Homosexual Couple Win B&B Bed Ban Case

[Geniasis]

That and the entrance fee.

and the exit fee. And the breathing fee!

And the fee fee I had to pay so they would let me pay my fees.

Oh, and the protection money. Way overpriced.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

An excellent point. But when these rich and monied people call for "freer markets", what they really mean is "markets wherethey gain all the benefits of government existance without having to pay any of the prices of it".

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.

You never cease to amaze me, TBR. How you managed to jump from "same-sex couple denied service on account of prejudice" to "same-sex couple are the victimisers" reveals a great deal of your thought processes, and I remind myself after reading this that the study of law does not require a mind that s remotely open.

[Dazchan]

That and the entrance fee.

and the exit fee. And the breathing fee!

If you don't like it, you can hold your breath or go elsewhere to breathe.

[Nobel Hobos]

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.

Their website says that now.
Looking at the page source, the "special note" shows signs of having been added later, and notice the typo of a missing space before "being the union of one man to one woman for life ...".

"For life" isn't the legal definition of marriage in Britain is it?

[Tmutarakhan]

If you don't want to feed sinful people, don't open a restaurant. If you don't want to transport sinful people, don't drive a taxicab. If you don't want to house sinful people, don't become a landlord.

You can close your door against the world, and open it only to people you like. Or, you can open your doors to the public, in which case you don't get to pick and choose which public you will let in, except in so far as the law decides to allow.

[Kobeanare]

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?

Ok, this is going to date me, but you ever see that Far Side cartoon where it shows what dogs hear when we talk to them? And what the dog, Ginger, hears is, "Blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah blah GINGER blah blah!"

I think some people in this thread are operating at that level. So what they saw of your post is:

Blah blah blah lawyer, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah, minority rights blah blah blah more blah, blah blah blah minority status. Blah blah blah accept blah it, blah.

Funny, that seems to be exactly how you see any post that doesn't agree with you.

[Kobeanare]

STRAWMAN
I already mentioned it - mexicans and blacks can't be of other race, while gays could have just gotten two rooms as any unmarried couple.
Besides from the fact that they had money to frivolously blow on lawsuits they appear to be rich enough o afford it easily

Yes, I know that you believe sexual orientation is a choice, but see...I don't care that you believe that. Your wrongness on that subject is, to me, the same as the wrongness of believing that the "free market" will magically solve problems which history has proven, conclusively, that it will not.

How has history conclusively proven anything about the free market? History has never had a free market.

[Dazchan]

I already mentioned it - mexicans and blacks can't be of other race, while gays could have just gotten two rooms as any unmarried couple.

And paid twice as much as a heterosexual couple who would have been allowed the one room. Yep, that's fair.

Besides from the fact that they had money to frivolously blow on lawsuits they appear to be rich enough o afford it easily

So could Bill Gates. Do he and Melinda travel separately?

[Kobeanare]

"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.

This ignores the existence of people not of the minority race in question who refuse to support the racism of the excluding establishment, opting instead to spend their money elsewhere.

[Geniasis]

"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.

This ignores the existence of people not of the minority race in question who refuse to support the racism of the excluding establishment, opting instead to spend their money elsewhere.

Because that worked so well against Jim Crow.

[Nobel Hobos]

"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.

This ignores the existence of people not of the minority race in question who refuse to support the racism of the excluding establishment, opting instead to spend their money elsewhere.

Of course it's a simplification. Before extending it with further details, please assure me that you accept the simplification so far as it goes.

[Tekcirb]

Hotel owners should have got in prison for at least 3 years

[Kobeanare]

This ignores the existence of people not of the minority race in question who refuse to support the racism of the excluding establishment, opting instead to spend their money elsewhere.

Of course it's a simplification. Before extending it with further details, please assure me that you accept the simplification so far as it goes.

It ignores a pretty major point. I'd argue it ignores the entire basis of the argument. That makes it a pretty poor simplification.