Human Rights Complain- Forced Atheist Morality

[Hugo]

There's no discrimination whatsoever in the world except for that put upon opressed, white, heterosexual, Christian males.

That's not what I said, BlackDog. I'm fully aware that discrimination goes on. I think that the cure is to downplay differences, treat everybody as equal before the law, grant equal opportunity as far as possible and wait for it to permeate the culture. Trying to micro-manage social ethics with counterlegislation and attempting to force values upon people who don't believe in them will do more harm than good.

You know, wage discrepencies between men, women and minorities and the quality of work available is well-documented.

Yes, just not by you. Regardless, let's discuss that, and I'll address this to Willy and August too.

Women do earn less. The biggest factor here is children. Women bear children, that's a biological fact, and it's also a biological fact that because of breastfeeding and maternal instincts women are better at raising them too. Women take time off for maternity leave, whereas most men won't take their paternity leave and let their wives take it instead. This will push down the average income for a woman despite that, per hour of paid work, a woman is equal.

Then, after having children, many women won't go back to work full-time. Once again, not only do women get less hours in which to earn a comparable amount, it also tends to be that part-time work is overwhelmingly in low-paying service jobs. Not that any female lawyers are going to work in grocery stores, but a girl who might have become a grocery store manager might be stuck as a cashier because she's part-time, and management is a full-time responsibility.

This is their choice. They have equality of opportunity, and to try to redress this problem is basically saying that motherhood is worthless, money is all-important and if a woman isn't earning, she isn't of value to society. I don't believe any of those things.

Looking closely at blacks, too, is very revealing. Just being black is only half of the issue. Ancestry and social factors are crucially important.

For instance, American blacks descended from slaves earn less than white people the same age. On the other hand, American blacks descended from freemen earn more than whites the same age. Married blacks, especially those whose children were born in wedlock, also earn more than whites in the same situation. This tells me that colour is not the issue when we find that blacks, on average, earn less. Trying to tackle this issue on the basis of colour is wrongheaded and cannot work.

I asked you to back this up by providing examples. You hedged, saying "it's in the wording of the Charter", even though that is not the case. So, "show me one single example."

Why are you asking for the same information twice?

I know for a fact you looked at the thread I referred you to where I specifically quoted the exact section of the Charter that causes these problems and went into great detail about why it does.

Upon re-reading this thread, I can see your argument go from: "It's the barkeep's right to discriminate"... into "the Charter is stupid because it supports discrimination that I can't actually illustrate,"

You brought up the Charter in the first place! All of these changes in argument were initiated by you!

I know [my findings will] be shrugged off and I'm not falling for that trick again. Now I'll just sit back and await the triumphalist crowing.

You never cite evidence, BlackDog. Your idea of evidence is opinion columns and editorials, as others have pointed out to you in the past. You either promise facts, or claim that you have delivered facts, but you never actually get around to delivering facts.

[Sully]

Maybe it's not a big deal to you. But to members of the LGBT community, who experience discrimination on pracically a daily basis because of who they are, it is. And yes, the passive brand of homophobia displayed by the bartender may not be as virulent as others', nor is it violent, but it's all-too typical.

How do these people experience this discrimination on a daily basis. Please provide examples. Lets be clear that there are many cases of discrimination, while there are many that are not. Society has become too sensitive today and Lesbian and Gay communities are at the forefront of being too sensitive.

I mean we can all make the case that we have been harassed or discriminated against at some point in our life. Look at some of the silly examples round today, you cannot pin up a calendar of hot girls at the office anymore, even at jobs that have strictly males working there, because someone might be offended. You cannot tell a sexual joke at work or you could be slapped with a complaint, just because the joke was in earshot of some person just waiting to complain. Things have gotten out of hand, way out of hand.

Like I stated before all the bartender should have to prove is that he has kicked out a heterosexual couple for the same action, case closed. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable for both types.

[playfullfellow]

I have been to the bar in question a few times and have rather enjoyed myself there. It is more of a pub than a bar. The owner meets and chats with the patrons, the atmosphere is very relaxed. The majority of patrons are what most would consider working class. Sports clubs also enjoy a draft there after a game. I have not noticed whether the people there were straight or what. It has not been much of an issue until now.

