Couple left angered after being told wedding venue not for same-sex marriages

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,804
No. It's not their mess to begin with.

The government can say it is okay for gay people to enter into a civil union (not marriage). That's it.
If a government can dictate a business must meet various minimum norms and standards in order to protect the public from harm, then its quite easy for the same to happen when it comes to discriminating against the public.

If a business is discriminating then it is their mess to begin with.

What say you about the right of admission, and how is that not applicable in this case?
Does right of admission apply to someone being black or gay?
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
17,933
If a government can dictate a business must meet various minimum norms and standards in order to protect the public from harm, then its quite easy for the same to happen when it comes to discriminating against the public.

If a business is discriminating then it is their mess to begin with.
There's no harm here. The harm would be in forcing people into a contract against their will. Slavery.

You are advocating for slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
If a government can dictate a business must meet various minimum norms and standards in order to protect the public from harm, then its quite easy for the same to happen when it comes to discriminating against the public.

If a business is discriminating then it is their mess to begin with.



Does right of admission apply to someone being black or gay?
Right of admission applies irrespectively.
 

Moosedrool

Executive Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
5,599
So if we get a business to sign a legal document that they cant discriminate based on race or sexual orientation etc then you are fine with it?
If you propose a business can sign such a legal document yeah sure. If the business is required to sign such a legal document by law. No. That's inflicting on the right to work.

Prostitution isnt legal, if it was then it would be governed by a frame work, when it is it wouldn't be considered slavery by any sound mind person.
It's a fictional situation. Pointing out its legality is fighting a straw man and since there are countries where adult services are legal I'm wondering why you fought fought the straw man in the first place instead of answering the question. The question boils down to your moral position on the subject of being forced by your employer to do something against your sexuality.
 

Moosedrool

Executive Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
5,599
'Right of Admission Reserved' can't be used to exclude people on the basis of their race, gender or disability.
Except it can...

1.) You can't ride this rollercoaster because you are disabled.
2.) You are not allowed in "x" restroom because you're "y" gender.
3.) You can't get this job because you're "z" race.

Anyway back to the wedding venue.

This idea that people should be legally accountable for being stupid bad people is a neo progressive mind set.

“Wrong think” is the word I like to use when describing it because it emphasises on how authoritarian these ideas can get. And the sjw crazies are perfectly fine with criminalising it.

If that doesn’t raise concern in our society I don’t know what will.

As citizens, giving the chapel a bad review and warning people of real bigotry is enough.

Real bigotry.
 

Asgard85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
418
Right of admission applies irrespectively.
As far as my (admittedly lay) understanding of the concept of R.O.A.R goes, it would be that it does not apply. The concept is actually quite misunderstood and it seems that it is not really a "right" in the sense that it is used in argument. Property rights are not unqualified in that they do not trump all other rights. The law places restrictions on the way in which a property owner can make use of his or her property. This is a common concept among most countries with similar constitutions. I think it is known that one's own property does not suddenly create an autonomous state where the laws of the Republic do not apply. One therefore does not have complete authority over the use of property, even private property, when providing a service to the public. In cases such as this, the "right of admission" concept cannot supersede the right to equality.
In this case where the legal person denying the service is a business which advertises it's services to the public it should be quite clear and easy to understand, but it goes even further. For example if you were to rent out a garden cottage on your private property. In this case, even though you are not a business and the property is yours you still cannot, legally, discriminate against potential tenants based upon the defined characteristics contained in our constitution such as race, gender, etc if you have advertised the property to the public (e.g on Facebook, in the newspaper etc). It would be different if you only asked friends and family if they wanted to rent the place.
So, it seems to me that a R.O.A.R sign above a door is not automatically enforceable in favour of the property owner, particularly if the reason stated for the denial of service is one that is specifically detailed in section 9(4) of the constitution.
 
Last edited:

EADC

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
5,380
Unless it says "Women Only Gym" or something like that right?
If gym bros where not creepy as **** I don't think it would be needed, more out of necessity than discrimination.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
As far as my (admittedly lay) understanding goes of the concept of R.O.A.R goes, it would be that it does not apply. The concept is actually quite misunderstood and it seems that it is not really a "right" in the sense that it is used in argument. Property rights are not unqualified in that they do not trump all other rights. The law places restrictions on the way in which a property owner can make use of his or her property. This is a common concept among most countries with similar constitutions. I think it is known that one's own property does not suddenly create an autonomous state where the laws of the Republic do not apply. One therefore does not have complete authority over the use of property, even private property, when providing a service to the public. In cases such as this, the "right of admission" concept cannot supersede the right to equality.
In this case where the legal person denying the service is a business which advertises it's services to the public it should be quite clear and easy to understand, but it goes even further. For example if you were to rent out a garden cottage on your private property. In this case, even though you are not a business and the property is yours you still cannot, legally, discriminate against potential tenants based upon the defined characteristics contained in our constitution such as race, gender, etc if you have advertised the property to the public (e.g on Facebook, in the newspaper etc). It would be different if you only asked friends and family if they wanted to rent the place.
So, it seems to me that a R.O.A.R sign above a door is not automatically enforceable in favour of the property owner, particularly if the reason stated for the denial of service is one that is specifically detailed in section 9(4) of the constitution.
The owner/s of the venue have the constitutional right to do business with whom they want.
The les'ies have the exact same constitutional right.
What's the problem.
The owner/s of the venue are not denying a service to the les'ies because they are les'ies, they are denying a service they don't provide - the denied service being same sex marriages.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
39,033

Some business owners also wrongly believe that (an essentially unenforceable) “right of admission reserved” sign at the entrance to their restaurant, Bed and Breakfast or holiday resort allow them to refuse entrance to a potential customer because the customer is black or gay or a Rastafarian. Section 9(4) now limits the potential legal ambit of the right of admission rule.

Section 9(4) reinforces this principle in the field of discrimination law by stating that “[n]o person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds”, including race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, belief or culture.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
79,620
If gym bros where not creepy as **** I don't think it would be needed, more out of necessity than discrimination.
Denying men is discrimination if one sticks to your narative, the reason doesn't matter. Every exception that comes up you're either ignoring or sidestepping.
 

ShaunSA

Derailment Squad
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
30,389
If gym bros where not creepy as **** I don't think it would be needed, more out of necessity than discrimination.
Discrimination is discrimination. No matter which way you try to swing it

And coming from the guy who thinks women's salons should be forced to wax men's nads that argument is even worse
 

EADC

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
5,380
Denying men is discrimination if one sticks to your narative, the reason doesn't matter. Every exception that comes up you're either ignoring or sidestepping.
Discrimination is discrimination. No matter which way you try to swing it
Come on guys we are getting into ridiculous territory now, with absurd hypothetical.
 

ShaunSA

Derailment Squad
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
30,389
Come on guys we are getting into ridiculous territory now, with absurd hypothetical.
We are just taking your own arguments and using it against you to show you exactly how ridiculous you are

Either admit that or admit your hypocrisy. There is no other way
 

Moosedrool

Executive Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
5,599
Come on guys we are getting into ridiculous territory now, with absurd hypothetical.
Not really. I made the more absurd situation and still haven't received an answer for a very simple question.

Claiming that the right of admission law needs to be this strict yet denying "gym bros" is really only catering for your own personal bias.

It's a hypocritical joke.
 
Top