Hotel Owners considering taking their case to the Supreme Court.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:29 pm

Accountable;1387547 wrote: I didn't realize that Kent was so far out in the frontier that illiterate black people couldn't find gas.

BTW, why does it matter whether the guy can read?

Now, let's make this scenario even more realistic. A black gypsie is driving his Citroen with his dog through the wilds of Kent and needs to refuel at one of Kent's more remote petrol stations. The station attendant doesn't like black people, doesn't like dogs, and really hates imports. He sees his only customer today roll up to the pump and decides to turn off the power, just for fun. The customer can't get the pump to work so comes inside, and immediately feels the chill in the air.

"I need petrol."

"The pumps out."

"Well how can I fuel my car?"

"Sorry," says the clearly unsympathetic attendant.

"I'll have a snack for me and my dog while I figure this out."

"Cash register's out, too," he says, leaning against the brightly lit machine.

"I could report you," says the angry customer.

"Sorry, phone's out, too. They might have one at the next station, though. It's just a few miles down the road."

If a bigot in a remote area wants to make life hard for someone, the law isn't going to stop him.

Well vilification laws exist here and on the argument you are using here yes a person can be prosecuted for in this situation you are obstructing life and liberty . We have here a term of "fair go" which encapsulates the moral norms and is indeed expected of everyone who lives here. In the exteme I'm sure even in your country you can be prosecuted for depriving a human dying of thirst, water.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:39 pm

Accountable;1387535 wrote: So a Chinese restaurant is racially discriminating against people who don't like Chinese food? Pffft

This is the sticky wicket you get into when you try to legislate thought. It would be better if we simply allowed businesses to exercise their property rights, allowed the people in the community to exercise their speech rights, and forced the government to serve and service all constituents equally.

Dunno every single Chinese restaraunt I've ever been to provides alternatives. ...but using a chinese restaraunt is silly considering there is an expectation and no false advertising when they display the sign chinese restaraunt. And you go by the proviso that chinese food is very different to western anyway. That's like saying Mcdonalds deprives vegetarians.

In the case of the OP They provide a hospitality service and there is an assumption that people will be hospitable....... Excluding people with different religious marital or social beliefs is well beyond a chinese restaraunt . In fact Hotel is false advertising.....They should call it "christians only hospitality" and then there would be no confusion. But then again I'm sure Jesus had something to say about that . mary was pregnant and unmarried when she needed lodgings..... I wonder how those so called christians would cope with that . Maybe they provide hay and horse railings outback.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:44 am

fuzzywuzzy;1387553 wrote: Well vilification laws exist here and on the argument you are using here yes a person can be prosecuted for in this situation you are obstructing life and liberty.Sure they can. Here, too. But how many people would go to the bother of going back once they got petrol, finding out who the person was, reporting the infraction, then following through to ensure justice was done? Damn few, I'm guessing.

fuzzywuzzy;1387553 wrote: In the exteme I'm sure even in your country you can be prosecuted for depriving a human dying of thirst, water.:yh_eyerol

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:56 am

Accountable;1387549 wrote: Fine, but we don't have to resort to violating property rights - legislating the subjugation of one person's right to choose to another's - to do so. Information and exercising free speech rights is enough.

If you run a business with an open door for customers, you believe the owner still has a right to choose the ethnicity of the customers ?

And that the choice to do so is a way of upholding his Property rights ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:02 am

fuzzywuzzy;1387553 wrote: In the extreme I'm sure even in your country you can be prosecuted for depriving a human dying of thirst, water.

I think it is France that has laws that make any passerby liable to help someone in distress.

It is a strange thing to legislate for, most humans would give whatever vital assistance needed, if only phoning for the appropriate emergency service.

Who wouldn't ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:22 am

Bruv;1387566 wrote: If you run a business with an open door for customers, you believe the owner still has a right to choose the ethnicity of the customers ?

And that the choice to do so is a way of upholding his Property rights ?It's private property. An owner has a right to allow or disallow whomever he chooses. If the government takes that right away and claims it for itself, then who truly owns the property?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:25 am

Bruv;1387567 wrote: I think it is France that has laws that make any passerby liable to help someone in distress.

It is a strange thing to legislate for, most humans would give whatever vital assistance needed, if only phoning for the appropriate emergency service.

Who wouldn't ?
I agree! China screwed that up for her people by legislating that anyone who helps another person is responsible for the costs of any assistance (such as ambulance & medical care). Now a kid gets run over in the street and lies there helpless as people step over her and go on their way.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:40 am

Accountable;1387570 wrote: It's private property. An owner has a right to allow or disallow whomever he chooses. If the government takes that right away and claims it for itself, then who truly owns the property?

The Government acts on a general consensus,it works on a mandate from the public.

If the majority feel the Government is not acting on behalf of the electorate,as a whole, then change the Government.

It may be me, but you have a strange understanding of 'Rights' and how they work in an advanced society.

My brain is hurting.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:49 am

Bruv;1387572 wrote: The Government acts on a general consensus,it works on a mandate from the public.

