a superficial trait which, in fact, is considered to be outdated by most these days. Consitutionalists generally prefer to talk about public opinion, public interest or simply legitimacy when it comes to who gets what segment of power in a representative democracy.

Your only argument, again, was that I used "demagogy" as a name for the degeneration of democracy as per Plato (which is what we call it over here) and you and Wikipedia use "tyranny". Like I said, the issue is merely of terminology, you still haven't made an argument to support democracy as simply the rule of majority... which you can't because it's not, so... yeah.

You assert that protections of the rights of minorities are a cornerstone of Democracy, and help define it. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim at all. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim that the violations of minority rights prevents a system from being a Democracy. I, by contrast, have provided evidence to prove that no, it is not inherent to Democracy. It has clearly been established that Tyrrany of the Majority is possible in Democracy.

You have asserted that Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. You have provided no evidence to support that claim, at all.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Nope, not willing to fall into that link.

Then don't bring it up when you're clearly wrong.

But that's a slippery slope. What if someone somewhere has no issue with kicking out a brown-skinned dude and a white chick for kissing, or a couple with down's syndrome (yes, those exist), etc.? That's the same exact sort of thinking that made "colored" water fountains, bus seats, rest rooms, and whatnot, possible--the whole "Whatever, I don't mind. To each their own. I don't go there and they don't come here, and everyone is happy."

Wanting to push dated ways of thinking only holds people back.

Being dated doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. Forcing people who hate each other and want nothing to do with one another to interact is an excellent recipe for disaster.

I'm pro freedom of association. That includes the freedom to not associate with whomever you don't want to be around no matter what sort of interaction is taking place.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

*pssst*

You continue to be really confused about what words mean technically versus what they mean in comic books and Disney movies. You should really back off now, you're kind of embarrassing yourself.

He is again referring to platonic political theory. You're referring to the Zorro movies and common misconceptions about Swiss politics. Not quite the same league here.

The Cadet said, and I quote: "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"

No, sorry, he is not referring to political theory, or the philosophical musings of Aristotle or Plato. He explicitly said it is every bit as broken as any other system. Comparing actual real life Aristocracies to real life Democracies is directly relevant to that statement, as it established that no, Democracy is not every bit as broken as every other system.

 

[rokkolpo]

Well....how much where they into it?

 

[fulano]

But that's a slippery slope. What if someone somewhere has no issue with kicking out a brown-skinned dude and a white chick for kissing, or a couple with down's syndrome (yes, those exist), etc.? That's the same exact sort of thinking that made "colored" water fountains, bus seats, rest rooms, and whatnot, possible--the whole "Whatever, I don't mind. To each their own. I don't go there and they don't come here, and everyone is happy."

Wanting to push dated ways of thinking only holds people back.

Being dated doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. Forcing people who hate each other and want nothing to do with one another to interact is an excellent recipe for disaster.

I'm pro freedom of association. That includes the freedom to not associate with whomever you don't want to be around no matter what sort of interaction is taking place.[/quote]

Yeah...that's still not the way to go. By that account, you'd have been fine and dandy living in a segregated U.S and would have given the exact same argument you are giving me right now about this thing.

Or what, you'd have been able to see the difference?

 

[RelexCryo]

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?

Translation issues aside, yes, they support my view. Go read them carefully.

Prevention of abuse against minorities is an integral part of democracy. It's why all those freedoms listed in the entry (speech, press and others) are called "fundamental" to democracy. The right to dissent, which in some democracies (like mine) is actually called "the right to egality" and in turn is executed as a right to be different is the cornerstone of democracy. The concept of the rule of majority is just a superficial trait which, in fact, is considered to be outdated by most these days. Consitutionalists generally prefer to talk about public opinion, public interest or simply legitimacy when it comes to who gets what segment of power in a representative democracy.

Your only argument, again, was that I used "demagogy" as a name for the degeneration of democracy as per Plato (which is what we call it over here) and you and Wikipedia use "tyranny". Like I said, the issue is merely of terminology, you still haven't made an argument to support democracy as simply the rule of majority... which you can't because it's not, so... yeah.

