You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 12:53:37 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Types of Banning/Discrimination  (Read 2320 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kuroneko

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2015, 11:15:36 PM »
You obviously share the opinion that people should be allowed to deny whoever they want from games.  Let's try a few other questions.

Let's say that a heterosexual male has been raped by a homosexual male.  This is something that happens, but it's far from indicative of all homosexual men.  However, this hypothetical person develops an aversion to homosexual males as a result.  He owns a business but doesn't feel comfortable having them there, because he spends 80 hours a week at the store and won't always have other people around.

Should this hypothetical store owner be allowed to deny homosexual men from employment simply because of his bad experience?  An inordinate number of people would say no, but you may disagree.  I request your answer.

As I stated previously, my personal stance is that people should be free to write with whomever they want.

AndyZ, you haven't answered my question (which was originally Cycle's, which he has asked once again in this thread, and you have again not answered), so I don't really feel I owe you an answer. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think this is another example of his point that despite the attempts of others trying to explain their opinion, which is clearly different from yours, you basically repeat your opinion and tell us your view is the right one. You want me to answer a question, but you cannot return the favor.

In any case, Cycle has already answered the question you've posed exactly as I would answer it. I think it's an irrelvant example, because the relationship between a store owner and a customer is very different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

Quote from: AndyZ
So, from your perspective, the difference is commerce?  For example, where prostitution is legal and recognized, a prostitute would not be allowed to deny service based on age, sex, race, and so on?  However, it becomes acceptable so long as no money is exchanging hands, such that you would consider it perfectly acceptable to throw a party and only allow a certain type of person to participate?

So now you're comparing writing sexual RP to prostitution?  That seems like a really far reach. I think I agree with Cycle. You have a very different view of RP, and I think you've found your answer.

By the way, at the Bunny Ranch the sex workers are allowed to turn down any client for any reason.

 

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2015, 11:43:50 PM »
People already throw parties and only allow certain types of people to participate.  If I throw a party, I invite a select group of people that I have chosen for a particular reason:  Maybe I'm marathoning cheesy movies, and I invite 'people who like cheesy movies'.  Maybe I'm doing a 'stitch-n-bitch' and I invite 'people who stitch (and/or bitch)'.  Maybe I'm doing a trip to the Renaissance Faire and I invite 'people who like Renaissance Faires'.  Maybe I'm throwing a party for my daughter and I invite 'friends of my daughter'. 

I do not invite the whole neighborhood, and if someone shows up who I am not comfortable with having at the party, I do not let them in.

I would consider that kind of stuff to be far closer to "character" than "player."  In many ways, this fits physical and mental characteristics.  (Since sexual orientation is genetic, I'm comfortable lumping it into physical characteristics, though I suppose it's possible that liking stitching, ren-faires and cheesy movies are all completely genetic as well.)

If somebody doesn't want to play Monopoly with a black person, it may be because they don't play Monopoly and it may be because they're black.  We consider one of these reasons very acceptable and one of these reasons very unacceptable.

By the same token, though, I ponder the idea how acceptable it would be to block someone from coming on a Ren-Faire trip because they also like stitching, if someone thought that stitching was weird, or similar with mental characteristics.  Certainly it seems silly, but I don't think that that'd be as big of a deal.

Last I was aware, people of varying hair colors were not systematically and catastrophically discriminated against (barring maybe like, the holocaust?) But that being said, such superficial discrimination is a no-no unless there's a specific reason. (Like, I don't know, you own a blonde-kink strip club? Or you're auditioning for the role of a blonde in a film?)

In cases of businesses that hire minorities, they do so to help compensate for the disadvantages those people face for being a minority.

Okay, so for you, it's purely whether people have been discriminated against in the past.

As I stated previously, my personal stance is that people should be free to write with whomever they want.

AndyZ, you haven't answered my question (which was originally Cycle's, which he has asked once again in this thread, and you have again not answered), so I don't really feel I owe you an answer. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think this is another example of his point that despite the attempts of others trying to explain their opinion, which is clearly different from yours, you basically repeat your opinion and tell us your view is the right one. You want me to answer a question, but you cannot return the favor.