The owner runs a quiet, decent business. If he does not want certain behavior in his place of business, then it is his place to decide. If the ladies in question do not like his choice, then they can go somewhere else, which is what they did. If other gay or straight people want to boycott this place of business, then so be it, that is their choice. This should not be a matter decided by an outside tribunal, all this will do is piss off the regular patrons of the pub towards gay people. One thing to remember about "rednecks" is that they are generally pretty quiet until you get in their face. "Rednecks" just want to work, make a living and be allowed to live life without enforced morality.

[Alliance Fanatic]

playfullfellow hit the nail on the head. Nobody likes enforced morality. But as for Black Dog, you seem to believe that white males are "evil". I think that you have to realize that their are scumbags from each creed, and their are good people from each creed. As for AA programs, their simply a load of BS. I think that if I am applying for a job, it should be best man for the job.

[August1991]

I have been to the bar in question a few times and have rather enjoyed myself there.

PlayFullFellow, is it true there's another bar nearby where the two women went to?

I don't mean my question to be some kind of argument. I drove through Red Deer twice in my life. In fact, I drove between Edmonton and Calgary twice in my life and by sheer boredom, I stopped in Red Deer twice.

Sorry if I say that I concluded that Red Deer was as boring as the highway.

Maybe I missed something. Was there a bar across the street I didn't see?

[NDP Newbie]

Incidentally, a friend of mine has gone to that bar and told me that the owner did not have a problem with heterosexual couples kissing.

[Sully]

Well NDP Newbie I think a peck or kiss is fine for both types, thats it no more. But I do believe in order for the owner to feel like he is justified in kicking them out, it was more likely they were playing tonsil hockey. There are degrees to kissing, some of which may require that the barkeep enforce "HIS" rules of "HIS" bar. This may be one of them.

There may also be many reasons for not kicking out those hetero couples that your friend is talking about. Firstly, they may not be having an all out kissing session in plain view, so the owner is unaware and therefore it does not disturb him or his patrons. Secondly is the degree of the kissing, a simple kiss on the lips is not treated the same as a five minute lip lock, so that may have something to do with it too.

Surely some people would love to say that I am homophobic so go right ahead, but personally I do not wanna see any type of couples making out in front of me. Save it for home.

[playfullfellow]

PlayFullFellow, is it true there's another bar nearby where the two women went to?

LOL, thanks August, you started my day out with a good chuckle. And to answer your question, yes, there is a bar across the street and down the block a bit. Can't remember the name as I don't live down that way anymore. Also, Red Deer isn't too terribly boring but you have to kind of know you way around or all you will see is strip malls and KFC.

[Black Dog]

You brought up the Charter in the first place! All of these changes in argument were initiated by you!

Dude, this whole thread started because of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission based on the Charter. You can't have a discussion about discrimination in this country without mentioning Charter rights.

You never cite evidence, BlackDog. Your idea of evidence is opinion columns and editorials, as others have pointed out to you in the past. You either promise facts, or claim that you have delivered facts, but you never actually get around to delivering facts.

"As others have pinte dout"? Who? The voices in you're head? Notwithstanding that is the fact that I regularly post studies, reporrts, links and "objective" news articles from a variety of sources. Whereas your only citations are...yourself. What. Ever.

How do these people experience this discrimination on a daily basis.

I think the Red Deer case is a prime example. Then there's the fact that same sex couples aren't given many of the same benefits (such as health benefits) as hetero ones (though that's slowly changing, thanks in no small part to legal prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation). How about the threat of violence? And what about the general disdain that most of ghetero society still has for gays (this thread is a good sampling of that).

I mean we can all make the case that we have been harassed or discriminated against at some point in our life.

I highly doubt that.

Nobody likes enforced morality

Oh? It seems to me that there are parties here who crave enforced morality, so long as that morality precludes homosxuality.

But as for Black Dog, you seem to believe that white males are "evil".

Yeah, that's me: a self-hating, central Alberta cracker.

No I just recognize the existence of white (male) privilege.