You assert that protections of the rights of minorities are a cornerstone of Democracy, and help define it. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim at all. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim that the violations of minority rights prevents a system from being a Democracy. I, by contrast, have provided evidence to prove that no, it is not inherent to Democracy. It has clearly been established that Tyrrany of the Majority is possible in Democracy.

You have asserted that Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. You have provided no evidence to support that claim, at all.

I'm confused.

Evidence?

What evidence?

It's not a trial. I'm not proving my case to the Internet. I'm pointing out that you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

But hey, fuck it. You want reference, so here you go. Start here:

http://www.unilibro.es/find_buy_es/result_scrittori.asp?scrittore=PEREZ+ROYO%2C+JAVIER&idaff=0

and then you can move on to here perhaps:

http://www.senado.es/constitu_i/indices/consti_ing.pdf
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp

Just for reference, and then proceed to some explanations on those that are a bit clearer.

http://www.questia.com/library/politics-and-government/systems-of-government/constitutionalism.jsp
http://www.academon.com/Comparison-Essay-Comparative-Constitutionalism/90220

So yeah, I don't know. That kind of stuff?

What stupid, stupid trend in online arguments. "Prove it". A downright appeal to authority. Go find a quote. Our arguments are equal until supported by "proof", proof here being somebody else that has spelled out something directly contradicting somebody else's point.

Crap, society is doomed.

You have listed constitutions which claim that minorities have rights. You have not listed anything which claims a system where minorities are denied rights by the majority inherently prevents a system from being a democracy.

Secondly, you claimed I have not made an argument showing a system where minority rights are violated is a democracy. I did make an argument, and I supported it.

You are essentially arguing definitions, but your personal definition not only defies majority definition, but also listed sources. Considering I support gay marriage and teating homosexuals equally, this is all rather amusing.

 

[Death-of-Penguins]

Thats what the "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason" sign is for.
Besides, for all we know they were being obscene but hey, they are a minority so we are just supposed to excuse them huh? Were it a hetero couple that got kicked out everyone would just say "meh, they probably were being obscene" and would not have made such a big deal about it. But because its a gay couple everyone just blames the owner.
And the whole gay kissing protest thing is just fucking tacky.
Don't like the business? Do not give it your money.

I totally agree. I mean, I'm not homophobic in the slightest, that would be... odd. But it's getting to the point in the UK that if you're gay there's a feeling of "let them get away with things in case we come across as homophobic". Pub landlord doesn't want people eating face in his pub? Then he can kick them out.

 

[sam42ification]

Is there a video of them kissing

Thats just wrong. If those two were kissing in my bar i would set a camera
Sorrey i'll stop that but seriously it is wronge and it shouldn't of happened.

 

[Jadak]

But that's a slippery slope. What if someone somewhere has no issue with kicking out a brown-skinned dude and a white chick for kissing, or a couple with down's syndrome (yes, those exist), etc.? That's the same exact sort of thinking that made "colored" water fountains, bus seats, rest rooms, and whatnot, possible--the whole "Whatever, I don't mind. To each their own. I don't go there and they don't come here, and everyone is happy."

Wanting to push dated ways of thinking only holds people back.

I'm definitely aware of the problems, but in the end, I'm not one to support something that bothers me just because the same principle can be applied against something that doesn't.

I'll support what I like, complain about what I don't, and be called a hypocrite when the two are similar concepts, and I'm okay with that.

 

[Sentox6]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110415/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_kiss_controversy

That article is just full of WTFery.

the pair were describing their ordeal on national radio.

Is this for real? Getting ejected from a pub qualifies as an "ordeal" now? Get a grip.

Shetler, who is originally from New York, said the incident "struck me as the kind of thing I would see in a small town in the States, not in the capital of the U.K."

Classy.

More dramatically, a gay man was stamped and kicked to death on Trafalgar Square in 2009 ? a brutal hate crime which shocked the city.

And we've made the obviously inconsequential leap from 'being removed from a private establishment' to 'murder'. Nothing like a little rationality and perspective in journalism, eh.

