7 ms·
Then you don't understand the core problem. You know what, I think people, in general, should be allowed to discriminate. The whole "right to refuse service" s
by Latty 9y ago
Then you don't understand the core problem.
You know what, I think people, in general, should be allowed to discriminate. The whole "right to refuse service" shtick - people shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do, even if they are following stupid beliefs.
That said, I recognise there are things that have to beat that. Just like free speech doesn't include shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, we have to curtail people's right to discriminate where other people's lives are made unlivable because of it.
If someone refuses me, the white straight male, the chance to buy something, I go somewhere else. That's not the case for some minorities however. If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. Commonly discriminated minorities have to be protected because they have a right to do what they want as well. Just as you are free to do what you want, but that doesn't include murdering people. You are free to refuse service, but not based on things that mean that person can't get service anywhere.
It's not perfect, but it's a solution.
Now, of course, that doesn't address another salient question - even if it's legal, why would minorities want restricted events?
Well, culture. Obviously in an ideal world events would be open to all and it'd all just work. The reality is, however, that culture can be a barrier. Let's take chess as an example.
Chess was male-dominated in part due to lack of education for women and it being seen as a male game. Obviously tournaments today are not restricted to men, but we still see less women.
That is, at least in part, because women never get exposed to chess because there is still cultural pressure that it's a "men's game". Women are excluded when they are young and never get a start. The intent of girl's only clubs and tournaments is to encourage women to get into chess, then they integrate into the larger chess scene. As time goes on, the societal stigma lessens and hopefully we end up in that ideal situation.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ams6110 9y ago> If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill. We'll never be rid of all discrimination. It's just a flaw in human nature. We should keep educating and working against it. But I think we're largely past the institutionalized (to say nothing of codified) discrimination of the past centuries.
- Latty 9y ago> True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill. Untrue. There are still many communities where you can be totally ostracized for those things. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Furthermore, this misses the point - even if there wasn't active discrimination in that way, it doesn't mean there isn't societal pressure or a need for minority groups to get minorities into a community in order to integrate that culture. > We'll never be rid of all discrimination. It's just a flaw in human nature. We should keep educating and working against it. But I think we're largely past the institutionalized (to say nothing of codified) discrimination of the past centuries. I mean, sure, but I'm sure people said the same thing about murder, then rape, etc..., etc... - we should always be working to reduce these things. We are not at the point where discrimination is some crazily rare thing like murder is in modern societies.
- mistermann 9y ago> Untrue. There are still many communities where you can be totally ostracized for those things. Could you name a two or three so we have some idea what you're talking about?
- monocasa 9y agoSure, I grew up in an affluent suburb of Atlanta. If you had a Kerry sticker on your car in the high school parking lot, there was a squad of kids that would break your windows, slash your tires, and key your car. The school had cameras, but refused to investigate the matter. I had friend who was gay, and after he got off the bus one day, all of the kids on that side of the bus threw rocks at him. He was in a coma for a few days.
- mistermann 9y agoIn modern day Atlanta there is widespread stoning of gays? I find this a bit hard to believe.
- sbov 9y agoThe problem encompasses way more than you claim it to. It includes things like quality of service, social networks, and mostly, basic human dignity. If what you said was actually the problem, then the civil rights act wouldn't have outlawed segregation.
- Latty 9y agoI was simplifying to try and make a point relevant to the topic at hand - obviously it's not literally just about complete inability to live your life - we have more rights than that.
- rabreu08 9y agoI also can name a few things that are dominated by woman, or latin, jews, etc... Is this really a problem? I think that some of these lines of thought, while are valid points to justify and individual problem, tend to fall into a slippery slop that tends to beleving that a true (ideal) society is all greyed out with everyone in the same mold: genderless, opinionless, etc...
- Latty 9y agoThere is nothing inherently wrong with a lack of diversity, but it is almost always a symptom of an issue with society or systems limiting people. For example, I would argue that primary school teachers being almost entirely women is indeed an issue with systemic and social sexism. You have completely missed my point. The point is that everyone should have opportunity if they want to do something and are capable of it, not some kind of homogenization. Women are currently actively pushed away from the industry. If women don't want to be in tech, that's fine, the issue is that women that do get pushed away, discriminated against, or never get the opportunity to learn they are interested in it. There is no attempt to make everyone the same - the attempt is to try and allow everyone to embrace their own differences - to give everyone the same opportunities.