In any case, Cycle has already answered the question you've posed exactly as I would answer it. I think it's an irrelvant example, because the relationship between a store owner and a customer is very different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

So now you're comparing writing sexual RP to prostitution?  That seems like a really far reach. I think I agree with Cycle. You have a very different view of RP, and I think you've found your answer.

By the way, at the Bunny Ranch the sex workers are allowed to turn down any client for any reason.

From my perspective, if we say that it's acceptable for a Bunny Ranch worker to turn down any client for any reason, we should have a good reason for not having that for other jobs as well.

Now, you may or may not agree with that.  There is obviously a line somewhere that you see which I do not see.  Because of that line, you (presumably) consider it acceptable for a prostitute to turn a black man down because he's black, for a writer to turn a black man down because he's black, but not for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black.

There are many things in this world which I don't do but would not stop others from doing.  It's not really my job to pass judgment down on people, but I like to understand why some things are considered acceptable and some are not.

As I told Cycle, I disagree with the idea not to RP with your boss if your boss wants to RP, but that's on him.  I don't think he's an evil person for it.

Believe me that if I thought you were a truly evil person and beyond discourse, I would not attempt this conversation in the first place.

Now, what I'm starting to think is that the line just appears in different places for different people, which is odd.

Let's try this again.

Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

I can absolutely accept the possibility that other people feel differently than I do.

Part of the issue is that you presume that my use of the words banning and discrimination are meant as a pejorative.

I've had this issue with people with talks like socialism.  Sometimes people think that being called socialist is some kind of pejorative.  However, it's just someone with a particular set of political beliefs.

I have an RL friend who has expressed discomfort when I use the word in D&D for a particular hazard that rogues usually spot and disarm, because it's also a pejorative for transfemales (or possibly all transpeople, I don't know).

Although I tried to use the word "blocking," it only made the situation more vague, because people started to think that I was demanding that they play in the kinds of games that people didn't like, as opposed to allowing players.

Please do not make the assumption that I mean words in their wost pejorative terms.  If I say that someone is gay, I am not passing any sort of judgment beyond acknowledging that particular person's sexual orientation.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 12:26:02 AM by AndyZ »

Offline Cycle

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2015, 12:14:24 AM »
AndyZ, your view of the "discrimination" cannot work in reality.

Your position is that no one should ever be denied an opportunity to do anything based on gender or race. 

If this were true, then homosexuals must date heterosexuals.  All women must sleep with all black men.  And all Asians.  And all Hispanics.  And all other ethnicities.  And all women.  And all men. 

This obviously isn't how people operate. 

People have boundaries.

Just because you don't have boundaries or cannot seem to understand them, that doesn't mean other people--including myself--are being silly because we have them.

And don't you ever call me silly again.


Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2015, 12:26:46 AM »
Apologies for upsetting you with the word "silly."  I edited my post.

Offline Ebb

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2015, 12:31:03 AM »
Now, if you found out that your boss was already here on Elliquiy and s/he wanted to start up a game with you, would you have a problem with it?

AndyZ, I think that somewhere around this question is the heart of the difficulty that you're having, and I hope you don't mind if I probe on it a little.

If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed playing D&D, then I might be inclined to set up a game and play with him.
If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed co-writing stories about people having sex, there's no way in hell that I would set up a game and play with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that about 99% of the people on this board would probably agree or mostly agree with those statements were they in the same situation. It seems that you would not.

You need to understand that that's a minority viewpoint. It doesn't mean you're wrong -- it's a matter of personal preference; you can't be "wrong". It just means you're in the minority. If it's puzzling to you why you're in the minority on that then, fair enough, keep questioning and trying to figure it out. But if you do that, please listen from a perspective of humility. There's a reason why society has evolved certain lines and boundaries that most people abide by.

And if you've read all of the above and it still doesn't seem to resonate, then go back and replace the word "boss" with "father" (or "mother") and read it again, for a more extreme example.

The short version: Things having to do with sex are different from buying bread, or playing Monopoly. They just are.

Offline roulette

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2015, 12:54:23 AM »
Quote
Okay, so for you, it's purely whether people have been discriminated against in the past.

No, it's not "purely" about that. What I'm saying is that history factors into it. History provides reasons, motivations, scars. Just because I say something has an effect doesn't mean its the ONLY effect I (or others) recognize.

