Andy
If a company has a monopoly, I can see the case for making it illegal for them to discriminate. But otherwise, it's none of the state's business. If a guest house owner wants to discriminate against certain groups, then it's not like there's nowhere else for people to stay.
Are you in favour of forcing Catholic adoption agencies to offer their services to homosexual couples (even if that could mean that they cease providing adoption services)?
Jeff
Free speech is in retreat throughout the West
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Yes I am in favour of not having discrimination, I think the country is a much better place for not allowing it.Ferru123 wrote:Andy
If a company has a monopoly, I can see the case for making it illegal for them to discriminate. But otherwise, it's none of the state's business. If a guest house owner wants to discriminate against certain groups, then it's not like there's nowhere else for people to stay.
Are you in favour of forcing Catholic adoption agencies to offer their services to homosexual couples (even if that could mean that they cease providing adoption services)?
Jeff
But good to know that you are happy to allow discrimination on the basis of a persons skin colour, sex, looks, sexual tendency etc. I hope you don't visit London very often, you would be disgraced at what is allowed to go on there. They even let Black people have a seat on the bus these days you know!
So you'd be happy for some kids to remain in care in the name of political correctness?andyfuller wrote: Yes I am in favour of not having discrimination, I think the country is a much better place for not allowing it.
I resent that. You are bang out of order.andyfuller wrote:But good to know that you are happy to allow discrimination on the basis of a persons skin colour, sex, looks, sexual tendency etc. I hope you don't visit London very often, you would be disgraced at what is allowed to go on there. They even let Black people have a seat on the bus these days you know!
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
You said you see it as non of the states business as to whether a company is allowed to discriminate but you can see a case if it has a monopoly.
Well there are 2 bus companies that serve my village. So they don't have a monopoly so going from what you said you don't see why they should not be allowed to discriminate. That is what YOU said not me.
Discrimination takes many forms, skin colour being one. So as you don't see a need to stop companies from discriminating, you infer that the bus company as it is not a monopoly should be free to discriminate, against Black people could be one form. Or were you saying it is okay to discriminate against someone who is Gay but not someone who is Black?
Discrimination is discrimination whatever way you package it up!
That's my point
Well there are 2 bus companies that serve my village. So they don't have a monopoly so going from what you said you don't see why they should not be allowed to discriminate. That is what YOU said not me.
Discrimination takes many forms, skin colour being one. So as you don't see a need to stop companies from discriminating, you infer that the bus company as it is not a monopoly should be free to discriminate, against Black people could be one form. Or were you saying it is okay to discriminate against someone who is Gay but not someone who is Black?
Discrimination is discrimination whatever way you package it up!
That's my point
Are you happy for there to be separate male and female changing rooms in your local gym?
That's a form of discrimination. Either you are against all discrimination in principle or you're not. Rather than being in favour of making every instance of discrimination illegal, why not take a more pragmatic approach, and ask 'What would the consequences be of allowing discrimination in this instance?'.
BTW, I still maintain you were out of order in your previous post, as you implied that I have a problem with black people using buses (which is as ridiculous a notion as it is offensive).
Jeff
That's a form of discrimination. Either you are against all discrimination in principle or you're not. Rather than being in favour of making every instance of discrimination illegal, why not take a more pragmatic approach, and ask 'What would the consequences be of allowing discrimination in this instance?'.
BTW, I still maintain you were out of order in your previous post, as you implied that I have a problem with black people using buses (which is as ridiculous a notion as it is offensive).
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I only implied what you yourself said, I just extrapolated your view out using your views!
Having separate changing facilities is not discrimination. Providing changing for only male or only female would be discrimination. They are providing the same facility for both.
So what 'sort' of people should a business without a monopoly be allowed to discriminate against, please tell us all?
I will start your list off for you:
Who Jeff says businesses should be allowed to discriminate against:
1. Gay people
2.
Having separate changing facilities is not discrimination. Providing changing for only male or only female would be discrimination. They are providing the same facility for both.
So what 'sort' of people should a business without a monopoly be allowed to discriminate against, please tell us all?
I will start your list off for you:
Who Jeff says businesses should be allowed to discriminate against:
1. Gay people
2.
