It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should venues deny services to people based on their race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Yes I was QFT (Quoting for truth).





posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I just have to say, anyone who thinks Lego is just for kids needs to chill out and enjoy life a little more.

LOTR and Avengers Lego FTW.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


I will amend that an adult shouldn't necessarily be denied access but be fully deserving of a watchful eye.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Meh, as someone with ten years in a child protection environment and having worked with both abusers and the abused (such as teenaged victims of child abuse who end up on the sex offenders register themselves), a venue simply has policies and procedures in place to ensure the safety of all.

Obvs we are way off topic so i'll leave it at this. Lego markets to adults as well as kids. There are Lego kits rated as 18 plus due to complexity. Adults wishing to visit Legoland is not weird.

This topic only occurred due to someone making a ridiculous analogy a page or two ago, and i'll not discuss it anymore due to it's off topic nature.

ETA: maybe it's not off topic at all, as it would relate to a venue denying custom on the basis of age, so i reckon the subject is open to discussion as per the OP title

edit on 8-11-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)


ETA: so the venue would simply have a safeguarding policy. Therefor Adults would be allowed, be they singly or in groups. When their behaviour indicates a risk to others (eg targetting younger kids for conversation when they are separated from their guardians for example) then staff step in. But you do not have a blanket suspicion/prejudicial treatment on a client group simply as they are adults without kids for example.
I recognise that ths may have been what you meant, but i think that clarity is helpful

edit on 8-11-2013 by skalla because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2013 by skalla because: without, not with



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

skalla
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Obviously i disagree with you, i see it as an issue of prejudice with the potential to persecute others and make their life a misery. Not all people/regions have a large market, and i feel that alot of the people who agree with these measures would feel very differently if they were on the reciving end of such treatment and were not in possesion of other options. It's a very slippery slope.



And you don't see the state telling people who they may or may not associate with a slippery slope as well?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


There is a need for balance - as long as someone is not disrupting your ability to make a living and run your business in a professional manner' then you both leave politics and religion (for example) as a private matter and do not treat each other as anything but vendor and customer.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

RickyD
reply to post by skalla
 


So if I want to be a pedophile and never force myself on anyone unwilling you think I should be able to sue when im told I cant go to Lego Land and hit on the youngsters. Before you say yes I will say...try going to Lego Land as a male adult without kids with you...bet you waste a trip when they refuse you service.


I have just visited the Legoland California Website/booking page and was allowed to make a booking for 1 adult only to stay overnight in their hotel, though of course i did not pay for and recieve a ticket, being in the UK etc.

If you were a non practicing pedophile who did not declare it at the gate etc, how would anyone know that you had such a sexual taste/orientation?

Legoland sure wouldn't, and of course if you were in control of your actions and behaving in a moral/safe manner as you suggest, then yes you could go and no body would be any the wiser, or indeed at risk.

As soon as you started to leer at kids, i'm sure you would be asked to leave, but then that would be quite reasonable and down to your behaviour preventing the safe and comfortable enjoyment of all clients.

As i state in an above post which related to UK policies on safeguarding (informed by my ten years working in a child protection environment and also dealing with safeguarding issues for vulnerable children), policies and proceedures ensure staff maintain an awareness of the safety of their clients and know how to act when boundaries are breached.

The mere presence of an adult is not such a breach.

I am making an assumtion of the US policies being very similar to those in the UK, but i feel that this is realistic - the fact remains that their booking system does not prevent a single adult going to the park and staying in their accommodation.

Go to the website and give it a try, you dont have to take my word for it.
edit on 8-11-2013 by skalla because: paragraphs

edit on 8-11-2013 by skalla because: clarity



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

ketsuko
If this is that case and my understanding is correct, where do business owners get to draw the line? Photographers have had this same problem. Should we be required to participate in something that violates our personal morality (whether or not you agree with it) because you feel you have some right to a good or service we provide?


I agree with pretty much every response I've read so far on this thread, unfortunately, which makes it a hard issue.

I think that this response might be the closest thing I've heard to an answer that sounds reasonable. Maybe there could be different levels of interaction, and especially if a business card or something of another business was offered (like there was another option) and an explanation given, I would see that being cool.

The drawback would be the laws being so complicated that it could get pretty hard to follow em.
edit on 08amFri, 08 Nov 2013 09:01:43 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Not at all- because nobody is being forced. It is a choice to open up to do business with the public- if you don't want anything to do with the general public, don't base your livelihood on serving them. Move to a small town where almost everyone is like you and take a job as a night watchman- the only person you'll ever have to tolerate at all will be the news paper delivery driver, and he's usually on drugs so if he ever gets on your nerves just threaten to call the police and he'll leave without finishing his deliveries. Trust me when I tell you, it's the perfect niche for a bitter anti-social conservative- I would know because I'm a recovering one of those myself (yeah I know I've come a long way).

But once you decide to take responsibility for providing one of society's needs in exchange to receive the economic privilege of a bigger stake in society- which is morally what you are doing by operating a business, you have an agreement with everyone else in this economy to live up to.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
PS The thing about the photographer is understandable, but once again I think the clear divider is the difference between a state of being and an action.

I think the point here is that any person should be able to receive equal treatment in public establishments- if nobody can perform lewd acts in the photography studio but everyone can have "G" rated pictures taken, that's perfectly fair.

When something unequal is introduced (a vendor's decision to go or not to go to a unique client location for example) that throws off the analogy- the photographer doesn't have to go anywhere they don't feel comfortable, Jay-Z doesn't have to perform at a Klan rally as we covered- that's not unequal treatment, that's unequal circumstances and it's fair for someone to make that choice.