If you poke someone, you could get a variety of reactions, but annoyance is probably the worst. If you poke someone on a bruise, however? That's going to hurt. Different people have different bruises, so while it will hurt one person if you poke them on the arm, its entirely okay to poke someone else in that exact spot.

And these bruises make people different. If my arm is bruised, but yours isn't, then its going to hurt me in a way it doesn't hurt you to be poked in that spot. That's why its different. That's why maybe asian people can do something that isn't okay for white people to do because the level of harm is entirely different.

A huge component of empathy is being able to understand the ways that people are different. The assumption of treating everyone exactly the same is an assumption that everyone IS the same, which simply is not the case.

Offline Kuroneko

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2015, 01:01:02 AM »
I'm not presuming that you mean the words to be pejorative. As I and others have pointed out, the words you've chosen to use carry a negative context whether or not you intend for them to be interpreted that way or not.

Quote from: AndyZ
From my perspective, if we say that it's acceptable for a Bunny Ranch worker to turn down any client for any reason, we should have a good reason for not having that for other jobs as well.

You've missed my point in including this bit of information. I included that comment because you stated ...

Quote from: AndyZ
For example, where prostitution is legal and recognized, a prostitute would not be allowed to deny service based on age, sex, race, and so on?

...as if it were fact. It's not. It's therefore not a valid point in supporting your argument. That's all.

Quote from: AndyZ
Now, you may or may not agree with that.  There is obviously a line somewhere that you see which I do not see.  Because of that line, you (presumably) consider it acceptable for a prostitute to turn a black man down because he's black, for a writer to turn a black man down because he's black, but not for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black.

I think it's fair to say that you're making a lot of assumptions about me here. Your presumptions are incorrect. I don't have a 'line.' Do I believe that a sexworker should be able to chose who they engage in sex with? Of course I do. It's their body and they have absolute autonomy over it, whether they work legally or not. They are the only ones who get to decide who they share it with, whether that involves money or not. Do I think it's okay for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black, heavily tattooed - as I am - (or gay, or trans, or femme, or asexual, or purple, or an alien, or whatever)? No, and the law agrees. Do I believe a professional writer can turn a writing partner down for any of those reasons/characteristics? No. Someone that writes professionally (and I do) needs to follow the same rules as the bartender.

Do I think that a recreational writer can turn a potential RP partner down because they are (insert whatever thing you want to in here)? Yes. I think there are a lot of characteristics that go into finding a compatible writing partner or a group of them for a recreational game, and personal preferences are part of that. While I wouldn't support someone saying 'I just don't like X people so I don't want to write with them,' I do recognize and respect that there are legitimate reasons why someone who writes for a hobby might want to restrict their writing to a narrow group of people. It doesn't mean I condone it or that I practice it myself, but I understand it. And since I can't force people to behave the way I would behave in what is a recreational activity, I have to accept it. As I've said before. I can only hope that their point of view will change and expand in the future.

I really don't have anything else to add to the conversation, as it seems to just be going in circles now.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2015, 05:36:58 PM »
AndyZ, I think that somewhere around this question is the heart of the difficulty that you're having, and I hope you don't mind if I probe on it a little.

If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed playing D&D, then I might be inclined to set up a game and play with him.
If I were to find out that my boss enjoyed co-writing stories about people having sex, there's no way in hell that I would set up a game and play with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that about 99% of the people on this board would probably agree or mostly agree with those statements were they in the same situation. It seems that you would not.

You need to understand that that's a minority viewpoint. It doesn't mean you're wrong -- it's a matter of personal preference; you can't be "wrong". It just means you're in the minority. If it's puzzling to you why you're in the minority on that then, fair enough, keep questioning and trying to figure it out. But if you do that, please listen from a perspective of humility. There's a reason why society has evolved certain lines and boundaries that most people abide by.

And if you've read all of the above and it still doesn't seem to resonate, then go back and replace the word "boss" with "father" (or "mother") and read it again, for a more extreme example.

The short version: Things having to do with sex are different from buying bread, or playing Monopoly. They just are.

This is probably ultimately the reason.  Thank you.

No, it's not "purely" about that. What I'm saying is that history factors into it. History provides reasons, motivations, scars. Just because I say something has an effect doesn't mean its the ONLY effect I (or others) recognize.