If the majority feel the Government is not acting on behalf of the electorate,as a whole, then change the Government.That's tyranny of the majority. Isn't the government supposed to protect the rights of everyone?

Bruv;1387572 wrote: It may be me, but you have a strange understanding of 'Rights' and how they work in an advanced society.

My brain is hurting.I have a strange understanding of the rights of ownership? Really?? Then the question bears repeating: If the government takes the right to decide who may enter a property away and claims it for itself, then who truly owns the property?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:00 am

Accountable;1387573 wrote: That's tyranny of the majority. Isn't the government supposed to protect the rights of everyone?

I have a strange understanding of the rights of ownership? Really?? Then the question bears repeating: If the government takes the right to decide who may enter a property away and claims it for itself, then who truly owns the property?

I agree with you Acc. Kind of reminds me of HOA's.

I guess in the end we all are just renting whatever we have. We can't take our property when we're buried, we can only be buried on our property. That is of course as long as you have government permission filled out in triplicate.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:09 am

Accountable;1387571 wrote: I agree! China screwed that up for her people by legislating that anyone who helps another person is responsible for the costs of any assistance (such as ambulance & medical care). Now a kid gets run over in the street and lies there helpless as people step over her and go on their way.

OH purlease.. what crap are they sending you ?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:12 am

Bruv;1387567 wrote: I think it is France that has laws that make any passerby liable to help someone in distress.

It is a strange thing to legislate for, most humans would give whatever vital assistance needed, if only phoning for the appropriate emergency service.

Who wouldn't ?

We have a law that protects anyone that renders help ...no one can sue you ..it's "the good samaratin law". oh and Belgian as well ..could you imagine if no one rendered assistance with the bus crash of those kids??. I hate rubber neckers ..if you're there then bloody do something ...no one is asking you to save the world .

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:14 am

Bruv;1387572 wrote: The Government acts on a general consensus,it works on a mandate from the public.

If the majority feel the Government is not acting on behalf of the electorate,as a whole, then change the Government.

It may be me, but you have a strange understanding of 'Rights' and how they work in an advanced society.

My brain is hurting.

It shouldn't hurt you are doing well .

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:17 am

Accountable;1387570 wrote: It's private property. An owner has a right to allow or disallow whomever he chooses. If the government takes that right away and claims it for itself, then who truly owns the property?

Okay accountable ...how many inches under ground do you own as a private property investor? and how many metres above? turn it into feet if need be ...honestly go to the facts nd tell me what you own as a land owner and then a business owner in your country . then tell me what rights you have as a business owner by law ...then argue what is in question here in regards to the OP.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:07 pm

Accountable;1387573 wrote: That's tyranny of the majority. Isn't the government supposed to protect the rights of everyone?

What ????

Make your mind up man.

That is Democracy.

I have a strange understanding of the rights of ownership? Really?? Then the question bears repeating: If the government takes the right to decide who may enter a property away and claims it for itself, then who truly owns the property?
I never added .....of property, I mentioned 'Rights'

If a property owner opens their premises to the public, by selling or giving a service, in any sort of decent society, the only bar to entry should be due to being anti social in some way......that could be a selection of various things.

Poorly dressed, drunk, but not purely because the person has a darker skin tone.

What if Walmart set up two stores in multi ethnic areas and made them single race ?

They own the store, they make the rules ?

I think I understand the high falluting, right on, market forces leverage, right is might, etc etc. way you are talking.......but if only the real world was the way you paint it.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:08 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387589 wrote: It shouldn't hurt you are doing well .

Are you ......humouring me ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:09 pm

YZGI;1387585 wrote: I agree with you Acc. Kind of reminds me of HOA's.

HOA's ?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:53 pm

Bruv;1387604 wrote: HOA's ?

HOA's (Home owners associations) Basically tell you what kind of grass to plant, what trees to plant etc etc.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:22 pm

Bruv;1387603 wrote: Are you ......humouring me ?

always sweetheart, always.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:00 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387587 wrote: OH purlease.. what crap are they sending you ?
I thought we talked about it here, but I guess not. I searched my other regular hangout, but couldn't find it. Here's the Youtube search:

Chinese 2yr old toddler left bloody in hit and run dies RIP Yue Yue T T YouTube - YouTube

Chinese toddler run over twice after being left on street - Telegraph

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:59 pm

Bruv;1387601 wrote: What ????

Make your mind up man.

That is Democracy.The UK isn't a pure democracy. Neither is the US.

Bruv;1387601 wrote: I never added .....of property, I mentioned 'Rights'We've been talking about property rights from the beginning. Why change the subject?

Bruv;1387601 wrote: If a property owner opens their premises to the public, by selling or giving a service, in any sort of decent society, the only bar to entry should be due to being anti social in some way......that could be a selection of various things.

Poorly dressed, drunk, but not purely because the person has a darker skin tone.So then you believe in privileges of ownership, rather than actual rights. Right?

Bruv;1387601 wrote: What if Walmart set up two stores in multi ethnic areas and made them single race ?

They own the store, they make the rules ?