[Hugo]

Dude, this whole thread started because of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission based on the Charter. You can't have a discussion about discrimination in this country without mentioning Charter rights.

So let me get this straight. This was the sequence of events:

1) You bring up the Charter

2) You accuse me of bringing up the Charter

3) You say that my alleged referral to the Charter is an example of irrelevancy and flailing

4) You tell us that the Charter is intrinsical to the argument and is not irrelevant at all

You're not right in the head.

"As others have pinte dout"? Who? The voices in you're head?

KrustyKidd would be one example. I can specifically recall him admonishing you for citing opinion columns as "evidence" for your anti-Bush stance. There's probably others.

Do you have a response to anything else that I said? I gave you a whole argument on wage disparity for women and blacks, and your counter seemed to be:

I just recognize the existence of white (male) privilege.

That's not an argument, it's an opinion without justification. That makes it a prejudice, or a bigotry, if you will.

[Black Dog]

Nowhere did I accuse you of bringing up the Charter. I brougt up the Charter to show that your contention that the bartender had a legal right to kick the lesbian kissers out. I demonstrated that, under the Charter, he had no such legal right. which led to you casting asprisions on the legitimacy of the Charter and my own personal credibility. And now you're just making stuff up.

[udawg]

They do. There's 364 heterosexual pride days a year.

Ah, you're not. Please provide some links to the parades that are held in celebration of heterosexuality, and some figures for the amount of tax money that is given to providing these.

The reason we don't have "Straight Pride Parades" is because heterosexuality is the norm. There is no reason or need to celebrate that which 95% of the population has. Well, maybe we'd all be happier if we did, but...

Gay pride parades give homosexuals the chance to celebrate their lifestyle/[insert buzzword here] with others of the same... persuasion, to make up for the type of phobia and discrimination that is so rampant on every other day of the year. Heterosexuals are not discriminated against, not mocked, not shamed; there's no reason we need a parade to celebrate our straightness without being jeered at.

If there was a "Straight Pride Parade", would anyone here actually attend? Would it be for any reason other than 1: pissing the gays off, or 2: proving a point? Would you actually be going to celebrate your orientation with other heterosexuals? Because that's why there are Gay Pride Parades.

[willy]

Udawg, following your logic we should have an abstinence parade. All those waiting for marriage to have sex are teased and looked on as prudes. They are a minority and don't feel comfortable coming out about this lack of sexual activity. The government can support this with tax dollars and recognition with a special day. Virgin Day!

Being gay is not dressing up and celebrating the kink in the subculture. Those parades do more to separate and look at the extremes of the gay urban subculture. If healthy long term relationships are to be fostered and choosing partners of the same sex is to be normalized one should not do their best to normalize the lifestyle. The lack of relationship experienced by many gay people is celebrated at these events.

Only comment back if you have been to a parade like this. I live in Vancouver and have seen enough leather chaps to last me a life time.

A better example of a support event is the gay ski week at Whistler. Parties, skiing and good times. Turns out gay people are a good market and businesses pay for this event.

[udawg]

Udawg, following your logic we should have an abstinence parade. All those waiting for marriage to have sex are teased and looked on as prudes. They are a minority and don't feel comfortable coming out about this lack of sexual activity. The government can support this with tax dollars and recognition with a special day. Virgin Day!

willy, I think there should be an abstinence parade. The difference is, abstinent people don't flaunt it in everyone's face, and have no desire to. Perhaps they are afraid of the response, the way people would treat them. Actually, it's really similar to how homosexuality was treated before the equal gay-rights movement...

If there were enough people who were willing to ... come out of the closet, so to speak, about their virginity, then an Abstinent Pride Parade might just happen. We didn't see gay pride parades for many years, when it was relatively well known that this element of society existed, same thing with virginity now.

Thanks for the really good example, willy.

[Black Dog]

Being gay is not dressing up and celebrating the kink in the subculture. Those parades do more to separate and look at the extremes of the gay urban subculture. If healthy long term relationships are to be fostered and choosing partners of the same sex is to be normalized one should not do their best to normalize the lifestyle. The lack of relationship experienced by many gay people is celebrated at these events.

