You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Sexual Harrassment
November 22 2024 2.10pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Sexual Harrassment

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 31 of 32 < 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

  

Ray in Houston Flag Houston 07 Dec 17 8.44pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You mean like nightclubs that exclude tramps.

Fashion magazines exclude ugly girls or ugly short fat squat ones.

Like you make friends with those with personality attributes that fit in with your preferred types and not with other types.

Like we find, 'our types' attractive......long legs, blondes...whatever it is.

Essentially I'm saying that discrimination is life. Should a business be able to advertise that because you bang the same sex as you or have a certain skin colour that they don't want you......No...I think that's too far.

Do I think they should be able to come up with some bulls*** excuse not to make a cake they don't like.....yeah....that's too far the other way. There's always the shop down the way happy for the trade.

This particular case really screwed with my head because there are two principles at play here and there needed to be a better solution.

Apparently the Church gets to turn it's nose up at gay weddings but don't be religious and run a bakery refusing that cake!

However, I don't want 'no blacks' or 'no gays' signs in Hotel windows either. Maybe if they are like this they should advertise themselves as Christian or Islamic bakeries or whatever and get the same loophole the Churches do.

I don't konw....I'm not comfortable with that either....this one genuinely fecks with my head.


Smart people are working on this for you. Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars those providing "public accommodations" - basically any business where you entertain trade from the pubic - from denying access to people on the basis of their race, color, religion or national origin. A Federal appeals court this year has extended this protection to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

That Federal ruling still has to survive a possible appeal to the Supreme Court - where the newly installed Justice Gorsuch may tilt the balance against the Federal decision - but, if and until the Federal court is overruled, it's essentially the law of the land that you cannot refuse the provide service to anyone solely because they're LBGT.

Nothing here stops you from denying service to someone who's gay and also an asshole or drunk or owes you money or for whatever other legitimate reason a business may refuse a customer, but you need to be ready to demonstrate your reason for refusing to serve someone from any of the communities protected by the Act.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 07 Dec 17 11.36pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Kermit8

Mild discrimination is everywhere and part of life I concur but overt bigotry, and that's what the cake issue is about as they weren't being asked to oversee the ceremony but just to put some flour, eggs and sugar together but refused, is much more dangerous and repugnant and should be illegal in all its guises.

Those bakers despised gay people via their religion and they were rightly taken to task.

The principles at play here aren't reliant upon a level of feeling towards any group or whether you agree with it or not. Also I'm not sure how you knowledge of their level of feelings towards gays.....Never mind.

As was addressed in the previous post there are issues and inconsistencies with this verdict.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Dec 2017 1.41am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 08 Dec 17 1.13pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

I think you should be able to refuse to serve food to anyone who tells you they have a food allergy.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 08 Dec 17 2.39pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The principles at play here aren't reliant upon a level of feeling towards any group or whether you agree with it or not. Also I'm not sure how you knowledge of their level of feelings towards gays.....Never mind.

As was addressed in the previous post there are issues and inconsistencies with this verdict.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Dec 2017 1.41am)

I respect peoples right to be homophobic jerks, provided they respect my right to treat them as homophobic jerks.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 08 Dec 17 3.25pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I respect peoples right to be homophobic jerks, provided they respect my right to treat them as homophobic jerks.

How should they treat you?

It's a tricky area with arguments on both sides. I've never fully resolved this one in terms of what is ethically correct.

I think there are probably workarounds. However, the UK's current cultural zeitgeist is very 'homophobic jerk' minded.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 08 Dec 17 4.12pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

How should they treat you?

It's a tricky area with arguments on both sides. I've never fully resolved this one in terms of what is ethically correct.

I think there are probably workarounds. However, the UK's current cultural zeitgeist is very 'homophobic jerk' minded.

I respect their right to treat me like someone who takes issue with homophobic jerks. Same rules apply, obviously.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 08 Dec 17 4.13pm

Originally posted by Stuk

I think you should be able to refuse to serve food to anyone who tells you they have a food allergy.

Especially, if they have intricate beards.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Ray in Houston Flag Houston 08 Dec 17 4.27pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

US Rep. Trent Franks (Republican) announced his resignation yesterday, preemptively in advance of something that is going to come out soon. It's a bit murky this one.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post and CNN have been working on an in-depth expose of sexual harassment in Washington. Their report is expected to drop fairly soon, and will "out" 20-30 elected officials.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 08 Dec 17 4.57pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Especially, if they have intricate beards.

Intricate beards should be illegal unless you're over 50.

I was more getting at the people who order a takeaway curry when they have a nut allergy and the like.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 08 Dec 17 5.02pm

Originally posted by Stuk

Intricate beards should be illegal unless you're over 50.

I was more getting at the people who order a takeaway curry when they have a nut allergy and the like.

Or a colonel in the Victorian Army.

I think, given how nut allegys play out, that's kind of acceptable to warn people. For me, its people who use the word allergic for 'doesn't agree with me' or 'I don't like it'. Pussys, I've got IBS and that doesn't stop me drinking or eating a curry, somethings are worth a little discomfort.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 08 Dec 17 5.17pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Or a colonel in the Victorian Army.

I think, given how nut allegys play out, that's kind of acceptable to warn people. For me, its people who use the word allergic for 'doesn't agree with me' or 'I don't like it'. Pussys, I've got IBS and that doesn't stop me drinking or eating a curry, somethings are worth a little discomfort.

Part of the uniform for an officer wasn't it?

Why take the risk just to be lazy. Yeah I've got a severe allergy but i'll put blind faith in someone I don't know, when I haven't witnessed the conditions in which it is made nor whether the instruction got passed from the order taker to the chef etc.

I love spicy food, you've just got to accept that the next day it might not be as pleasurable as it was on the way in!

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Midlands Eagle Flag 09 Dec 17 10.12am Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

I was more getting at the people who order a takeaway curry when they have a nut allergy and the like.

What about the 300 people on an aircraft flying away on holiday who can't have nuts as one of the passengers has a nut allergy

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 31 of 32 < 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Sexual Harrassment