If you poke someone, you could get a variety of reactions, but annoyance is probably the worst. If you poke someone on a bruise, however? That's going to hurt. Different people have different bruises, so while it will hurt one person if you poke them on the arm, its entirely okay to poke someone else in that exact spot.

And these bruises make people different. If my arm is bruised, but yours isn't, then its going to hurt me in a way it doesn't hurt you to be poked in that spot. That's why its different. That's why maybe asian people can do something that isn't okay for white people to do because the level of harm is entirely different.

A huge component of empathy is being able to understand the ways that people are different. The assumption of treating everyone exactly the same is an assumption that everyone IS the same, which simply is not the case.

That's what I meant by context...I think.

I need to think on this one.

I'm not presuming that you mean the words to be pejorative. As I and others have pointed out, the words you've chosen to use carry a negative context whether or not you intend for them to be interpreted that way or not.

You've missed my point in including this bit of information. I included that comment because you stated ...

...as if it were fact. It's not. It's therefore not a valid point in supporting your argument. That's all.

I think it's fair to say that you're making a lot of assumptions about me here. Your presumptions are incorrect. I don't have a 'line.' Do I believe that a sexworker should be able to chose who they engage in sex with? Of course I do. It's their body and they have absolute autonomy over it, whether they work legally or not. They are the only ones who get to decide who they share it with, whether that involves money or not. Do I think it's okay for a bartender to turn a black man away because he's black, heavily tattooed - as I am - (or gay, or trans, or femme, or asexual, or purple, or an alien, or whatever)? No, and the law agrees. Do I believe a professional writer can turn a writing partner down for any of those reasons/characteristics? No. Someone that writes professionally (and I do) needs to follow the same rules as the bartender.

Do I think that a recreational writer can turn a potential RP partner down because they are (insert whatever thing you want to in here)? Yes. I think there are a lot of characteristics that go into finding a compatible writing partner or a group of them for a recreational game, and personal preferences are part of that. While I wouldn't support someone saying 'I just don't like X people so I don't want to write with them,' I do recognize and respect that there are legitimate reasons why someone who writes for a hobby might want to restrict their writing to a narrow group of people. It doesn't mean I condone it or that I practice it myself, but I understand it. And since I can't force people to behave the way I would behave in what is a recreational activity, I have to accept it. As I've said before. I can only hope that their point of view will change and expand in the future.

I really don't have anything else to add to the conversation, as it seems to just be going in circles now.

Okay, when I say "line," what I mean is a particular demarcation wherein something changes from acceptable to unacceptable.

There are particular types of people who won't eat fish and eggs.  There are particular types of people who will eat fish and eggs, but won't eat cattle.  There are particular types of people who will eat cattle, but won't eat dogs.  There are particular types of people who will eat dogs, but won't eat humans.  There are particular types of people who will eat humans.

Each of these types of people considers it perfectly valid and rational.

Now, Iniquitous Opheliac (unless I'm mistaken) suggested a line at commerce.  I admit that I may well be mistaken.  I was wrong with Roulette and she was kind enough to correct me.  I was not stating it as fact, but asking whether this would fit in accordance with her perspective.

Although it's not uncommon for me to get a simple affirmation, sometimes people give a denial giving yet another reason.  Then we go through the process with that.

I can easily see how it seems like just going in circles, especially as I have multiple conversations simultaneously.  However, I see it more as a crucible where we burn away the irrelevancies and discover the fundamental issues.

For you, the demarcation appears to be professional vs. recreational.  Those are the words you have italicized.  If that was the demarcation, however, a professional sex worker would be expected to show the same level of acceptance as a bartender.

Ebb's post suggests that we have another demarcation where sex is involved, and his suggestion holds up in the various examples that people have given so far.

I realize that I have a very unusual method of seeing things, and apologize if I've upset you.

Offline Remiel

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2015, 07:21:27 PM »
Just to throw this in there:  if you've ever gone browsing the classified ads under "Roommate Wanted", you'll see that a lot of them have "Female Preferred" somewhere in the ad.    Obviously female roommates are more desirable than males.

