Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

bjork

Zillah wrote: »

The sole answer that arises is that a person's right to not be discriminated against is more important than a person's (non-existent) right to discriminate. This applies to homophobes that own printers and have gay customers, and to racists that own restaurants and have black patrons.

When you understand why a racist restaurateur can't throw out black diners then you will understand why a homophobic printer can't turn away gay clients.

How about a sauna refusing a customer solely based on their heterosexuality?


What about that customers rights to not be discriminated against based on their sexuality?

Zillah

I haven't been following the thread so I don't know if that's a thing that has been spoken about, but sure, if you're letting gay men into a sauna you should be letting straight men into a sauna.

Even if that was happening, do you think one instance of discrimination makes others ok?

jobbridge4life

bjork wrote: »

How about a sauna refusing a customer solely based on their heterosexuality?


What about that customers rights to not be discriminated against based on their sexuality?

Whats your opinion in that situation Bjork? And what does it tell you about the situation at hand.

bjork

Zillah wrote: »

I haven't been following the thread so I don't know if that's a thing that has been spoken about, but sure, if you're letting gay men into a sauna you should be letting straight men into a sauna.

Even if that was happening, do you think one instance of discrimination makes others ok?

I'm not sure myself if it has already being mentioned


But what I find ironic is a lot if the people who are very vocal on the printer issue, find other instances of discrimination ok because it suits them

Zillah

bjork wrote: »

I'm not sure myself if it has already being mentioned


But what I find ironic is a lot if the people who are very vocal on the printer issue, find other instances of discrimination ok because it suits them

Ok well I still have no idea what you're talking about, would you like to expand?

reprise

I can't understand why the posters living on this thread cannot explain how it is discrimination to refuse to provide a specific service to everyone, equally.

What am I missing?

bjork

Zillah wrote: »

I haven't been following the thread so I don't know if that's a thing that has been spoken about, but sure, if you're letting gay men into a sauna you should be letting straight men into a sauna.

Even if that was happening, do you think one instance of discrimination makes others ok?

Even if it was happening > it is!!

How about B&B's advertising Gay only / lesbian only / women only >> That's happening too

Where's the outrage?

jobbridge4life

bjork wrote: »

I'm not sure myself if it has already being mentioned


But what I find ironic is a lot if the people who are very vocal on the printer issue, find other instances of discrimination ok because it suits them

But Bjork you haven't bothered to let us know what your opinion is on discrimination.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

I can't understand why the posters living on this thread cannot explain how it is discrimination to refuse to provide a specific service to everyone, equally.

What am I missing?

Try make it up a stairs in a wheelchair and I think you should get the idea.

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Try make it up a stairs in a wheelchair and I think you should get the idea.

?

bjork

jobbridge4life wrote: »

But Bjork you haven't bothered to let us know what your opinion is on discrimination.

I'll sum it up briefly for you. If you need to know more there's 81 pages <<<<<of reading



What's good for the goose is good for the gander

jobbridge4life

bjork wrote: »

I'll sum it up briefly for you. If you need to know more there's 81 pages <<<<<of reading



What's good for the goose is good for the gander

That doesn't offer any indication of your position.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

?

I guess I underestimated your capacity to be a contrarian.

I run a taxi service. I offer the same service to everyone interested in travelling in my cabs. I am not bothered having any fitted for wheel chair access.

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I guess I underestimated your capacity to be a contrarian.

I run a taxi service. I offer the same service to everyone interested in travelling in my cabs. I am not bothered having any fitted for wheel chair access.

I don't understand why you are wandering off topic. The printers will not print same sex marriage invitations for anyone. Straight, gay, able bodied, disabled, young, old, black, white, yellow etc etc.

Where is the discrimination?

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

I don't understand why you are wandering off topic. The printers will not print same sex marriage invitations for anyone. Straight, gay, able bodied, disabled, young, old, black, white, yellow etc etc.

Where is the discrimination?

I am bang on topic, in fact I am responding to a question you posed.

reprise wrote: »

I can't understand why the posters living on this thread cannot explain how it is discrimination to refuse to provide a specific service to everyone, equally.

What am I missing?

You haven't remotely engaged with my response.

jobbridge4life

Bjork you still haven't bothered to indicate your position on discrimination.

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

I don't understand why you are wandering off topic. The printers will not print same sex marriage invitations for anyone. Straight, gay, able bodied, disabled, young, old, black, white, yellow etc etc.

Where is the discrimination?

My hotel doesnt have any rooms for interracial couples so they can't stay.

Where's the discrimination?

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I am bang on topic, in fact I am responding to a question you posed.



