GothicCharm Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 no they shouldn't but there are so many things that shouldn't be that are. i simply thought that if both parties stuck to that rule there may be less problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 No, they don't. None of them warrent being discriminated against for. Are you saying they are valid reasons to discriminate? You miss the point amd I'm not going to explain it again. [quote=mj.scuba;6104701 Bold - exactly why you'd be accused of all of the above. You 'really' have missed the point. Try re-reading the posts. And if you still don't get it, then let it pass. In the context of a B&B, how could you take an instant dislike upon first meeting someone, and then refuse based on a first impression? It's unlikely, which is why it's a tenuous excuse for their predjudices. In the context of meeting anyone for the first time, it's human nature to take an instant dislike to a person or a group of people and never actually know why. And before you misconstrue that statement, I'm NOT saying everyone takes an instant dislike to everyone they meet for the first time. I'm saying, it is not uncommon for someone to take an instant dislike of someone else on first meeting for no actual reason (other than a 'feeling'). But, the onus is on you to prove my discrimination without doubt. At school, many years ago, there was a kid called Ishmal. He was the most rude, conceited, arrogant, pompous prig going. I didn't like him and I made no attempt to hide it. One day he accused me of being a racist because I did not like him and he was Asian. It wasn't true, but much of the mud he chucked stuck and it took a long time for me to 'wash' that off. If I saw him today and he was on fire, I wouldn't cross the street to p*ss on him. And now, as it was then, it has nothing to do with the colour of his skin, his ancestory or his religion. But then again, that wouldn't matter, would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Do they not? So, I can say to a dark skinned, diasbled, Asain gay man 'I refuse to serve you because I don't like you' and I will not be accused of: Racial discrimination - dark skinned Homopobic discrimination - gay man Discrimination against disabled persons And possibly sexist because he's a man (a bit tenuous, but still possible). LOL, you haven't lived jeremy! I've often been refused stuff mainly because I'm a pillock!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 You miss the point amd I'm not going to explain it again. You 'really' have missed the point. Try re-reading the posts. And if you still don't get it, then let it pass. In the context of meeting anyone for the first time, it's human nature to take an instant dislike to a person or a group of people and never actually know why. And before you misconstrue that statement, I'm NOT saying everyone takes an instant dislike to everyone they meet for the first time. I'm saying, it is not uncommon for someone to take an instant dislike of someone else on first meeting for no actual reason (other than a 'feeling'). But, the onus is on you to prove my discrimination without doubt. At school, many years ago, there was a kid called Ishmal. He was the most rude, conceited, arrogant, pompous prig going. I didn't like him and I made no attempt to hide it. One day he accused me of being a racist because I did not like him and he was Asian. It wasn't true, but much of the mud he chucked stuck and it took a long time for me to 'wash' that off. If I saw him today and he was on fire, I wouldn't cross the street to p*ss on him. And now, as it was then, it has nothing to do with the colour of his skin, his ancestory or his religion. But then again, that wouldn't matter, would it? I understand you perfectly. The couple that were in the news recently, and the matter being discussed regarding Mr Graylings comments though, are not about people being turned away just because the proprietor took a personal dislike. The point I make is it can work both ways. If a business chooses not to supply goods/services based on a personal dislike of a person, yes that person may claim some sort of discrimination (if they are different in any way) where there was none other than the personal dislike (maybe they stink and need a bath or something). Do you accept though that a business proprietor could discriminate, under the guise of not liking them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 LOL, you haven't lived jeremy! I've often been refused stuff mainly because I'm a pillock!! No surprise there then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Correction... why in your opinion my analogy was worthless. It's quite simple isn't it? You were comparing chalk with cheese. Holiday companies ban stag parties because of their experience of the behaviour of some of them which is disadvantageous to the company. If holiday companies had similar experiences with gay people then your analogy would be relevant. But as far as I know gay couples dont have a reputation for trashing hotel rooms or throwing up in communal areas. You always assume yours is the only valid opinion. In the real world the silent majority probably don't agree with you. You always assume yours is (probably) the only valid opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 No surprise there then ..are you in league with my ex wife scuba??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonBennet Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 It's quite simple isn't it? You were comparing chalk with cheese. Holiday companies ban stag parties because of their experience of the behaviour of some of them which is disadvantageous to the company. If holiday companies had similar experiences with gay people then your analogy would be relevant. But as far as I know gay couples dont have a reputation for trashing hotel rooms or throwing up in communal areas. But gay people do have a reputation for spending their holidays picking up strangers in public toilets and taking them back to their hotel for sexual activities many people find distasteful. IMO B & B owners should have the right to refuse to accept people like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 ..are you in league with my ex wife scuba??! Lol, sorry couldn't resist. Did you read my post #209? Was wondering if you could provide comment about the various arguments put forward at the time when B&Bs would have been able to put a sign out saying "No Blacks", or more specifically put forward around the time such attitudes started to largely disappear? I couldn't say for sure as it was before my time, but I bet the same sort of arguments were made back then. Sorry, this is assuming you're old enough to remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 But gay people do have a reputation for spending their holidays picking up strangers in public toilets and taking them back to their hotel for sexual activities many people find distasteful. IMO B & B owners should have the right to refuse to accept people like that. Is that reputation from first hand experience though, or just biggoted pre conceptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.