Homosexual Couple Win B&B Bed Ban Case

[Kirovnia]

Untliss they became English, there were germanic a long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Saxon_England

The British Isles were sacked numerous times champ. The act of being conquered does not suddenly make the conquerors British. Old English is basically German...

Edit: Do you consider the Normans British as well?

I really don't care all that much about the history of Britain considering im an Irish-American Catholic, which means, I still have a bit of a beef with england at the moment.

[Kirovnia]

But considering that a majority of the population isnt racist. support for an exclusivly white business would dwindle into nothingness.

I'd have preferred a reply from Bottle, but I see the thread is busy. I'll have to answer you.

Firstly: I don't watch youtube videos unless I'm really curious about what some poster has said to me. I absolutely DO NOT consider them required reading to reply to a post. Your youtube "source" is ignored.

"The majority of the population isn't racist" you say. That may be true. But ten percent may be racist agaisnt a racial minority of 5%, and prefer businesses where they will not have to consort with customers of that race.

That alone is enough to defeat any claim that a non-racist business will out-compete a racist business. If active racist outnumber the minority they are racist against, the free market absolutely will not redress discrimination against that minority. In fact, it will make it worse.

I see you are new to this "if only the free market ruled, I could buy whatever I wanted for almost nothing and run my own business too" fairy shit. I suggest you think it through, and ask yourself if you and your family, and your friends, and the people you admire would actually be winners under such conditions. Or whether you'd be losers. Think about that, before you pick a side.

Okay, if you use Magic numbers like that then sure, but then that 5% can start a business for themselfs or *move, because a government intervention would do more harm than good. I.E. setting a precedent and begining the downhill mudslide of taking away my civil liberties.

Edit: mispelled move

[Nobel Hobos]

Having goods for sale (goods you have no use for yourself, but to sell them) you are beneficiary of laws and public sentiment. You throw yourself upon the mercy of the public who (but for law and public morals) would simply take those goods from you. By trading, and particularly trading for profit, you ask something of everyone else, that they obey rules of fair exchange. That is a big ask, when you have the advantage of capital, established wealth, to trade against their currency or labour.

Nothing good will come to them, those established in wealth or class, of this call for perfectly free markets. They will be robbed and even plundered (ruined to gain only a fraction of their wealth) and all their efforts to work for gain (individual, and by faith collective) subverted by bandits and gangsters, free marketeers themselves. The dream of owning all you worked for will fail miserably without the rule of law which grew up alongside capitalism, as a twin. The absolute free-marketeers are fools to try to kill off this symbiont, national government, without which a free market would never even have been conceivable, and under the wing of which capitalists have thrived.

We should hear out claims that a free-er market will be more efficient. We should consider cases of markets being made more or less free, and judge the results as recorded statistically. Surely, there is such a thing as too much government regulation. There is also such a thing as too little. But to the claim that some unachievable ideal of a pure free market would produce a better result than any of the compromises which have been tested in practice, we should say: no, that's not even worth trying. It's false idealism. A yearning for the impossible. Fairy shit.

[Kirovnia]

Having goods for sale (goods you have no use for yourself, but to sell them) you are beneficiary of laws and public sentiment. You throw yourself upon the mercy of the public who (but for law and public morals) would simply take those goods from you. By trading, and particularly trading for profit, you ask something of everyone else, that they obey rules of fair exchange. That is a big ask, when you have the advantage of capital, established wealth, to trade against their currency or labour.

Nothing good will come to them, those established in wealth or class, of this call for perfectly free markets. They will be robbed and even plundered (ruined to gain only a fraction of their wealth) and all their efforts to work for gain (individual, and by faith collective) subverted by bandits and gangsters, free marketeers themselves. The dream of owning all you worked for will fail miserably without the rule of law which grew up alongside capitalism, as a twin. The absolute free-marketeers are fools to try to kill off this symbiont, national government, without which a free market would never even have been conceivable, and under the wing of which capitalists have thrived.

We should hear out claims that a free-er market will be more efficient. We should consider cases of markets being made more or less free, and judge the results as recorded statistically. Surely, there is such a thing as too much government regulation. There is also such a thing as too little. But to the claim that some unachievable ideal of a pure free market would produce a better result than any of the compromises which have been tested in practice, we should say: no, that's not even worth trying. It's false idealism. A yearning for the impossible. Fairy shit.

