Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You seem to be missing the point, can't blame you, you're only a socialist. Do YOU believe that this bill would prevent people from accessing a class of services without any extra new providers being created? It's a simple yes/no question.
    Yes, I do. The exact number of people who would be prevented? I don't know. The potential number of people that could be prevented? In the millions, just from the legalisation of sexual orientation discrimination alone.

    I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting people based on the party they have chosen.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    No, but how is that even remotely the point?

    0 cases of people being discriminated on the grounds of sex/race/sexual orientation etc. is better than any. Allowing something like this to happen merely because one trusts that "most people won't act this way" is laughable.
    So what you're saying is that we should ignore some people for the benefit of 0 people?

    Unless you can justifiably argue that people will be outright refused access to services due to this bill you're basically saying "We should ignore your beliefs for the benefit of nobody"
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    I'm sorry sir but what ****ing planet are you living on?

    Allowing those of a sexual orientation that isn't straight to not be discriminated against is not placing their rights above other [straight] individuals, it's placing it on the same level as straight people simply do not experience discrimination on the same level.

    You are hysterical.
    No it does not, forcing businesses to serve minorities is saying the right of minorities to be served is stronger than the well-founded rights of businesses to choose who they do business with. In a society where all rights were equal, the rights of the minorities to be served would be as important as the rights of businesses to discriminate, that is achieved by allowing businesses to discriminate knowing most other businesses will accommodate the minorities: everyone wins with this bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Yes, I do. The exact number of people who would be prevented? I don't know. The potential number of people that could be prevented? In the millions, just from the legalisation of sexual orientation discrimination alone.

    I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting people based on the party they have chosen.
    You're having difficulty with yes/no statements and baby steps.
    So you claim that there will be people that have literally no access to services because of this. In what case?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So what you're saying is that we should ignore some people for the benefit of 0 people?

    Unless you can justifiably argue that people will be outright refused access to services due to this bill you're basically saying "We should ignore your beliefs for the benefit of nobody"
    Cases such as the NI bakers who refused to make a cake over sexuality prove that at least some people will be refused access to services.

    If you're going to say, "but that's only one case", then sure. It's only one isolated case and won't happen again. In that case, what's the need for this bill?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So what you're saying is that we should ignore some people for the benefit of 0 people?

    Unless you can justifiably argue that people will be outright refused access to services due to this bill you're basically saying "We should ignore your beliefs for the benefit of nobody"
    Prevent possible future cases of discrimination is going to affect 0 people? Lmao that's laughable.

    I think it's ridiculous you're taking the approach along the lines of "if you're not omniscient and capable of seeing the future then you can't fault this bill". If I suggested a bill to allow every household to have a nuclear weapon on the basis that I trusted every household not to use such a weapon, and you cannot prove that anyone will use it because it's a *+*future event*+* then you would have no grounds to object to such a thing. No-one is capable of predicting the future and the reason I and many others stand against acts such as this are based on what has already happened in the past with discrimination of every form imaginable.

    Just like I cannot 100% definitely prove any discrimination cases will arise, neither can you prove that 0 won't arise. Your argument fails when reversed back on you.

    I am absolutely failing to see who benefits from this bill if it passes? Please enlighten me? Because I can't wait to see a business refuse to offer their product to e.g. a gay couple, which then in turn means they won't acquire their money, which ... literally.. does not benefit them at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You're having difficulty with yes/no statements and baby steps.
    So you claim that there will be people that have literally no access to services because of this. In what case?
    No, I did not claim that. It would be nice if you would refrain from putting your own words in my mouth.

    I claimed that by passing this into law, it will let whoever wishes to do so deny LGB people service, which has a potential of affecting over four million people. I'm sure you subscribe to utilitarian ideals - what's good for the most is good for the whole - but I certainly do not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No it does not, forcing businesses to serve minorities is saying the right of minorities to be served is stronger than the well-founded rights of businesses to choose who they do business with. In a society where all rights were equal, the rights of the minorities to be served would be as important as the rights of businesses to discriminate, that is achieved by allowing businesses to discriminate knowing most other businesses will accommodate the minorities: everyone wins with this bill.
    When I posted about rights I meant it in the context of other people, not of businesses. The rights of business do not and should not transgress basic human ones/human decency.

    Considering we're assuming that other businesses will accommodate the minorities, how about we assume they don't. What will you say if a particularly "LGB hostile" town/city in the UK has businesses in which all of them refuse to serve anyone who is gay (e.g.) - all you've done is isolated these people for no need whatsoever.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Cases such as the NI bakers who refused to make a cake over sexuality prove that at least some people will be refused access to services.