Have you read up on the history and rationale of Gay Pride event such as parades?

The whole concept of Gay Pride started after the Stonewall Riot in New York in June 1969. When police raided Stonewall, a gay and lesbian bar in New York, and tried to arrest the patrons, a riot ensued which lasted three days.

Yes, pride events tend to be provocative. That's intentional, a reaction to the casual homophobia behind notions like "if people want to be gay, fine, they should just do it in their own home." or that gay people should "normalize" their lifestyles (so as not to offend the breeders, I presume). It's a public expression of a lifestyle traditionally relegated to the back of the closet.

Whether you agree with pride events or not (and ther eis by no means a consensus in the gay community on the subject), it is an exercise in freedom of expression.

[August1991]

willy, I think there should be an abstinence parade.

They exist now, or used to. They are called debutante balls of which I guess beauty pageants are a subspecies.

Have you read up on the history and rationale of Gay Pride event such as parades?

I wonder whether these parades will exist in 50 years. If the purpose is to be provocative, then I doubt it.

When a person chooses to declare that they are gay or lesbian, and if the person is living in a community that does not accept gays or lesbians, the consequences can be horrendous.

I think this is what Black Dog means and he feels the State, through some law (or Charter of Rights), has the obligation to protect this person's freedom to declare themselves.

I disagree Black Dog because the State is now involved in what might be called "social engineering" - changing people's morality. (The Left views this in a good light and sometimes refers to it as "progressive".)

Taking the big picture view, which has best aided gays and lesbians to be who they are: free market choice or State rules? (Hint: In what countries have gay rights best fluorished?)

The great thing about a market price is that by using math, it forces people to put a value on their morals. This Red Deer bar-owner may well soon have a Gay Pride night. It's good for business.

[Last Note: For me, a Charter of Rights should guarantee protection from the arbitrary decisions of a monopoly power. That, to me, is freedom.]

[Sully]

I think the Red Deer case is a prime example. Then there's the fact that same sex couples aren't given many of the same benefits (such as health benefits) as hetero ones (though that's slowly changing, thanks in no small part to legal prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation). How about the threat of violence? And what about the general disdain that most of ghetero society still has for gays (this thread is a good sampling of that).

How is this an example, like I have stated before all the owner has to do is prove he has kicked someone else out that is heterosexual for the same reasons, then people on your side of the political spectrum have no case.

I have no doubt that homosexual people love each other in the exact same way as heterosexual couples and I think they should be given all the benefits as heterosexual couples under a civil union thats fine with me. They are here stay and I really do not give a rats ass. I do not go around asking people what sexual orientation before I will consider them a friend, but today its being crammed down the majoirty of peoples throats.

The threat of violence happens to many people, this is not exclusive to the homosexual community. The reasons (race, sexual orientation, the amount of money in your pocket, list goes on and on) behind violence are usually stupid regardless of who it is directed towards. Violence is genarally isolated in nature, there is no government conspiracy to suppress anyone anymore.

As for the disdain, what disdain, is it that people disagree with you and you cannot handle that. I have not read any posts that promote violence or hatred towards this group. The only thing I have seen here are opinions, which are as valid as any of yours Black Dog.

I highly doubt that.

Why do you highly doubt it Black Dog, the difference is when most of us get discriminated against, we just go home and go to bed, we do not sit around and bitch about it. Young people, old people, rich people, short people, ugly people, smart people, virgins as previously brought up, poor people, list goes on and on, all of us have been discriminated against in one way or another. So boo-hoo life is not perfect for everyone all the time, whoever said life was. And no you do not have to be homosexual to feel the pain of being discriminated against.

[Michael Hardner]

In most cases, the laws of the land are logical, consistent and accepted by its citizens. But there are some cases where these qualities don't apply. These cases tend to surface where the cold abstract logic of legal principle clashes with inalterable human attributes.

One area where this happens is something called "community values". It's a legal term used to enforce laws that may not be logically consistent but are widely accepted by citizens. Nudity, for example, could logically be argued as being a form of freedom of expression yet there are no widespread calls for legalization of nudity because most people would just find that offensive.