Okay I kind of agree, Im not an Anarcho-Capitalist, but I think that the market can fix alot of things on its own,

Like letting insurance companies compete across state lines, would probably reduce health insurance costs. thats just one example.

Of course there needs to be a government to keep things like Insider trading, or other such things in line, but the Government should do as little as possible when it comes to a business and the services it provides, and to whom in provides them too.

[North Suran]

Okay, if you use Magic numbers like that then sure, but then that 5% can start a business for themselfs or *move,

No. That's just stupid. Why punish the victims instead of the victimisers?

because a government intervention would do more harm than good. I.E. setting a precedent and begining the downhill mudslide of taking away my civil liberties.

How exactly would the government intervening to protect the civil rights of the consumer lead to a "downhill mudslide" of "taking away my civil liberties"? Your 'slippery slope' fallacy makes no sense.

I really don't care all that much about the history of Britain considering im an Irish-American Catholic, which means, I still have a bit of a beef with england at the moment.

Which is about as logical as a resident of Baghdad holding a grudge against the Mongolians.

[Risottia]

I hate all of you euro-libs

Thank thee.

who have absoloutly no concept of the free market, or how businesses have rights.

We do. Actually we invented that concept. Last time I checked, the Florentine bankers, Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc were Europeans. It's just that we do not guess we have to stop thinking about socioeconomics because someone in Florence 700 years ago invented capitalism.

Look, THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX THIS PROBLEM ON ITS OWN

It failed to do so in every place that had apartheid or segregation laws. Hence thou failest.

[Risottia]

However, the business in question advertised their services as being available to those only in a MARRIAGE, not a civil union

And legally, there should not be a distinction.

There is no practical distinction, unless I'm much mistaken.
Even children born out of wedlock aren't considered bastards anymore. Yes, the Middle Ages are a bit over.

[Forsakia]

Untliss they became English, there were germanic a long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Saxon_England

The British Isles were sacked numerous times champ. The act of being conquered does not suddenly make the conquerors British. Old English is basically German...

Edit: Do you consider the Normans British as well?

They stayed there long enough. I mean it got named Angle-land after all. The Celts were central European but now the Irish, Welsh, Scots, Cornish etc are the Celtic nations.

The origins of the Angles and the Saxons notwithstanding, the term is used to refer to Britain or England. Language can be odd like that.

[St George of England]

Okay I kind of agree, Im not an Anarcho-Capitalist, but I think that the market can fix alot of things on its own,

Like letting insurance companies compete across state lines, would probably reduce health insurance costs. thats just one example.

Of course there needs to be a government to keep things like Insider trading, or other such things in line, but the Government should do as little as possible when it comes to a business and the services it provides, and to whom in provides them too.

How is any of that relevant to this thread?

[Herskerstad]

Eh, mixed opinion on this. On one hand, I want a private business to be able to set their policy. Not allowing unmarried couples to sleep together would fall under a policy part which I don't see as discriminatory. 'Would be interesting to see what would happen if the two people in question actually were married'

On the other hand, I don't want for example restaurants, private or not to be able to turn away people due to sexuality, race or whatever.

But yeah, for the most part. Policy should be alterable to the owners desires rather than state requirements. So while I don't like the situation on either the owners or the legal term, I still think that if they had any accessibility towards the policy part then it should be a no-go on the lawsuit.

[The Black Plains]

I hate all of you euro-libs

Thank thee.

who have absoloutly no concept of the free market, or how businesses have rights.

We do. Actually we invented that concept. Last time I checked, the Florentine bankers, Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc were Europeans. It's just that we do not guess we have to stop thinking about socioeconomics because someone in Florence 700 years ago invented capitalism.

Look, THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX THIS PROBLEM ON ITS OWN

It failed to do so in every place that had apartheid or segregation laws. Hence thou failest.

Segregation LAWS! Government!

[Central Slavia]

And legally, there should not be a distinction.

There is no practical distinction, unless I'm much mistaken.
Even children born out of wedlock aren't considered bastards anymore. Yes, the Middle Ages are a bit over.