You haven't remotely engaged with my response.

No, you are inventing hypothetical scenarios to make some point.

Textbook strawman.

Please stay on topic.

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

My hotel doesnt have any rooms for interracial couples so they can't stay.

Where's the discrimination?

My hotel is booked out and has no rooms left as I explain to the gay customer.

Discrimination! You cry...

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

No, you are inventing hypothetical scenarios to make some point.

Textbook strawman.

Please stay on topic.

I am on topic. You asked why people were arguing that offering the same exact service to any customer could be considered discrimination. I responded and as is your habit when you can't think of a meaningful response you obfuscate.

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

My hotel is booked out and has no rooms left as I explain to the gay customer.

Discrimination! You cry...

So you agree that not having interracial rooms means its not discrimination to turn down an interracial couple despite having empty rooms available?

Dont worry, I dont expect any response from you that doesnt attempt to avoid the point.

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I am on topic. You asked why people were arguing that offering the same exact service to any customer could be considered discrimination. I responded and as is your habit when you can't think of a meaningful response you obfuscate.

I asked about the printers and you went off on a tangent building strawmen around taxis and wheelchairs. Because you don't have a reasonable response to the question you are inventing your own.

Would it not be easier to admit you haven't a clue what you are on about?

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So you agree that not having interracial rooms means its not discrimination to turn down an interracial couple despite having empty rooms available?

Dont worry, I dont expect any response from you that doesnt attempt to avoid the point.

I agree turning a couple away because they are interracial as the sole reason for doing so is discrimination. Can you relate it to the topic now?

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

I don't understand why you are wandering off topic. The printers will not print same sex marriage invitations for anyone. Straight, gay, able bodied, disabled, young, old, black, white, yellow etc etc.

Where is the discrimination?

The only people who will ever want to buy them is, you guessed it, gay people. And why won't they print them? Because they're against gay marriage, they don't believe gay people deserve the same marriage rights as they do because they're gay. Again, can we stop trying to find loopholes to defend bigotry?

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

I asked about the printers and you went off on a tangent building strawmen around taxis and wheelchairs. Because you don't have a reasonable response to the question you are inventing your own.

Would it not be easier to admit you haven't a clue what you are on about?

Reprise, would it not be easier and more profitable for us both for you to engage properly, especially when others have had the decency to respond meaningfully to a question you asked?

You asked a question I answered it. Offering the same exact service to everyone is no guarantee of non-discrimination, in many circumstances such as the one I highlighted to you in my response it can on occasion actually be discriminatory.

bjork

bb1234567 wrote: »

The only people who will ever want to buy them is, you guessed it, gay people. And why won't they print them? Because they're against gay marriage, they don't believe gay people deserve the same marriage rights as they do because they're gay. Again, can we stop trying to find loopholes to defend bigotry?

You don't have to be gay to enter in to a civil partnership. I can marry my friend for tax purposes if I want.

reprise

bb1234567 wrote: »

The only people who will ever want to buy them is, you guessed it, gay people. And why won't they print them? Because they're against gay marriage, they don't believe gay people deserve the same marriage rights as they do because they're gay. Again, can we stop trying to find loopholes to defend bigotry?

What if I wanted to buy the invitations as a gift? I am not gay.

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

I agree turning a couple away because they are interracial as the sole reason for doing so is discrimination. Can you relate it to the topic now?

ok, I will attempt to make this very simple so not even you can attempt to twist it.

The hotel has rooms, the printer has invitations.
The hotel refuses to provide its service to an interracial couple, the printer refuses to provide its service to a same sex couple.
The hotel claims it doesnt provide interracial rooms so its not discrimination, the printer claims it doesnt provide same sex couples invitations.
The hotel wouldnt give anyone an interracial room, the printer wont provide anyone with same sex marriage invites. Hence, its ok.

People would see through the hotels pathetic attempt of hiding it and....

Im sure you can figure out the rest.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

What if I wanted to buy the invitations as a gift? I am not gay.

Then they would have discriminated against you on the basis of perceived membership of the LGBT community. Much like I wouldn't get away with banning a traveled wedding if happened to stupidly luck out and mistake a settled family for travellers

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Reprise, would it not be easier and more profitable for us both for you to engage properly, especially when others have had the decency to respond meaningfully to a question you asked?

You asked a question I answered it. Offering the same exact service to everyone is no guarantee of non-discrimination, in many circumstances such as the one I highlighted to you in my response it can on occasion actually be discriminatory.

My question, had you read or understood it, related to declining to provide a specific service, regardless of who requested it.