Perhaps one day this might change, but community values would have to change first. Is any more "fair" to nudists who want to walk around today in the buff than it was to gays who wanted to make out in public in 1960 ? No. But community values pretty much dictate the baseline of our legal system, as much as any constitution does.

Community values are another form of the "legislated morality" that is what has happened in Red Deer to some degree. But the community values there have come into direct conflict with different community values in another area where the laws are set, or maybe with the values of the top lawmakers themselves.

This situation occurs when there's enough general support (whatever that level is) to push for across the board social changes at all levels. The same basic situation happened with the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. What results in these cases is a higher government power tries to legislate against attitudes and ideas that the larger group thinks is backward and provincial and a smaller community becomes a social battleground for the legal test case.

What are the products of these types of conflict ? Protection against descrimination for the protected group, in theory ,for one. Resentment and alienation of the larger political body in the community for another.

Can these situation be avoided ? I think the only argument to be made is whether the government should be involved at all in deciding what constitutes descrimination and enacting laws to protect certain groups. If you allow for government action to prohibit descrimination against any identified group, then you acknowledge that the constitution represents a national community standard that most be followed.

As far as this goes, I'm sure that even in the US you would find widespread support for some laws that prohibit racism, sexism, and so forth.

So as long as you acknowledge that the government has a role in intervening to protect individuals you have a slippery slope to protecting them from being barred from harassment, to protecting group descrimination based on race, sex, or whatever legal behavior they choose to engage in.

All of this presupposes that the larger community has seen fit to identify that group as being vulnerable to descrimination.

What would happen in these communities if there wasn't a national policy of ending this identified descrimination ? It's impossible to tell, but community values do change, and in the long term I expect the larger trend towards acceptance of homosexuality will continue with or without legislation. The difficult fights that will happen along the way are a necessary product of our system of dealing with these different values.

The best we can hope for is that people on all sides of the issues behave in a responsible manner as the situation moves to some kind of resolution.

[RB]

"community values" i like but to incorporate community values into legislature? community values are sort a different in varying regions no? a workable by-law then?

but here is my point, these folks frequented the bar numerous times, every wednesday nights and they were never refused service - yes, well one can deduce that they return because they were continually treated with respect, they liked the atmosphere, the good customer relations and the good service etc.

they must have known the "community values"

on one particular day in question they did something different, intending to shock?

there are some precedents for potential drunks, where the pub owner responsibilty can't weaver, and the owner is allowed to say you can't have more drinks, here is the limit.

why should'nt he have some leverage to control other potential destructs within his establishment when perhaps who knows a potential full sex activity was about to result. well the basis for this is the selection of environment to commence activity was ideal:

-couch

-cosy

-cuddling

[Black Dog]

I disagree Black Dog because the State is now involved in what might be called "social engineering" - changing people's morality. (The Left views this in a good light and sometimes refers to it as "progressive".)

 

Not so. Protecting people from discrimination is not the am ething as legislating morality. No one has to accept homosexuals, blacks, Jews whatever, if they don't want to. But they sure as hell can't discriminate against them. Freedom of speech still includes the freedom to hate, but acting on that hate is not kosher.

Taking the big picture view, which has best aided gays and lesbians to be who they are: free market choice or State rules? (Hint: In what countries have gay rights best fluorished?)

It has less to do with "market choice" as it does with the fact that western democracies have traditionally valued principles of equality more than others, and have enforced those values through legislation like the Bill of Rights and the Charter. That said, don't think for a second that we're even close to seeing true equality for gays even here.

How is this an example, like I have stated before all the owner has to do is prove he has kicked someone else out that is heterosexual for the same reasons, then people on your side of the political spectrum have no case

Yeah, like that'll happen. Also, his rather incriminating comments are also a sure sign that there is an anti-gay bias at work.

I do not go around asking people what sexual orientation before I will consider them a friend, but today its being crammed down the majoirty of peoples throats.

I'm sure people in teh U.S. South were tired of blacks shoving their desire for equality down the "majorities" throat too (and BTW, what's with teh right's fondness for that esxpression? It's time to get a new one.)