Andy - It is discrimination.
I really resent your tone. You are being deliberately inflammatory. Why can't you just accept that other people have a right to disagree with you?
Anyway, things are turning ugly, so my participation in this conversation is over...
Jeff
I really resent your tone. You are being deliberately inflammatory. Why can't you just accept that other people have a right to disagree with you?
Anyway, things are turning ugly, so my participation in this conversation is over...
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Jeff, my point is that you are making statements without thinking about what they really could mean in practice.
My point about buses and black people being a perfect example. You would not ban black people from sitting on a bus but others may and i am sure in small pockets do have a different view to you and I. And what you advocate with your view, that businesses should be free to discriminate, could lead to some businesses coming up with such a policy.
Surely that is wrong and in turn your view that businesses should be free to discriminate is also wrong.
I think I have made my point.
My point about buses and black people being a perfect example. You would not ban black people from sitting on a bus but others may and i am sure in small pockets do have a different view to you and I. And what you advocate with your view, that businesses should be free to discriminate, could lead to some businesses coming up with such a policy.
Surely that is wrong and in turn your view that businesses should be free to discriminate is also wrong.
I think I have made my point.
Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 3vgGqlZGGE
I think we're getting a lot of concepts mixed up here leading to conclusion that we wouldn't otherwise wish to make.
If you think that a Christian business should be allowed to discrimate against gay people then this will only lead to slippery slope. In that case how about a muslim business owner discrimating against gay people, jewish people, ham eating people, christians, hindus, atheist. Hold on it doesn't stop there, how about shia muslim discrimating against suni muslim, sufi muslim, ahmediad, etc.
Hotel owners discrimanating against gay people is not a freedom of expression. It is not a freedom of speech. Its just hatred of one kind to another kind and personally the less I see the better.
If you think that a Christian business should be allowed to discrimate against gay people then this will only lead to slippery slope. In that case how about a muslim business owner discrimating against gay people, jewish people, ham eating people, christians, hindus, atheist. Hold on it doesn't stop there, how about shia muslim discrimating against suni muslim, sufi muslim, ahmediad, etc.
Hotel owners discrimanating against gay people is not a freedom of expression. It is not a freedom of speech. Its just hatred of one kind to another kind and personally the less I see the better.
Now that is a good question Jeff.Ferru123 wrote:Do you think insurance companies should be allowed to charge men more for car insurance than women?
Jeff
Insurance companies base their premiums on risk. It is absolute fact that statistically women have less accidents driving than men.
Under 25 year old males are by far the highest risk group and hence currently pay the highest premiums (reflecting that higher risk).
So logically then yes it is correct that insurance companies charge men more then women for similar/equivalent policies, as this is just a reflection of the underlying risk being insured, and that is the purpose of an insurance company, to insure against risk.
as this is a trading forum and I assume read by people with a better than average grasp of risk,i would find it strange/hard to believe that anyone sould disagree with insurance companies charging men, in particular younger men more to insure same/similar cars than women.
It would be illogical to base insurance premiums on the premise that men are being discriminated against, in particular younger men because women have significantly fewer accidents then men.Insurance should and can only justly be based on underlying risk, not political correct clap trap etc.
Interesting. The actual fact is that women have, statistically, 37 or 38% more accidents per mile driven. Women are a better profit provider for insurance companies because they tend to drive somewhat less, and also tend to drive at a significantly lower speed than men. That what was that insurance report a few years ago showed. It was the press that said that women have fewer accidents. It is the fact that they drive less fast than men, and so there is a lot less damage when they have a crash.
Nic
Nic
I agree. Unfortunately, a group of EU bureaucrats have decided that men's higher premiums are discriminatory and therefore illegal. As a result, women are about to see a rise in their insurance premiums: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/20226477.to75ne wrote: It would be illogical to base insurance premiums on the premise that men are being discriminated against, in particular younger men because women have significantly fewer accidents then men.Insurance should and can only justly be based on underlying risk, not political correct clap trap etc.
This is an instance where discrimination was completely justified morally, but rendered illegal due to political correctness...
Jeff