I think I understand the high falluting, right on, market forces leverage, right is might, etc etc. way you are talking.......but if only the real world was the way you paint it.
I believe I have shown that legislation that violates a shopowner's private property rights are unnecessary in urban areas here, which you acknowledged here and Fuzzy acknowledged here, and useless in remote rural areas here, which you agreed with here .

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:36 pm

Accountable;1387637 wrote: The UK isn't a pure democracy. Neither is the US.
It's all we have to work with.

We've been talking about property rights from the beginning. Why change the subject?

Because they overlap......the clue is in the fact they both have 'rights' in the name.

So then you believe in privileges of ownership, rather than actual rights. Right?

Don't think I have ever used the word semantics, but is that what we are on about here ?

'Rights' or 'Privileges of ownership' you forget 'obligation' to the coherency of the society which you belong to.

Let us stop the side stepping and cut to the chase.

I believe to get to where we all need to be, there needs to be a guide, a set of rules to modify the strong and powerful and to protect the weak from their excesses.

You seem to believe market forces will sort it all out.

Like the cotton and sugar trade did ?

You are talking from 'today' if there had been no legislation to get to where we are now.......do you honestly think we would have evolved to this point ?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:36 pm

Accountable;1387630 wrote: I thought we talked about it here, but I guess not. I searched my other regular hangout, but couldn't find it. Here's the Youtube search:

Chinese 2yr old toddler left bloody in hit and run dies RIP Yue Yue T T YouTube - YouTube

Chinese toddler run over twice after being left on street - Telegraph

where did you get the propaganda about the person who comes to the rescue is responsible for all costs? that is complete idiocy and a lie. Medical and ambulance is free.

Little Yue yue was murderd by a callous arsehole . And the apathy you see here is the same apathy that happens all over the world. The fear that those who help a child could be accused of being hte one who hurt her. And everyone who passes her little dying body are all male .

If you have the stomach to watch her get run down it's here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yue_Yue_Accident.ogv

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:47 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387527 wrote: You're a Texan I believe you.

halal meat is meat that is eaten by Muslims . What Oscar was essentially doing was making sure that no muslim could eat meat at her restaraunt.

Islamic dietary laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like I give a ****. !!!

Muslims not being able to eat In my resturant Is the same as my not being able to eat In a Muslim resturant.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:56 pm

Why in gods name wouldn't you be able to eat in a muslim restaraunt? And what exactly is a muslim restaraunt?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:22 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387640 wrote: where did you get the propaganda about the person who comes to the rescue is responsible for all costs? that is complete idiocy and a lie. Medical and ambulance is free.

Little Yue yue was murderd by a callous arsehole . And the apathy you see here is the same apathy that happens all over the world. The fear that those who help a child could be accused of being hte one who hurt her. And everyone who passes her little dying body are all male .

If you have the stomach to watch her get run down it's here.

File:Yue Yue Accident.ogv - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIt's also in the first link in my post.

You & I are done.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:34 pm

Bruv;1387639 wrote: You are talking from 'today' if there had been no legislation to get to where we are now.......do you honestly think we would have evolved to this point ?Machiavellian. People over here use the same kind of line trying to justify brother killing brother by the hundreds of thousands to stop slavery when every other country abandoned it without bloodshed.

To answer your question, yes. Every major social advance in modern history was made by the people themselves, with the government running up fashionably late to enact legislation after the dust had already settled. No law forced Woolworth's to allow blacks to sit at the counter. That law came later.

eta: The legislation that is necessary is that which forces the government to serve all its constituents equally.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:47 pm

Accountable;1387648 wrote: It's also in the first link in my post.

You & I are done.

Why because you came out with a load of crap?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:36 am

Accountable;1387649 wrote:

To answer your question, yes. Every major social advance in modern history was made by the people themselves, with the government running up fashionably late to enact legislation after the dust had already settled. No law forced Woolworth's to allow blacks to sit at the counter. That law came later.

OK, now I see where you are coming from.

I can only agree, with the proviso that legislation has hastened or accelerated change, and remains there to ensure that standards don't slip back.

Without laws there would still be slave owners, in fact there still is slave owners, the form has changed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:09 am

Bruv;1387669 wrote: OK, now I see where you are coming from.

I can only agree, with the proviso that legislation has hastened or accelerated change, and remains there to ensure that standards don't slip back.Right. Exactly. And in hastening, accelerating, and ensuring, that legislation also violates some of the very rights it is lauded for protecting.

Bruv;1387669 wrote: Without laws there would still be slave owners, in fact there still is slave owners, the form has changed.Then the laws haven't been very effective. Perhaps instead of punishing slavery we should focus on protecting everyone's freedom.

Not really on topic but you might be interested:

Douglas A. Blackmon | Pulitzer Prize | Author

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:41 am

It's still going on......................sanctioned by the US Government.

And......there is a racial element still.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:08 pm

Betty Boop;1387377 wrote: BBC News - Christian hotel owners consider gay couple appeal at Supreme Court

Is it time to give up? I can't see that they're going to win this case at all.

Not having much success, BBC News - Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal.