Equal Rights For Straights ?

[betsy]

I marched for gay rights, and was persecuted for standing up for gay friends of mine, but I'm apalled that these clubs would be allowed to operate with a 'no straights' policy. It feels like I'm the only one who thinks that here.

Wait til someone from here tries to go in and get refused. Maybe that's when you'll hear some complaint. So far I guess no one is interested to go in a gay bar?

[Michael Hardner]

Well, Betsy, I was specifically thinking of your complaint that the lesbian couple was just trying to make a point against the KofC. If I were the kind of person who wanted to make a point like that, I would bring a complaint against these establishments.

There may be something in the conserservative attitude that says 'let sleeping dogs lie' as I haven't read any conservatives being upset about these things.

[kimmy]

What about movie theatres offering different prices depending on the age of the customer?

What about establishments of all sorts that offer discounts for students or seniors?

A new Edmonton nightclub does not allow people under 21, even though the legal drinking age is 18.

These are also discriminatory, aren't they?

Dating services and chat-lines offer lower prices for women to join up. Many bars offer cheap drinks for women on certain nights. The theory is that more women will participate if the price is lower, and more men will participate if there are more women. But is this not also discriminatory?

What about apartment buildings and condominiums that only sell or rent to residents over 50 with no kids?

What about places with dress-codes?

I don't know that the specifics of these gay-only nights at these clubs, but I am guessing that they probably happen on Tuesday or Wednesday night when business is normally pretty slow. The gambit (as with student discounts, senior discounts, cheap chat lines and cheap drinks for women) is that they can increase business by offering a specific incentives for groups that normally have lower participation rates. For the new nightclub, the target audience is patrons who've stopped going out because they're sick of teenagers running around throwing up and looking for fights. In the case of gay-night at the club, that incentive would be a gay-friendly atmosphere where they can meet other gay people. In the case of a women's fitness club, the incentive is the opportunity to exercise without being oogled by men.

If the courts step in and say "you can't have gay-only night" or "you can't have a women-only fitness club," they're essentially dismantling a part of the business plan.

To me, "It's my business and I'll run it as I see fit" should be the only response necessary. If the owners of Spy Lady or FriendlyAdultConnections or Golden Years Condominiums or Mantastic! Nightclub feel that they can find a niche in the marketplace by discriminating against some prospective customers to create a certain atmosphere for their patrons, that should be their right.

Ok, so then there's the question about what if the discrimination is particularly odious or unsavory? The well-known case of the golf-course that's almost exclusively white men? Well, regretably I think that should be their choice as well, as long as it's a privately run business. However, I think that they'll find their club shrinking as increasingly few educated white men would want to be part of a blatantly racist club. Before very long their ideal customers will have died of old age, and the only people who'd want to be in their club will be people who can't afford the fees.

-k

[Hicksey]

I'm not interested so much in what should/shouldn't be legal as much as what is/isn't legal.

Auguste - are you saying that there's no law on the books preventing businesses from barring customers on the basis of race, etc. ? Or is it that you are just more interested in the question of what should/shouldn't be allowed ?

I marched for gay rights, and was persecuted for standing up for gay friends of mine, but I'm apalled that these clubs would be allowed to operate with a 'no straights' policy. It feels like I'm the only one who thinks that here.

You're not getting it. Prejudice today is only recognized when it goes against the majority. For example, if you're white, catholic or heterosexual it is generally viewed that if you speak out against people different than you're prejudiced. But if someone from the minority you spoke out against you and made inflammatory references against your race, religion or sexual orientation it isn't considered to be wrong, and is justified by many.

[Michael Hardner]

What about movie theatres offering different prices depending on the age of the customer?

What about establishments of all sorts that offer discounts for students or seniors?

A new Edmonton nightclub does not allow people under 21, even though the legal drinking age is 18.

These are also discriminatory, aren't they?

Age discrimination only qualifies between ages 18-65 so only the last example counts I believe.

I suspect that the nightclub and other examples (rental car agencies for example sometimes have a minimum age requirement of 25) haven't been tested.

Dating services and chat-lines offer lower prices for women to join up. Many bars offer cheap drinks for women on certain nights. The theory is that more women will participate if the price is lower, and more men will participate if there are more women. But is this not also discriminatory?

Pricing has so far not been included in legislation, but it looms on the horizon. The Province of Ontario, I believe, was talking about anti-sexist pricing legislation such has been tried in California.

What about apartment buildings and condominiums that only sell or rent to residents over 50 with no kids?

What about places with dress-codes?

The no-kids rule was tested, I believe and found to be unconstitutional.

There's nothing illegal about discriminating based on dress code.

I don't know that the specifics of these gay-only nights at these clubs, but I am guessing that they probably happen on Tuesday or Wednesday night when business is normally pretty slow. The gambit (as with student discounts, senior discounts, cheap chat lines and cheap drinks for women) is that they can increase business by offering a specific incentives for groups that normally have lower participation rates.

No. This happens on the weekends when they're busy. And these are gay clubs that are pretty busy most of the time and cater almost exclusively to gay people.

For the new nightclub, the target audience is patrons who've stopped going out because they're sick of teenagers running around throwing up and looking for fights. In the case of gay-night at the club, that incentive would be a gay-friendly atmosphere where they can meet other gay people. In the case of a women's fitness club, the incentive is the opportunity to exercise without being oogled by men.

If the courts step in and say "you can't have gay-only night" or "you can't have a women-only fitness club," they're essentially dismantling a part of the business plan.

See my comments on the Civil Rights Act and restaurants in the southern US in the 1960s.

To me, "It's my business and I'll run it as I see fit" should be the only response necessary. If the owners of Spy Lady or FriendlyAdultConnections or Golden Years Condominiums or Mantastic! Nightclub feel that they can find a niche in the marketplace by discriminating against some prospective customers to create a certain atmosphere for their patrons, that should be their right.

Again, I'm less interested in should/shouldn't be legal than in what is/isn't legal.

Do you think that a restuarant should be able to say 'whites only' or a golf club should be able to say 'no jews', because I think it's the same principal. The idea that such policies would hurt every single establishment that tried to implement it is incorrect, I think.

Ok, so then there's the question about what if the discrimination is particularly odious or unsavory? The well-known case of the golf-course that's almost exclusively white men? Well, regretably I think that should be their choice as well, as long as it's a privately run business. However, I think that they'll find their club shrinking as increasingly few educated white men would want to be part of a blatantly racist club. Before very long their ideal customers will have died of old age, and the only people who'd want to be in their club will be people who can't afford the fees.

Ok. You addressed my previous question here. I think there would be a market for establishments that said 'no Muslims allowed', for example, judging by some of the posts I read here. Although I agree with the sentiment that society will adopt its own mores naturally over time, I don't mind government stepping in to give it a nudge now and then. I'll admit that gay marriage was pushed through a little ahead of its time (by that I mean, before there was a clear strong majority in support) based on opinion polls on the issue.

[Michael Hardner]

You're not getting it. Prejudice today is only recognized when it goes against the majority. For example, if you're white, catholic or heterosexual it is generally viewed that if you speak out against people different than you're prejudiced. But if someone from the minority you spoke out against you and made inflammatory references against your race, religion or sexual orientation it isn't considered to be wrong, and is justified by many.

I agree with you, Hicksey.

For example, why aren't people going to Muslim organizations and demanding that they rent their establishments to gay couples ? Why aren't people demanding that Jews allow same-sex couples to the prom ?

The answer has less to do with legislation, and more to do with human nature I think. Liberal groups have, since the middle part of the 20th century confronted religious groups from within their own culture not outside it.

Here's another example. When rapper Eminem started getting hits, we heard much outrage from certain groups about his lyrics. But black rappers had been saying the same or worse for years. The groups that criticized him were liberal and nature and reluctant to criticize blacks.

A counter example from the right: When Ontario tried to bring Islam into the legal system (allowing Islamic clerics to mediate disputes) the right because upset that religion was being brought into the legal system even though Jews had been granted the same concessions. The groups that criticized this change were conservative and suspicious of Islam but not religion in general.

So you're right in pointing out inconsistencies and failings of these groups, in my opinion.

[August1991]

I'm not interested so much in what should/shouldn't be legal as much as what is/isn't legal.

Auguste - are you saying that there's no law on the books preventing businesses from barring customers on the basis of race, etc. ? Or is it that you are just more interested in the question of what should/shouldn't be allowed ?

I marched for gay rights, and was persecuted for standing up for gay friends of mine, but I'm apalled that these clubs would be allowed to operate with a 'no straights' policy. It feels like I'm the only one who thinks that here.

You are asking: What private discrimination is or isn't illegal?

Well, the federal and provincial governments have human rights legislation and a person who feels wronged can ask for review before a tribunal. They'll likely have a long wait. The following is from an internal report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

In 2001, through a detailed review of its 24 years of operation, the Commission determined that it had been accumulating a backlog of complaints since its inception. The backlog is the number of open cases in excess of the number that would normally be open if the Commission were completing as many cases as it was taking in each year. Although the Commission has reduced this backlog at various points in its history, it has never had the capacity to deal with all of the complaints filed in a given year. For example, in 2002, the Commission received 800 signed complaints, 200 more than it is resourced to handle under its traditional business model.

In 2002, a review of the Commission's service and operational standards concluded that, under current procedures, it takes up to two years to investigate a complaint. The review confirmed that the approach by which it had been processing complaints did not lend itself to setting reasonable service standards. The length of the complaint process and the fact that the backlog was endemic led to the conclusion that major reform to the business model was needed. The comprehensive reform of the complaint process began in the fall of 2002.

Canadian Human Rights Commission

I think it is correct to say that the State should not insert itself into the process of private contracting. At present, no politician wants to touch this human rights issue but every one knows it's a mess. What started out as an attempt to achieve "equality" has turned into something of extraordinary arbitrariness. A large backlog is a politically acceptable solution.

I think it is also correct to say that if racial discrimination is not rampant in Canada, it is not because of human rights tribunals. It is because such discrimination is not profitable for business, and not beneficial to us individually.

----

With all that said, I think it is commendable and you were right Michael to stand up for the right of a gay to be treated as any other. Among the various disheartening events in my life, I recall being told by a hotel manager in Asia that while I was free to stay there, my friend (of a different race) was not. I didn't argue the point and my friend did not feel humiliated. But seeing such rank discrimination brought home to me its practical effect. BTW, the hotel manager had some reason to be racist; he didn't want his hotel torched. My friend and I found another hotel with a manager of still another race who, fortunately, just wanted our money.

[geoffrey]

People can't be told how to think or operate their private businesses. It's bad business not to allow everyone in, let those intolerant of others to simply suffer making less money.

There is a market solution for this problem, and it works quite well in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a market solution for this problem, and it works quite well in Canada.

The market solution works more slowly, so as not to offend customers. There's no doubt in my mind that the Civil Rights Act pushed things, and was more painful but quicker than waiting for things to change.

[geoffrey]

There is a market solution for this problem, and it works quite well in Canada.

The market solution works more slowly, so as not to offend customers. There's no doubt in my mind that the Civil Rights Act pushed things, and was more painful but quicker than waiting for things to change.

The quick way to do something is rarely the right way to do something.

Forcing values upon people doesn't ever work, just creates further resentment.

[Hicksey]

There is a market solution for this problem, and it works quite well in Canada.

The market solution works more slowly, so as not to offend customers. There's no doubt in my mind that the Civil Rights Act pushed things, and was more painful but quicker than waiting for things to change.

The quick way to do something is rarely the right way to do something.

Forcing values upon people doesn't ever work, just creates further resentment.

Unless you change what is in their minds and hearts, you haven't changed a thing. The only difference is that you anger them further and they keep it to themselves.

