Christians fined for denying a reservation at B&B to gay couple

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Christians fined for denying a reservation at B&B to gay couple

GRAND FORKS, B.C. — The owners of a now-closed bed and breakfast in southern B.C. must pay more than $4,000 for refusing a room to a homosexual couple.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ordered Susan and Les Molnar to compensate Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie for injury to dignity and self-respect after their reservation was cancelled at the Riverbend Bed and Breakfast in Grand Forks, about 500 kilometres east of Vancouver.
The Molnars admitted to accepting the reservation in June 2009, but cancelled it minutes later, after confirming Thomas and Eadie are gay.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/18/gay-couple-wins-b-c-human-rights-case-after-being-barred-by-christian-bb-owners/

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4487
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
 I don't believe this kind

 I don't believe this kind of bigotry should be punished. Let them display themselves as the bigots they are- do you really want to give people like this your money? A bigot that hides out of fear of being sued is still a bigot. I would rather know exactly who they are so that I can avoid doing business with them. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If such a practice weren't

If such a practice weren't potentially profitable I'd agree. But in this case, the majority would support the B&B owners, and the B&B would have free advertising for being bigoted to a minority which would see support from the christian community in the form of business and potentially even donations.

So I must support this decision in its entirety.

I look at it as akin to say denying a black person the ability to enter an establishment in the US just after they were all granted equal rights.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 324
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:If such a

Vastet wrote:
If such a practice weren't potentially profitable I'd agree. But in this case, the majority would support the B&B owners, and the B&B would have free advertising for being bigoted to a minority which would see support from the christian community in the form of business and potentially even donations. So I must support this decision in its entirety. I look at it as akin to say denying a black person the ability to enter an establishment in the US just after they were all granted equal rights.

With BC being as close to Alberta as it is...not that we're Texas here, but Canada doesn't get much more right wing than this. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4487
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:If such a

Vastet wrote:
If such a practice weren't potentially profitable I'd agree. But in this case, the majority would support the B&B owners, and the B&B would have free advertising for being bigoted to a minority which would see support from the christian community in the form of business and potentially even donations. So I must support this decision in its entirety. I look at it as akin to say denying a black person the ability to enter an establishment in the US just after they were all granted equal rights.

 

I agree it is no different than someone denying service because of race or gender or anything else. I also believe that those bigots should be allowed to out themselves. What would happen if a storefront today put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed"? They would go out of business. The only way to defeat bigotry is to make it socially unacceptable. Simply banning bigots from expressing their bigotry does nothing. For example, we know that to some extent bigotry continues in hiring practices, but since it is virtually impossible to detect it perpetuates. I would rather know exactly which businesses are owned by these bigots so I am not unwittingly giving them my money. 

Yes, in some areas such a business would certainly get support from christians but again, let them. Just like we allow Jean to spout his garbage and we allow TWD to argue that killing babies is moral, let the fucking christnuts show their bigotry in public because it will only lead to more people leaving their religion. Trying to force people not to discriminate only eases some of the symptoms, it doesn't cure the problem. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3311
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I agree

Beyond Saving wrote:

I agree it is no different than someone denying service because of race or gender or anything else. I also believe that those bigots should be allowed to out themselves. What would happen if a storefront today put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed"? They would go out of business. The only way to defeat bigotry is to make it socially unacceptable. Simply banning bigots from expressing their bigotry does nothing. For example, we know that to some extent bigotry continues in hiring practices, but since it is virtually impossible to detect it perpetuates. I would rather know exactly which businesses are owned by these bigots so I am not unwittingly giving them my money. 

Yes, in some areas such a business would certainly get support from christians but again, let them. Just like we allow Jean to spout his garbage and we allow TWD to argue that killing babies is moral, let the fucking christnuts show their bigotry in public because it will only lead to more people leaving their religion. Trying to force people not to discriminate only eases some of the symptoms, it doesn't cure the problem. 

I gotta go with Beyond on this one. The insanity, the narrow-mindedness, and a whole host of other things were factors in place when I began to question my own religion. The more that bigoted assholes like this are exposed and allowed to operate, the more people will see them from what they are and the world will begin to change on it's own.

Even now, with the "god " meme being as strong as it is, the churches are in decline and fanatics are grasping at straws.

The civil rights movement accomplished it's primary goals when it removed racism as a government institution. It did not solve racism, but it took a giant step in the right direction, because we no longer had government officials sanctioning bigotry.

I think it is inevitable that the same thing will happen with the gay community. While homophobics still exist out there and are very much a reality via institutions like the church, more and more mainstream people are probably like me and simply don't have a problem with someone being gay.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If such a

Vastet wrote:
If such a practice weren't potentially profitable I'd agree. But in this case, the majority would support the B&B owners, and the B&B would have free advertising for being bigoted to a minority which would see support from the christian community in the form of business and potentially even donations. So I must support this decision in its entirety. I look at it as akin to say denying a black person the ability to enter an establishment in the US just after they were all granted equal rights.

