Turn on thread page Beta

Should private firms be allowed to discriminate? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ok discrimination against race, sex, or sexual prefernce is just stupid... ok if you took a for example a black person and if it could happen change their skin to white they would still be the same person on the inside wouldn't they? But I think any form of discrimination is just wrong and pathetic. But for the doctor one, their kinda is a discrimination there because a male has no need to go to a gyno
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whats_The_411?)
    Have people taken diamond further to understand there reason for this? I mean can it be justified under the equal opportunities - human rights? surely not. So why is it allowed to continue?
    For insurance companies to do this they have to prove that a certain group is more or less risky to insure. Hence 17 year old boy with a fast car insurance sky high, 35 year old woman with a micra low premium.

    Insurance companies used to charge people more if they were disabled or diabetic but since the DDA they had to stop because they couldn't prove these groups were more risky.

    Isn't Diamond just another branch of Admiral Insurance? And anyway I would never use them just because their adds are so bad.

    Back to topic - in general no there should be no discrimination but in certain circumstances it should be allowed.

    E.g. If a school is looking for a caretaker then they should not be allowed to discriminate because of skin colour, gender or religion. But could discriminate against a paedophile.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sashh)
    For insurance companies to do this they have to prove that a certain group is more or less risky to insure. Hence 17 year old boy with a fast car insurance sky high, 35 year old woman with a micra low premium.

    Insurance companies used to charge people more if they were disabled or diabetic but since the DDA they had to stop because they couldn't prove these groups were more risky.

    Isn't Diamond just another branch of Admiral Insurance? And anyway I would never use them just because their adds are so bad.

    Back to topic - in general no there should be no discrimination but in certain circumstances it should be allowed.

    E.g. If a school is looking for a caretaker then they should not be allowed to discriminate because of skin colour, gender or religion. But could discriminate against a paedophile.
    What about life insurance for black people? You know the scene drugs and AIDs and that stuff...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    E.g. should a private bus company be allowed to refuse black passengers? should a private B&B be allowed to refuse gay customers? should a private clinic be allowed to only treat men? should an insurance company be allowed to only insure women?
    There is a coach company specifically for asians. Not sure what it's called but I'll try and find out. Apparently this is ok but if there was one specifically for whites...?

    The guy in Scotland who refused the gay guys a double room, I think this is fair enough. If me + my boyfriend went to stay in a B&B we probably wouldn't be too surprised or offended if the owner who didn't believe in sex before marriage disapproved of us sleeping together.

    A private clinic only treating men, what's wrong with that? As long as it's specified women know to go elsewhere.

    Diamond insurance does insure men. Not directly I know but I have my dad and boyfriend insured on my Diamond policy. It's based on the statistics that men are more likely to have an accident... I don't see the problem if it's based on facts.

    Should posh hotels be allowed to specify a dress code? There are loads of situations where discrimination is necessary as it can make good business sense/ make money/ uphold reputation/ atract custom...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    Should posh hotels be allowed to specify a dress code? There are loads of situations where discrimination is necessary as it can make good business sense/ make money/ uphold reputation/ atract custom...
    I think positive discrimination is fine if the discrimination is protecting somebody from a genuine threat e.g. a paedophile paediatrician. But discrimination because it makes “good business sense” that sounds wrong. For example, if companies were allowed to do this then they wouldn’t have to hire women, after all why hire a women who at some point may take over 6months maternity leave when you can hire a man who probably wont.

    (Original post by Amb1)
    Diamond insurance does insure men. Not directly I know but I have my dad and boyfriend insured on my Diamond policy. It's based on the statistics that men are more likely to have an accident... I don't see the problem if it's based on facts
    Firstly, statistics aren’t always accurate and secondly even when they are accurate it doesn’t mean you should tar an entire group (in this case men) with the same brush!!! I paid £2,400 for my car insurance last year while my girlfriend paid £900, I have had no accidents and she has had 3!!!

    I’ve read various studies that point out that various ethnic groups are under performing in schools, now if universities were allowed to discriminate on “the facts” then by the above logic there wouldn’t be a problem. But its just common sense that this would be wrong!


    What i am trying to say is that if the discrimination is based on a generalisation drawn from stereotypes or dodgy statistics then its probably gonna be a load of bull***t. If it’s common sense (back to the paedophile paediatrician) then of course by all means discriminate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    should a private B&B be allowed to refuse gay customers?
    This case provoked outrage but I find it completely understandable. The B&B/motel belongs to the owner, and if he feels uncomfortable with the idea of two gay men sleeping together in the building he owns for whatever reason (eg religious), then he shouldn't be legally forced against his wishes to admit them. The dilemma becomes problematic when you decide where to draw the line - if he explicitly didn't accept black people for being black he'd have been sued.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jools)
    This case provoked outrage but I find it completely understandable. The B&B/motel belongs to the owner, and if he feels uncomfortable with the idea of two gay men sleeping together in the building he owns for whatever reason (eg religious), then he shouldn't be legally forced against his wishes to admit them. The dilemma becomes problematic when you decide where to draw the line - if he explicitly didn't accept black people for being black he'd have been sued.
    What's the difference? Between refusing gay people and refusing black people?