Hell, I see nothing wrong with ejecting a gay couple for kissing while not penalising straight couples, if the owner so desires. Discriminating against someone simply because they are something (whether that be black, gay, or whatever trait you want to provide as an example) is one thing. But I have no problem with people being excluded on the basis of anything they actively choose to do, like PDA. If a gay couple kissing is simply aesthetically unappealing to you, you shouldn't have to put up with it on your own damn premises, commercial or not.

 

[fulano]

But that's a slippery slope. What if someone somewhere has no issue with kicking out a brown-skinned dude and a white chick for kissing, or a couple with down's syndrome (yes, those exist), etc.? That's the same exact sort of thinking that made "colored" water fountains, bus seats, rest rooms, and whatnot, possible--the whole "Whatever, I don't mind. To each their own. I don't go there and they don't come here, and everyone is happy."

Wanting to push dated ways of thinking only holds people back.

I'm definitely aware of the problems, but in the end, I'm not one to support something that bothers me just because the same principle can be applied against something that doesn't.

I'll support what I like, complain about what I don't, and be called a hypocrite when the two are similar concepts, and I'm okay with that.

I'm not calling you a hypocrite. All I'm saying is that your way of thinking, even though today may not be seen as something downright apalling, and in principle it shouldn't be, has an inherent danger of serving as the starting point of more extreme interpretations hence the slippery slope.

It breeds complacency in the face of the other's problems, and it could easily be turned to target whatever group you happen to belong to even if it isn't based on ethnicity or sexual orientation (caatholics vs protestants or jews vs palestinians, anyone?).

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Yeah...that's still not the way to go. By that account, you'd have been fine and dandy living in a segregated U.S and would have given the exact same argument you are giving me right now about this thing.

Or what, you'd have been able to see the difference?

No, because the US was segregated by law. Being in favor of freedom of association means being in favor of freedom -from- association. I am against the government mandating segregation, I am FOR allowing individuals to choose who they wish to associate with.

I don't know how to make it clearer than that.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

*pssst*

You continue to be really confused about what words mean technically versus what they mean in comic books and Disney movies. You should really back off now, you're kind of embarrassing yourself.

He is again referring to platonic political theory. You're referring to the Zorro movies and common misconceptions about Swiss politics. Not quite the same league here.

The Cadet said, and I quote: "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"

No, sorry, he is not referring to political theory, or the philosophical musings of Aristotle or Plato. He explicitly said it is every bit as broken as any other system. Comparing actual real life Aristocracies to real life Democracies is directly relevant to that statement, as it established that no, Democracy is not every bit as broken as every other system.

He meant that unchecked direct democracy without a political and electoral system underneath doesn't work. Or it wouldn't if anybody figured out how to even implement it. He's not talking about modern representative democracy, which is the distinction you seem to be unable to make in your head.

I really suggest you assume people are talking a bit over your head here and move on. Really.

For the record, the kind of Aristocracy he was talking about here is very, very close to the Ayn Rand-infused modern appeal to meritocracy many US politicians and grassroots movements make these days. Much closer than to actual practical aristocracy from the Middle Ages in which God-given nobility titles are passed on through a bloodline.

The kind of democracy he was talking about you'd probably call "anarchy".

An absence of government is not democracy. Pure, idealized democracy, is not a state where everybody does what they want whenever they want, it is a state where the majority vote rules. You seem to think that Idealized democracy is a state where people do what they please. Even the original, pure concept of democracy,(or at least, the earliest confirmed examples we have of such concepts) did not work that way.

Moreover, while it is true that directly electing politicians to office is fundamentally different from selecting them by lots, which was how Athens did it, it is simply another aspect of majority vote.

Democracy, as originally defined/used by Athens, is fairly similar to Switzerland today- All adult citizens are allowed to vote, which sets the laws of the state directly. The fact that government offices are directly voted for rather than selected by lots is not a significant difference.

You are attempting to define idealized democracy differently than how Athens defined it, and it is generally believed that Athens invented it.