In reading the article I agree with the fine, but not the wording of the law. It smacks of thought police. They had every right to not like gays, but just like the laws made in the 60s for blacks you cant deny them access to your business. But the language in those laws is not about speech, but equal treatment.

"injury to dignity", holy fuck, that is scary language, that is what can get a non Shiite murdered in Iran for peeping any sort of criticism.  The crime was not allowing equal access, that is all this should be about. I think it is a bad idea to have government try to force you to like others you may not like. Common law takes care of situations like this EOE laws, I am fine with. But the language in this BC law quoted really scares the shit out of me. What happens when a Christian makes a complaint about an atheist? It scares me because while it seems to have short term helped this couple, it could be every easily be used by religion to set up blasphemy laws.

Bigotry and hate are going to exist, and law language like that could very easily get websites like this shut down if some nutty Christian thought it "injured their dignity".

It is not the intent of the law I have a problem with, it is the wording of it.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I really warn humans who

I really warn humans who value pluralism and their own personal right to bitch about others, it is a dangerous game to get into laws that can be used to placate the emotions of others. To all reading this, this is not a race or religious issue. This cuts to a long term society we as individuals would want to live in.

I am for equal protection under the law. I am not for political correctness. The problem with that good intent, is that the people who create these laws are only thinking about themselves and not the potential of a power shift in government long term that may not agree with what that person wants to say.

 

Again, the crime here was not allowing equal access. Just like I don't have to like my neighbor, but I cannot destroy his property or physically harm him, or call for his physical harm. That protects my neighbor's rights and allows me to bitch at the same time.

But once you get into government playing protecting "dignity" THAT to me amounts to a blasphemy law. While the intent is to protect the weaker among us, the problem becomes, like I said, what if a religious or political party gains enough power in any given government and decides in mass to employ that same "don't insult me" mentality.

If I were to word such a law that lead to the rightful fine here it would not be written like that. It would be written something like "No business can deny access to anyone in the public who is attempting to use it in a legal manor".

This wording scares me because I want to keep my ability to say "Jesus is fiction" OR "Muslim men who treat their women like cattle are assholes".  You cannot tell me that some Christians or Muslims would not use such a law to sue us out of existence because we "injured their dignity".

You cannot protect the lesser in a society by this good intent. You can only use common law.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4487
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:If I were to

Brian37 wrote:

If I were to word such a law that lead to the rightful fine here it would not be written like that. It would be written something like "No business can deny access to anyone in the public who is attempting to use it in a legal manor".

Even that wording can have many unintended consequences. For example, what about a restaurant that has a dress code? It is perfectly legal to walk around in ripped up jeans and a t-shirt but some upscale restaurants will refuse to serve you- should that be illegal? If someone has a young kid that is being disruptive in a movie theater they might be asked to leave. I've seen rude people thrown out of bars, they didn't break any laws the management just didn't like the way they were acting, should that be illegal? 

The problem with writing any law is that the devil is in the details and even as long and detailed as some laws try to be it is impossible to cover every possible situation and every distinction that can easily be solved by common sense. Since laws are applied by the letter and not common sense there will always be unintended consequences regardless of how the law is written. Hence the practical problem with trying to use the legal system to right every little injustice, inevitably the law will be used to punish someone it was never intended to and/or will completely fail to punish the person it was intended to punish. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If I were to word such a law that lead to the rightful fine here it would not be written like that. It would be written something like "No business can deny access to anyone in the public who is attempting to use it in a legal manor".

Even that wording can have many unintended consequences. For example, what about a restaurant that has a dress code? It is perfectly legal to walk around in ripped up jeans and a t-shirt but some upscale restaurants will refuse to serve you- should that be illegal? If someone has a young kid that is being disruptive in a movie theater they might be asked to leave. I've seen rude people thrown out of bars, they didn't break any laws the management just didn't like the way they were acting, should that be illegal? 

The problem with writing any law is that the devil is in the details and even as long and detailed as some laws try to be it is impossible to cover every possible situation and every distinction that can easily be solved by common sense. Since laws are applied by the letter and not common sense there will always be unintended consequences regardless of how the law is written. Hence the practical problem with trying to use the legal system to right every little injustice, inevitably the law will be used to punish someone it was never intended to and/or will completely fail to punish the person it was intended to punish. 

But that is a base and in general that is much more flexible in wording as to cover the most. The BC law as quoted in the article makes it far to easy long term to set up taboos.