    If you're going to say, "but that's only one case", then sure. It's only one isolated case and won't happen again. In that case, what's the need for this bill?
    So there was a grand total of one baker that was available? Damn, I feel sorry for people living in NI.

    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Prevent possible future cases of discrimination is going to affect 0 people? Lmao that's laughable.

    I think it's ridiculous you're taking the approach along the lines of "if you're not omniscient and capable of seeing the future then you can't fault this bill". If I suggested a bill to allow every household to have a nuclear weapon on the basis that I trusted every household not to use such a weapon, and you cannot prove that anyone will use it because it's a *+*future event*+* then you would have no grounds to object to such a thing. No-one is capable of predicting the future and the reason I and many others stand against acts such as this are based on what has already happened in the past with discrimination of every form imaginable.

    Just like I cannot 100% definitely prove any discrimination cases will arise, neither can you prove that 0 won't arise. Your argument fails when reversed back on you.

    I am absolutely failing to see who benefits from this bill if it passes? Please enlighten me? Because I can't wait to see a business refuse to offer their product to e.g. a gay couple, which then in turn means they won't acquire their money, which ... literally.. does not benefit them at all.
    I don't claim there will be no discrimination, I just have the faith in the market that where one discriminates another will not, and if no other will not somebody will fill the void. We don't need a nanny state. In the exact same way allowing smoking in pubs again will not mean that it will be impossible to get a pint without being in a smoke filled room.

    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    No, I did not claim that. It would be nice if you would refrain from putting your own words in my mouth.

    I claimed that by passing this into law, it will let whoever wishes to do so deny LGB people service, which has a potential of affecting over four million people. I'm sure you subscribe to utilitarian ideals - what's good for the most is good for the whole - but I certainly do not.
    So you have never claimed that anybody would have access to a service removed? Good, we're finally on the same page. So nobody is going to be affected.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    When I posted about rights I meant it in the context of other people, not of businesses. The rights of business do not and should not transgress basic human ones/human decency.
    A business is not an entity in and of itself, a business is a group of at least one person.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)


    I don't claim there will be no discrimination, I just have the faith in the market that where one discriminates another will not, and if no other will not somebody will fill the void.
    That's great. We might as well legalise sex, gender, orientation, hell, even race discrimination then, if it's not going to have an effect.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    When I posted about rights I meant it in the context of other people, not of businesses. The rights of business do not and should not transgress basic human ones/human decency.

    Considering we're assuming that other businesses will accommodate the minorities, how about we assume they don't. What will you say if a particularly "LGB hostile" town/city in the UK has businesses in which all of them refuse to serve anyone who is gay (e.g.) - all you've done is isolated these people for no need whatsoever.
    The rights of businesses should not transgress the rights of humans, but nor should the rights of humans transgress the rights of businesses, both should be equal which is what this bill does. If there is a town like that then that is the decision of the businesses, I am not concerned with social justice by forcing beliefs on everyone when there is no clear benefit to those beliefs.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    That's great. We might as well legalise sex, gender, orientation, hell, even race discrimination then, if it's not going to have an effect.
    So now your argument against the bill is "why stop there?" Well done.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I am not concerned with social justice by forcing beliefs on everyone when there is no clear benefit to those beliefs.
    That's ironic, seeing as you've suggested in this thread that religious beliefs trump any other. Isn't that forcing those religious beliefs on people?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So now your argument against the bill is "why stop there?" Well done.
    Why stop there, if you think it's not going to cause a problem? Well, do you or don't you?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Why stop there, if you think it's not going to cause a problem? Well, do you or don't you?
    No, but I am not the author. Do you want to try to find a basis of argument or are you stopping here?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, but I am not the author. Do you want to try to find a basis of argument or are you stopping here?
    You don't think that allowing racial discrimination would cause any problems?

    That explains a few things in this thread and others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    That's ironic, seeing as you've suggested in this thread that religious beliefs trump any other. Isn't that forcing those religious beliefs on people?
    No, because providing services would be optional, having the choice to provide services is not forcing beliefs on anyone, but not having the choice is forcing beliefs.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    You don't think that allowing racial discrimination would cause any problems?

    That explains a few things in this thread and others.
    Given that you seem to be having difficulty proving that it would prevent access to services, or even giving any reasoning, you're simply saying "services will become inaccessible because they will, except for the fact that it won't."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, because providing services would be optional, having the choice to provide services is not forcing beliefs on anyone, but not having the choice is forcing beliefs.
    But you said that the main reason people should not have to provide services is because of religious beliefs. Isn't denying service then enforcing your religious beliefs on the other?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 12, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.