    Could you sue the B&B owner if he refused to allow a straight couple, say a black guy and a white woman?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    What's the difference? Between refusing gay people and refusing black people?
    Could you sue the B&B owner if he refused to allow a straight couple, say a black guy and a white woman?
    there is technically no difference, discrimination is discrimination. some forms are just more acceptable socially, and since society to a certain extent dictates what is and is not right, you have a discrepency.
    if i owned a B+B i would want the right to discriminate on ANY grounds. age, weight, sex, race etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    What's the difference? Between refusing gay people and refusing black people?

    Could you sue the B&B owner if he refused to allow a straight couple, say a black guy and a white woman?
    As I said it's tricky grounds. All I'm saying is that I can understand e.g. a strong Christian not wanting homosexual activity occurring in his territory. Though it wouldn't be as socially acceptable to discriminate against a mixed race couple.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    I think positive discrimination is fine if the discrimination is protecting somebody from a genuine threat e.g. a paedophile paediatrician. But discrimination because it makes “good business sense” that sounds wrong. For example, if companies were allowed to do this then they wouldn’t have to hire women, after all why hire a women who at some point may take over 6months maternity leave when you can hire a man who probably wont.
    Exactly. For big businesses and large companies the cost of paying double wages for up to a year can be easily absorbed, and at the same time they get a big fat (hope nobody acuses me of sizeism) tick in the equality box. However, for smaller companies with only a few employees it genuinely does make a lot more sense not to hire a woman who might have a baby.

    Firstly, statistics aren’t always accurate and secondly even when they are accurate it doesn’t mean you should tar an entire group (in this case men) with the same brush!!! I paid £2,400 for my car insurance last year while my girlfriend paid £900, I have had no accidents and she has had 3!!!
    You're right statistics aren't always correct but with something as tangible as 'was the person driving the car involved in the accident male or female?' I think reliability is sufficient. And yes, it may be a better world if generalisations and stereotypes weren't made... but would it? If you were to do everything in your life based on each individual involved you would never get anything done.

    What i am trying to say is that if the discrimination is based on a generalisation drawn from stereotypes or dodgy statistics then its probably gonna be a load of bull***t. If it’s common sense (back to the paedophile paediatrician) then of course by all means discriminate.
    What if the statistics aren't dodgy? Stereotypes tend to arise from facts anyway, and are often used for self-preservation. If I was walking down the street and in front of me were 2 women wearing suits chatting I would probably walk past them with no worries. If however I was walking down the street and there were 2 big lads wearing hoody tops, smoking and jumping around a bit like boxers I would almost definitely cross over the road in order to avoid them. This is purely based on a stereotype that I hold from the fact that big scary lads pose more of an immediate threat to me than business women do. Am I wrong to hold this stereotype and act upon it??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jools)
    This case provoked outrage but I find it completely understandable. The B&B/motel belongs to the owner, and if he feels uncomfortable with the idea of two gay men sleeping together in the building he owns for whatever reason (eg religious), then he shouldn't be legally forced against his wishes to admit them. The dilemma becomes problematic when you decide where to draw the line - if he explicitly didn't accept black people for being black he'd have been sued.
    sorry, just to clarify your position? do you argue it wouldnt be ok for the same owner to explicitly reject customers who were black?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Nope. That was easy
    So you think women should have to pay almost double what they currently pay for insurance, just for the sake of political correctness?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    But in the insurance company case - is it discrimination per se? Are men loosing out? I thought of another parallel to be ripped to shreds by people much more insightful than myself...
    What about banks that only do business with people who earn X amount of money - are they discriminating against the poor person?
    This is discrimination. Statistically, someone with a lower credit rating than another person is less likely to be able to pay back a loan, hence the bank discriminates against people with low credit ratings. This is not considered as socially unacceptable because to an extent, people are able to chose to alter the factors that make up their credit rating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scottus_Mus)
    Wait until the Genome Project is finished! They'll be doing our life insurance by DNA - 'Sorry luv! Your more likely than the average to get cancer because of your DNA so we won't insure you'

    I do hope it doesn't get like that but knowing our plutocracy it will
    The Human Genome Project was completed in April 2003, over a year ago.

    http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    This is discrimination. Statistically, someone with a lower credit rating than another person is less likely to be able to pay back a loan, hence the bank discriminates against people with low credit ratings. This is not considered as socially unacceptable because to an extent, people are able to chose to alter the factors that make up their credit rating.
    but couldn't you equally say that men can 'choose' to drive safer?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In regards to the original question, ofcourse they should. Positive discrimination is in affect so why cannot PRIVATE firms at the least be able to choose who is in their workplace
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    but couldn't you equally say that men can 'choose' to drive safer?
    To be consistent with the justification for banks discrimination, it would be men being able to chose their sex. Ignoring the perverted attempts of some males to change their sex, this isn't really an option available to men.

    To clarify: men can chose to drive safely, just as people with low credit ratings can chose to pay back a loan, this does not alter the group steretype that is applied to them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    To be consistent with the justification for banks discrimination, it would be men being able to chose their sex. Ignoring the perverted attempts of some males to change their sex, this isn't really an option available to men.

    To clarify: men can chose to drive safely, just as people with low credit ratings can chose to pay back a loan, this does not alter the group steretype that is applied to them.
    what do you mean by "the perverted attempts of some males to change their sex"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    what do you mean by "the perverted attempts of some males to change their sex"?
    I would have thought that was obvious. Sex Reassignment Surgery.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    I would have thought that was obvious. Sex Reassignment Surgery.
    No it was the "perverted" bit i was questioning.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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.