And so is decency it would seem.
Remember, to the "love should be free, like drinking water from a glass" quote Lenin replied "But who would drink from a soiled glass?"

[St George of England]

There is no practical distinction, unless I'm much mistaken.
Even children born out of wedlock aren't considered bastards anymore. Yes, the Middle Ages are a bit over.

And so is decency it would seem.
Remember, to the "love should be free, like drinking water from a glass" quote Lenin replied "But who would drink from a soiled glass?"

And is bigotry decency?

[Dakini]

Eh, mixed opinion on this. On one hand, I want a private business to be able to set their policy. Not allowing unmarried couples to sleep together would fall under a policy part which I don't see as discriminatory. 'Would be interesting to see what would happen if the two people in question actually were married'

They pretty much were married. They have a civil union, which is legally equivalent to marriage in the UK.

[Farnhamia]

Eh, mixed opinion on this. On one hand, I want a private business to be able to set their policy. Not allowing unmarried couples to sleep together would fall under a policy part which I don't see as discriminatory. 'Would be interesting to see what would happen if the two people in question actually were married'

They pretty much were married. They have a civil union, which is legally equivalent to marriage in the UK.

This is true. It is also true that the B&B's web site says very explcitily "one man and one woman," but in running a business that offers public accomodations, I don't think they get to make that distinction. If the law recognizes same-sex marriages or civil unions as the equivalent, such business needs must comply. Suppose an opposite-sex couple wants to stay there? Do they require a marriage license? I think not, somehow.

[Central Slavia]

They pretty much were married. They have a civil union, which is legally equivalent to marriage in the UK.

This is true. It is also true that the B&B's web site says very explcitily "one man and one woman," but in running a business that offers public accomodations, I don't think they get to make that distinction. If the law recognizes same-sex marriages or civil unions as the equivalent, such business needs must comply. Suppose an opposite-sex couple wants to stay there? Do they require a marriage license? I think not, somehow.

They should - otherwise a lot of their clientelle will be men with prostitutes and other one night stands which will drive away people actually looking to sleep somewhere cheaply

[Dakini]

They pretty much were married. They have a civil union, which is legally equivalent to marriage in the UK.

This is true. It is also true that the B&B's web site says very explcitily "one man and one woman," but in running a business that offers public accomodations, I don't think they get to make that distinction. If the law recognizes same-sex marriages or civil unions as the equivalent, such business needs must comply. Suppose an opposite-sex couple wants to stay there? Do they require a marriage license? I think not, somehow.

Well... that's why they won the case. I would think their winning means that the place isn't allowed to discriminate against people with civil unions any more.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Segregation LAWS! Government!

Popular laws. Laws that were not contested by a majority.

[Farnhamia]

Segregation LAWS! Government!

Popular laws. Laws that were not contested by a majority.

No, no, Chief Justice Roberts came to me in a dream and told me that the best way to stop discrimination is to just stop discriminating. *nod*

[The Black Forrest]

Popular laws. Laws that were not contested by a majority.

No, no, Chief Justice Roberts came to me in a dream and told me that the best way to stop discrimination is to just stop discriminating. *nod*

He hypnotized you! Remember?

"Look into my eyes.....Stare decisis, Stare decisis, stare decisis......"

[Farnhamia]

No, no, Chief Justice Roberts came to me in a dream and told me that the best way to stop discrimination is to just stop discriminating. *nod*

He hypnotized you! Remember?

"Look into my eyes.....Stare decisis, Stare decisis, stare decisis......"

He did look kind of like the guy on the left in this ...

[Desperate Measures]

One time I was at the Free Market and all my dreams came true.

[Tekania]

One time I was at the Free Market and all my dreams came true.

I went to the Free Market once too, it was dreadful the toll one had to pay to use the toilet there.

[The Black Forrest]

One time I was at the Free Market and all my dreams came true.

I went to the Free Market once too, it was dreadful the toll one had to pay to use the toilet there.

That and the entrance fee.

[Neo Art]

I went to the Free Market once too, it was dreadful the toll one had to pay to use the toilet there.

That and the entrance fee.

and the exit fee. And the breathing fee!