As an aside as far as "dress codes". I long time ago when I lived in Lynchburg VA, I got kicked out of a bar, FOLLOWING the dress code, and I know why they kicked me out, but it is one of those things you cant prove. I was wearing an atheist button on my suit. And even prior to that day, I had been there before with people knowing I was an atheist. Always tipped well and was polite to everyone. But I couldn't prove it to save my life.

But I agree that no law is really perfect in reality, even with the constitution itself, both you and I are protected equally under it(in theory) but both of us, and society in general are going to argue over how to interpret it.

I am simply saying that there are better ways to protect individuals and minorities, than to use language that protects their emotions. Again, the crime was denial of service to these gays, but that would and should apply to a black couple or atheist couple as well, regardless of sexuality.

 

I agree with discrimination suits, but even then, it should not be based on a person's race, religion, political ilk, nationality or sexuality. It should be merely based on denial of access, not WHY. They were right to sue and win. I simply disagree with the wording and I think long term for all of society it is bad for anyone of any position.

"injury to dignity" That scares the shit out of me in written language as far as law. I understand the good intent of it, but that is a cluster fuck to the entire society long term.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What

Beyond Saving wrote:
What would happen if a storefront today put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed"? They would go out of business.

I think you've been in cities too long. There are a number of towns in Canada where such a business would thrive if not for laws against it. I can only imagine it would be even more successful in the US, where racism actually became institutionalised in some respects.

I don't have a problem with their rights of free speech, which are not being curtailed, but those rights don't extend into making commercial or government decisions on who can and can't be served based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or anything else.

Since I don't see a cure for the problem happening any time soon, I support treating the symptoms.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
What would happen if a storefront today put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed"? They would go out of business.
I think you've been in cities too long. There are a number of towns in Canada where such a business would thrive if not for laws against it. I can only imagine it would be even more successful in the US, where racism actually became institutionalised in some respects. I don't have a problem with their rights of free speech, which are not being curtailed, but those rights don't extend into making commercial or government decisions on who can and can't be served based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or anything else. Since I don't see a cure for the problem happening any time soon, I support treating the symptoms.

 

I think back on 1986 when I first started working as an engineering student for a large manufacturer.  They had to hire minorities and women as engineers for the first time ever.  I remember some white guy saying, "but what do we talk to him about?", when speaking of the first black hired in their department.  Of course, it was no big issue - they talked about sports like all the other guys.  And gee, he was just a regular guy after all, despite his skin color.

These laws that treat the symptom, can influence the underlying problem.  To combat prejudice and bigotry, you need to not only work in the same room with the person, but cooperatively work on problems together.  By having to work with someone who is different than you superficially, you come to realize it is only superficial.

The B&B situation does not require this type of cooperation between B&B owner and client.  And I think the law really does not further reducing prejudice.  It does reduce discrimination, the acting upon your prejudices.  Not a perfect solution, but its the only we have for these cases.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I agree. I've always found

I agree. I've always found that racism is generally based either on ignorance or upbringing. There are rare cases of racism I've encountered which were based on an experience or two, but it seems uncommon.
But when you work or socialise with a bunch of minorities, it is much harder to sustain the racism. Diversification is the best treatment in my experience.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
What would happen if a storefront today put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed"? They would go out of business.
I think you've been in cities too long. There are a number of towns in Canada where such a business would thrive if not for laws against it.

that also goes for rural kentucky, where i grew up.  lots of businesses thrive because they are overtly christian.  i remember a gas station in my home town had a sign that always said, "warning: jesus is coming.  go wildcats."  seriously, wtf?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
What would happen if a storefront today put up a sign saying "No blacks allowed"? They would go out of business.
I think you've been in cities too long. There are a number of towns in Canada where such a business would thrive if not for laws against it. I can only imagine it would be even more successful in the US, where racism actually became institutionalised in some respects. I don't have a problem with their rights of free speech, which are not being curtailed, but those rights don't extend into making commercial or government decisions on who can and can't be served based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or anything else. Since I don't see a cure for the problem happening any time soon, I support treating the symptoms.

Discrimination law language as you described here "based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender"

(I would add sexual orientation)

Again, all for the intent, and when the language is neutral and covers everyone in the words I quoted you here, I am fine with.

"Injury to dignity", however,  smacks of thought police and blasphemy laws. No one should be entitled to be free from being offended. The crime was denial of equal access. Otherwise we set our lawmakers, judges and potential juries into becoming thought police. And since power can and does shift over time when we have laws that say "don't offend me' is a bad idea for the entirety of society no matter what side of a position one may be on.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The wording is only

The wording is only problematic with crazy judges. You aren't going to be successfully sued in Canada just for calling someone a name.
Besides, you have to prove your dignity was injured. Good luck with that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.