Legislating against prejudices will never eliminate them. It will only werve to drive the wedge even further between the two parties in question.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

As to a sign that says "NO BLACKS", successful restaurants generally do not refuse good customers with good money. (Thelonious will note that greed and the profit motive are perhaps the best protection against arbitrary discrimination.)

Actually, no, legislation is. I am sure you have noticed I am no Libertarian, but also not totalitarian. Should a 7 year old with 'good money' be allowed to buy smokes, beer and porn? Without legislation, the store would have to wager that the sales gained would outstrip the sales lost (from indignation). Oddly, someone like you should be supporting that store in the name of the freedom you espouse.

Too much freedom and you'll find that people generally aren't moral, aren't fair, and base anarchy is only kept in check by 'discriminatory laws'. Achieving balance is difficult, while total anarchy can be argued as 'completely fair', yet I don't believe it strives in the right direction.

[Spike22]

I am old and have given up all hope. Let the homosexuals marry, they should have all the same rights as those with children. In their case if they cannot have children naturally (impossible) then a large dog (or other large domestic animal) that the couple cares for would let them qualify for child tax credits etc.

Also if one of them passes away they would be entitled to all of the same survivor government benefits ie pensions, medical plans and the like. Now who will pay for this increased cost and what is the estimated price tag attached with these changes?

Now I have to go get ready to crash the women or is that men only, lesbian transvetite mud wrestling event - hope they let us in.

[injusticebuster]

On another thread, there was a discussion about a Knights of Columbus Hall that refused to rent to two lesbians who were going to be wed. Part of the discussion was directed towards the motives of those women - whether they really wanted to rent the hall or they were just trying to 'make a point'.

Of course, legally it doesn't matter. But let me ask generally - would you give support to a gay person or straight person who persued a rights issue only to make a point ?

For the straights, there are opportunities for challenges out there - several clubs in Toronto now host openly discriminatory 'homosexual only' nights. This is clearly discriminatory, but hasn't yet been challenged. A friend of mine, who is gay, wanted to have his friends meet him at a bar to celebrate his birthday, but the number of men allowed in is restricted as it's a dyke night.

How do you feel about such practices and how would you feel about a heterosexual challenge to the law ? Would you do it yourself ?

Challenge to which law exactly? Is there a law that forbids you from discriminating against Pepsi in favour of Coke? Are you not free to discriminate against a Jewish shopkeeper and choose a Korean one instead? Are you not free to be sexist and have your hair cut by a woman instead of a man simply because you prefer a woman?

Needless to say, these tribunals now have cases backlogged for several years and they pick and choose according to their own agenda.

The fact that Ontario Human Rights Commission told me to drop my complaints and ignored all evidence and did not want to interview my witnesses because it allocated all resources to gurantee a right to party for drunk, naked lesbian violates Section 15 of Charter.

The complainants have been denied the equal benefit of the law," Cory wrote in his 15-page decision, noting that the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee every person equal treatment without discrimination due to disability.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483202845

Needless to say, these tribunals now have cases backlogged for several years and they pick and choose according to their own agenda.

Canada's Charter of Rights places restrictions only on how the government can treat us. It says nothing about how we treat one another. You are free to discriminate in your choice of spouse, hairdresser, friends, shopkeeper and so on.

Following an American practice, we have developed in Canada Human Rights Tribunals which examine cases of discrimination in private transactions. The tribunals typically examine only alleged discrimination by one side of the transaction. Needless to say, these tribunals now have cases backlogged for several years and they pick and choose according to their own agenda.

----

Michael, it is logical that a Charter of Rights circumscribes the powers of the State (although the Charter need not be a single explicit document). The State, even democratic, is a monopoly. A local club or bar or hairdresser is not a monopoly. If you don't like their service, prices or clientele, you are free to go elsewhere. Do you think your decision not to use the services of a particular taxi driver should be subject to review by a human rights tribunal?

And, why do stores have the right to discriminate on the basis of poverty anyway? Should not stores treat rich and poor alike, without discrimination?