Is this prejudice?  Absolutely.  And yet, no one (at least that I know of) has raised a big stink about this.  Why?  Because women, as a rule, tend to be cleaner and take better care of their domiciles than men do.  Clearly, this does not apply across the board--there are some men who would make ideal roommates, just as there are women who are complete slobs--but the stereotype is true enough that I can understand why someone would put "female preferred" in their ad.   And I certainly don't hold it against them (unless, of course, they were skeezy and just wanted a potential sex partner living under the same roof).

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

Almost no one does this.  Why?  Well, first, because it's stupid.  You've just turned away a customer.  Second, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for doing it, and if it got out that you were discriminating a certain group, I'm sure they'd organize a boycott.  We see it happen all the time. 

But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.


Offline Remiel

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2015, 07:27:07 PM »
To relate my answer to your original comment, Andy, I'd say that I'd have no problem whatsoever with the Christian bakery refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.  It's their business, they can do what they want.    It's like the Chick-fil-A controversy: in the past, Chick-fil-A was shown to have contributed millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations.     As a result, they've garnered lots of bad PR and boycotts, but it was within their rights to do so.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2015, 01:07:33 AM »
Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal....

Almost no one does this....

....But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.

      It isn't enough simply to say "private" as opposed to publicly operated.  (And putting up a sign doesn't always mean shit is actually legal.)  If a business is declared as serving the general public, then it has to follow anti-discrimination law until there is an exception.  Otherwise what you get is communities in regions that tend to have more discrimination, setting up a de facto denial of however many service or sales choices to whatever populations they wish.  At best, if you assume that minorities will be able to accumulate wealth and set up their own accessible businesses somehow in great enough numbers, it's both inefficient and more importantly sanctioning a form of "separate but equal" (which is rarely equal at all in practice).

      This is why Hobby Lobby was such a shakeup: Now it's much less clear where the exceptions are.  The precise breakdown of what is going to be allowed could be fought all over again.  Coming from the other direction, Elaine Photography v.Willock was a situation where the courts decided that doing public business meant that  service could not be denied on religious grounds.  There is some interesting discussion of why the Supreme Court may not have touched it here.
 
« Last Edit: January 21, 2015, 01:10:08 AM by kylie »

Offline consortium11

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2015, 04:37:26 AM »
Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

That's not the case.

To quote the Civil Rights Act 1964: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The term "public accommodations" (the definition used in the Civil Rights Act 1964 and most subsequent legislation) means anything that accommodates the public (i.e. serves them). Subsequent cases and legislation has made clear that sex and gender are also protected classes. A business can of course refuse services to a woman or a person of colour... but they can't do so because they are a woman or a PoC.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2015, 05:17:46 AM »
Okay, when I say "line," what I mean is a particular demarcation wherein something changes from acceptable to unacceptable.

The maths behind that line looks more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Offline Zakharra

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2015, 10:23:45 AM »
Just to throw this in there:  if you've ever gone browsing the classified ads under "Roommate Wanted", you'll see that a lot of them have "Female Preferred" somewhere in the ad.    Obviously female roommates are more desirable than males.

Is this prejudice?  Absolutely.  And yet, no one (at least that I know of) has raised a big stink about this.  Why?  Because women, as a rule, tend to be cleaner and take better care of their domiciles than men do.  Clearly, this does not apply across the board--there are some men who would make ideal roommates, just as there are women who are complete slobs--but the stereotype is true enough that I can understand why someone would put "female preferred" in their ad.   And I certainly don't hold it against them (unless, of course, they were skeezy and just wanted a potential sex partner living under the same roof).

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

Almost no one does this.  Why?  Well, first, because it's stupid.  You've just turned away a customer.  Second, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for doing it, and if it got out that you were discriminating a certain group, I'm sure they'd organize a boycott.  We see it happen all the time. 

But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.

 Actually, that is done all the time. Stores usually turning away potential customers. Stores with the 'No shirts, no shoes, no service' signs. I have seen people turned away because they didn;t have shirts or shoes on (bikini tops are ok, but not showing all bare skin).

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2015, 12:21:03 AM »
Just to throw this in there:  if you've ever gone browsing the classified ads under "Roommate Wanted", you'll see that a lot of them have "Female Preferred" somewhere in the ad.    Obviously female roommates are more desirable than males.