If homosexuals didn't have to contend with discriminatory actions of people like the redneck bar keep, sexual orientation wouldn't be an issue.

The threat of violence happens to many people, this is not exclusive to the homosexual community. The reasons (race, sexual orientation, the amount of money in your pocket, list goes on and on) behind violence are usually stupid regardless of who it is directed towards. Violence is genarally isolated in nature, there is no government conspiracy to suppress anyone anymore.

I disagree completely, but I'll just focus on your initial statement. The victimization of gays and lesbians based upon their sexual orientation includes harassment, vandalism, robbery, assault, rape and murder. The location of these crimes is not restricted to dark streets leading from gay establishments. Violence against gays and lesbians occurs everywhere: in schools, the workplace, public places and in the home. Those who commit these acts come from all social/economic backgrounds and represent different age groups (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Safety and Fitness Exchange, Lance Bradley and Kevin Berrill, 1986.) Crimes against homosexuals often occurs because of their sexuality, versus the threat of random violence the rest of the population faces. And while there may be no "conspiracy", the prevailing social ethic of the day still deems discrimanatory behavior aganst homosexuals as mor eor less acceptable.

on one particular day in question they did something different, intending to shock?

This is what I mean. A straight couple making out on a sofa would be regarded as a public display of affection, but because the couple in question were lesbians, it was a calculated provocation. yeah, no bias here. And it gets worse.

why should'nt he have some leverage to control other potential destructs within his establishment when perhaps who knows a potential full sex activity was about to result. well the basis for this is the selection of environment to commence activity was ideal:

-couch

-cosy

-cuddling

That's right, those sex-crazed homos can't control themeslves, they were all set to turn the Blarney Stone into a scene from Where the Boys Aren't: Volume 9.

Again, similar behavior by heterosexuals is tolerated (I've seen some pretty steamy sessions in my time that have passed without comment). The liplock in question was no more than a few seconds long, yet you expect me to believe that it wa sa prelude to a full-on sex session? Come on. it's that kind of assumption and stereotyping that betrays an ingrained and often unconcious revulsion towards homosexuals in society, which is partly why legal human rights protections are a flawed, but necessary device.

[RB]

i would say anyone regarless of sexual orientation that exhibits behaviors not consistent with "community values" was the argument - should be told to stop

for example two naked folks show up at the bar whether they are both women, both males, or one man one women - the value system does not allow entry, but maybe a very low hang jeans revealing a thong - possibility is yes

however, the bar owner did he kick the folks out? did he refuse to serve them? or did he served them that day, and prior days. but they did make an incorrect assumption and left to file a complaint

also my question would be how long were the folks in the bar, were they at table, and were service? they must have been happy, because then they would decidingly move to the couch with an unconscienous pre-think of an intend to shock the audience

and i believe that both hetero and homo types would shock an audience in red deer? with exhibition of sexual behaviours

[Black Dog]

I'm pretty much out of puff on this topic. However, I do find it sad that we live in a society where natural human sexuality and displays of affection like a three or four second kiss are considered affronts to "community values".

After all, we're not talking about a public orgy here.

[August1991]

I do find it sad that we live in a society where natural human sexuality and displays of affection like a three or four second kiss are considered affronts to "community values".

I tend to agree BD. I see no reason that we should treat two men sharing a kiss at a street corner any differently from a man and woman doing the same.

But:

1) I can see why if the kiss takes place on a private premises, the owner should be able to object. (I'm well aware that we follow US practice and invoke civil rights in such cases. I just disagree with this approach.)

2) I see no harm in one community treating this differently from another community or even from the way I would. (Montreal is not Notre-Dame-de-Nulle-Part.)

[incidentally, taking a case to a human rights tribunal is tantamount to burying it. The backload is large and commissions tend to be arbitrary in dealing with cases. If we were serious about this, criminal charges should be laid or else a civil case for damages brought.]

[RB]

i am with business on this one ... they usually have a one track mind and a softly corporate "killers instinct" it means staying in business and also keeping it

the thin line drawn for extended 3-4 seconds to mess around and have fun should not be to some detrimental ripple effect and expense of businesses bottom line

and i actually do support gays in their quest for what is equal