- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro
Well, that's another 'right' that differs depending on where you are. In the UK and many European countries there is what is known as "The Right to Roam", which means that members of the general public have the right to access private property for certain stipulated activities. I suspect the situation in the US is different.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam]Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Well, according to the legislation we've been discussing, they do have that right, even if you don't like it
See above - Right to roam.
It does change things if you are operating a business that has to abide by the law of the land.
Discrimination is more than just about causing offence. You put up a sign saying "I hate Europeans" and I will be offended, end of story. If you run a business and decide not to serve Europeans then you are causing me harm. Like the gay couple refused board and lodging who then had nowhere to stay the night. It's not mortal harm, but harm nonetheless. Had we been discussing a private hospital we might be looking at more serious harm.
From your stand-point, had Rosa Parks been travelling on a privately-owned bus, she may have had her "wittle feelings" of hurt dismissed as "bitching" too.
Whilst I applaud consistency, being consistent to something unjust doesn't do you credit.
I recognize that we have all the rights my country has granted us. I just don't agree with the stupid ones. Like the 'right to be served by someone against their will'. Or the 'right to invade private property against the will of the owner.'
Well, that's another 'right' that differs depending on where you are. In the UK and many European countries there is what is known as "The Right to Roam", which means that members of the general public have the right to access private property for certain stipulated activities. I suspect the situation in the US is different.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam]Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
I agree the government should not discriminate. But individual citizens have no 'right' to expect that from other individual citizens.
Well, according to the legislation we've been discussing, they do have that right, even if you don't like it
If I don't want you on my property for ANY reason, I can make you leave. By pretty much any means necessary depending on the state.
See above - Right to roam.
That shouldn't change just because I own a business. I should not LOSE rights when I own a business and every other person in the country should not gain the right to be served by me against my will.
It does change things if you are operating a business that has to abide by the law of the land.
The reason I used the 'right not to be offended' is because that's what this is all about.
Discrimination is more than just about causing offence. You put up a sign saying "I hate Europeans" and I will be offended, end of story. If you run a business and decide not to serve Europeans then you are causing me harm. Like the gay couple refused board and lodging who then had nowhere to stay the night. It's not mortal harm, but harm nonetheless. Had we been discussing a private hospital we might be looking at more serious harm.
From your stand-point, had Rosa Parks been travelling on a privately-owned bus, she may have had her "wittle feelings" of hurt dismissed as "bitching" too.
Whilst I applaud consistency, being consistent to something unjust doesn't do you credit.