Is this prejudice?  Absolutely.  And yet, no one (at least that I know of) has raised a big stink about this.  Why?  Because women, as a rule, tend to be cleaner and take better care of their domiciles than men do.  Clearly, this does not apply across the board--there are some men who would make ideal roommates, just as there are women who are complete slobs--but the stereotype is true enough that I can understand why someone would put "female preferred" in their ad.   And I certainly don't hold it against them (unless, of course, they were skeezy and just wanted a potential sex partner living under the same roof).

Also, I'm sure you've seen the signs in shops--We Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.   As far as I know, if you are a private business in America (public services, obviously, fall under a different purview) you can do this.  You can say, "I'm sorry, I don't think I want your business, please leave," and you don't have to justify your reason to anyone.   You can refuse to sell your goods or services to women, men, black people, whatever, and it's completely legal.

Almost no one does this.  Why?  Well, first, because it's stupid.  You've just turned away a customer.  Second, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for doing it, and if it got out that you were discriminating a certain group, I'm sure they'd organize a boycott.  We see it happen all the time. 

But the fact remains that no one has to conduct themselves free from any type of discrimination.  Unless they're a public or government institution, and that's a different story.

I remember the thing where Arizona was going to add sexual orientation to its protected classes the way race and color are.  George Takei and various people showed up, and the idea was blocked, so it's currently acceptable to turn people away in Arizona if you're gay.

If this was the method that America handled the matter, I would consider it consistent.

      It isn't enough simply to say "private" as opposed to publicly operated.  (And putting up a sign doesn't always mean shit is actually legal.)  If a business is declared as serving the general public, then it has to follow anti-discrimination law until there is an exception.  Otherwise what you get is communities in regions that tend to have more discrimination, setting up a de facto denial of however many service or sales choices to whatever populations they wish.  At best, if you assume that minorities will be able to accumulate wealth and set up their own accessible businesses somehow in great enough numbers, it's both inefficient and more importantly sanctioning a form of "separate but equal" (which is rarely equal at all in practice).

      This is why Hobby Lobby was such a shakeup: Now it's much less clear where the exceptions are.  The precise breakdown of what is going to be allowed could be fought all over again.  Coming from the other direction, Elaine Photography v.Willock was a situation where the courts decided that doing public business meant that  service could not be denied on religious grounds.  There is some interesting discussion of why the Supreme Court may not have touched it here.
 
That's not the case.

To quote the Civil Rights Act 1964: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The term "public accommodations" (the definition used in the Civil Rights Act 1964 and most subsequent legislation) means anything that accommodates the public (i.e. serves them). Subsequent cases and legislation has made clear that sex and gender are also protected classes. A business can of course refuse services to a woman or a person of colour... but they can't do so because they are a woman or a PoC.

However, Remiel, it's not how things in America work.

The maths behind that line looks more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Remind me to ask you about this in detail when I have more oxygen.

Actually, that is done all the time. Stores usually turning away potential customers. Stores with the 'No shirts, no shoes, no service' signs. I have seen people turned away because they didn;t have shirts or shoes on (bikini tops are ok, but not showing all bare skin).

I can easily see a difference between "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and "No Antarcticans."  Anyone can choose to put on a shirt or shoes, but no one can choose their race, sex, etc.

By the same token, I have absolutely no problem with discriminating against character types.  If I set up a game where everyone has to play elves, it doesn't stop anyone from playing if they do want to play.  They just have to play an elf.  However, if I make a game where all players have to be elves, it doesn't matter how badly the humans or gnomes or dwarves want to play, because they're banned.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2015, 12:40:40 AM »
I remember the thing where Arizona was going to add sexual orientation to its protected classes the way race and color are.  George Takei and various people showed up, and the idea was blocked, so it's currently acceptable to turn people away in Arizona if you're gay.

I think you mean 'but the idea was blocked.'  I can guarantee that George would have been supporting the addition of orientation as a protected class.  Using 'and' implies that the idea was blocked as a result of George Takei and the other people showing up.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2015, 12:58:12 AM »
George Takei was vehemently against SB 1062, and helped get it blocked.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2014/02/22/oh-great-arizona-now-george-takei-is-pissed-off

As such, things are as they are now, where sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arizona-employment-discrimination-31984.html

I believe "and" is the correct word.

Offline consortium11

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2015, 04:23:05 AM »
I remember the thing where Arizona was going to add sexual orientation to its protected classes the way race and color are.  George Takei and various people showed up, and the idea was blocked, so it's currently acceptable to turn people away in Arizona if you're gay.

George Takei was vehemently against SB 1062, and helped get it blocked.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2014/02/22/oh-great-arizona-now-george-takei-is-pissed-off

As such, things are as they are now, where sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arizona-employment-discrimination-31984.html

I believe "and" is the correct word.

SB 1062 was basically the opposite of adding sexual orientation as a protected class.

SB1062 was an attempt to extend the "substantially burdened the exercise of religion" clause in response on a number of court cases from other states where Christians had refused service to LGBT people (especially couples) and, when taken to court, claimed religious freedom only to fail. Many noted at the time that it was only ever a PR stunt because, as you mention, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Arizona to begin with so there would be no cause of action to sue for. That said, there still could have been consequences, especially if sexual orientation had later become a protected class; SB 1062 would have allowed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act defence to be raised even when the government wasn't party to a case. In essence SB1062 made it even easier to discriminate against LGBT people.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2015, 04:48:08 AM »
SB 1062 was basically the opposite of adding sexual orientation as a protected class.

SB1062 was an attempt to extend the "substantially burdened the exercise of religion" clause in response on a number of court cases from other states where Christians had refused service to LGBT people (especially couples) and, when taken to court, claimed religious freedom only to fail. Many noted at the time that it was only ever a PR stunt because, as you mention, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Arizona to begin with so there would be no cause of action to sue for. That said, there still could have been consequences, especially if sexual orientation had later become a protected class; SB 1062 would have allowed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act defence to be raised even when the government wasn't party to a case. In essence SB1062 made it even easier to discriminate against LGBT people.

Okay, so it would have ended up being a completely superfluous law?  That makes sense.  I figured that SB1062 must set up protected class status in there, but obviously I was wrong.

If you wouldn't mind, I bolded a bit and would ask you to go into more detail.  The government has to be party to a case?

Offline consortium11

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2015, 04:59:09 AM »
If you wouldn't mind, I bolded a bit and would ask you to go into more detail.  The government has to be party to a case?

In Elane Photography v. Willock, a New Mexico case relating to a photographer refusing to shoot a gay wedding because they said it went against their owners religious beliefs, the NM Supreme Court held that the RFRA only applies in suits where the government is a party (i.e. someone is either suing the government or being sued by the government). In cases between two private individuals it cannot be cited. Joe LaRue, one of the attorneys who helped draft SB1062 and a guy who took on much of the media duties for supporting it expressly cited this as one of the reasons SB 1062 was needed.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2015, 05:02:22 AM »
As a double-check, sexual orientation is a protected class in New Mexico: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-mexico-employment-discrimination-31959.html

So, if there's a company that won't accept me based on one of these in my state, I can just sue it myself without having to wait for the government to step in?

Offline consortium11

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2015, 05:04:05 AM »
As a double-check, sexual orientation is a protected class in New Mexico: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-mexico-employment-discrimination-31959.html

So, if there's a company that won't accept me based on one of these in my state, I can just sue it myself without having to wait for the government to step in?

States may have slightly different laws but, on the whole, yes.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2015, 05:10:40 AM »
So, ultimately, the entire process of protected classes and all is pointless because it just comes down to whether you can convince a jury for whatever the reason might be?  Not sure I like that...

Offline consortium11

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2015, 05:32:20 AM »
So, ultimately, the entire process of protected classes and all is pointless because it just comes down to whether you can convince a jury for whatever the reason might be?  Not sure I like that...

But if something isn't a protected class and you try to sue for discrimination based on it the chances are your claim gets thrown out of court either immediately or at the end of pleading your case. Even if through sheer fate it gets to the court, survives the hearing, the judge doesn't instruct the jury to dismiss and the jury agrees (and that's assuming it's a jury trial to being with... the Elaine Photography case wasn't) then as soon as it's appealed to a higher court then it will get thrown out.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Types of Banning/Discrimination
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2015, 06:16:18 AM »
Which makes it all the more unnecessary.

I guess I just assumed that they'd be putting it as a protected class with conditions instead of setting up the problem in a state where it isn't a protected class anyway.

Well, I feel stupid, but I appreciate being made to feel stupid because it means that I learned something.

Thank you.