But when it's equal circumstances in an equal location (like handing flowers across the same counter you always do, to a person who is behaving like everyone else behaves in your store) then everyone should receive equal treatment.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I remember growing up in the 70's where damn near every business had storefront signs that said: "No shirt, no shoes, no service".

It was their way of saying: "No hippies allowed".


Gosh golly gee... if only the world were full of nothing but the Cleavers...





posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


So I guess you would be fine if the westboro guys started attempting to hire known gay musicians to write hateful theme songs for them, then sue them for not wanting to do the job? Or known gay graphics designers to design new hateful websites for them and suing them for not wanting to take the job? Or muslim video designers to do a bacon commercial?

People that never have, and probably never will own a business don't understand a thing about running one. I take a job for some neonazi scum, word gets out, no jew will want to hire me. The flower lady starts doing gay weddings, she might just lose a whole lot of christian customers, and for all you know that might be where 90% of her business comes from. Chucky cheese lets a convicted rapist rent out the place, there goes their customer base, parents.

That is just the business side. Then there is the whole morality side. I would not feel good about doing a job for a racist scumbag, so I just will not do it. Even if it meant a boom in business. I am a human before I am a businessman.

People should be allowed to decide who they do and do not associate their services with. So much for a free country.... I will never do a job for someone I do not want to do a job for. I will never work for someone I find personally offensive. No amount of BS legislation will ever force me to.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


You are repeating yourself. We've already covered the differences that are created when the activity or the venue is qualitatively different from normal for either. I'm not going to keep explaining why apples aren't oranges.

As for your assertion that I must have a large capital investment to know something about balancing my own rights against those of others in normal daily interactions with a diverse society... well your logic is clearly iron clad- for every hundred thousand dollars a person has access to, he has 10% more understanding of sociology. Are you up the 100% yet moneybags?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Apparently you don't understand at all. The only difference is no one bats an eye at certain discrimination, especially if it is discrimination they would also participate in.

A hall owner should absolutely be able to refuse to rent out their space for a gay wedding, if they feel gay weddings are repugnant. A hall owner absolutely should be able to refuse to rent out there space to a NAMBLA convention, if they feel NAMBLA conventions are repugnant. A florist should absolutely be able to refuse to supply flowers for a gay wedding, if she doesn't support gay weddings. A florist should absolutely be able to refuse to supply flowers for Phelp's funeral as well.

Just because a person owns a business, does not mean they should have to check their personal moral compass and feelings at the door. That is a ridiculous expectation. A business does not do business with "the public", they do business with individuals and or organizations they choose to do business with.




edit on Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:13:27 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Apparently you don't understand at all. The only difference is no one bats an eye at certain discrimination, especially if it is discrimination they would also participate in.


And that makes it OK? Which one of us really doesn't understand?

I've already explained how a NAMBLA convention is substantively a different activity from normal business where as handing flowers over a counter is not. You are wrong. Most of the world used to think you were right, but most of the world grew in their understanding to the point that the laws are now exactly the opposite of what they once were, and we aren't going backwards because a few conservatives think they are unique and special snowflakes.

edit on Fri 8 Nov 2013 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Quite. A photographer should clearly not have to photograph, say, a sexual act if they don't want to, even if it's legal. But that's a reasonable personal choice and the act they don't want to deal with is a direct part of the interaction.

Gay people buying a carton of milk, OTOH - that interaction doesn't involve gay sex, or even any homosexual overtone at all. So people shouldn't really object to doing it if they aren't total morons.

And shops aren't private in the same sense as, for example, a house anyway. Obviously they are private businesses but they are part of the public and social landscape. It's reasonable to expect them to fall in with certain societal mores.

Would people accept it if McDonalds refused to serve Asian people as a blanket policy? Or Walmart stopped letting catholics shop there? No, because despite them being 'private' they are considered part of the public space and they have certain responsibilities.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Once upon a time, I'd have been flailing my arms over something like this, complaining about how unfair it is to the dejected, rejected patrons. However, the older I get, the more I realize that hey, wait a goddamn minute. I thought forcing people to do things against their will was wrong? Isn't making the unwilling comply pretty unfair?
NOBODY forces someone to waltz into a business and hand their money over, they choose to do that themselves. If the owner decides they don't want their money, for whatever reason, so be it. If they want to keep their client base small & selective, that's up to them, not you or me. Forcing them to accept business from patrons they don't want pretty much goes completely against freedom of choice, doesn't it? I think some front signage disclosure is certainly warranted if someone wants to get picky about who they do business with so people know to keep on walkin', but I don't particularly think it warrants much else. If you don't like the practices, don't go there. Simple as that.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


If you are in the business of renting out halls, you should be able to pick and choose who you rent your halls to, but flourists cannot pick and choose who they sell flowers to? Who gets to draw the line at which businesses should be able to have a choice in who they do business with, and who doesn't?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

JuniorDisco
Would people accept it if McDonalds refused to serve Asian people as a blanket policy? Or Walmart stopped letting catholics shop there? No, because despite them being 'private' they are considered part of the public space and they have certain responsibilities.

There's a benefit to this that people are missing, too. If these big companies had a policy of not doing business with Group XYZ, there would be a boon for other businesses who would accept them. If Target decided not to let in Middle Easterners, another business would, and they would be doing pretty swell at the till. Everything tends to balance itself out in the business world. Where one venue falls short, another pops up to fill that roll.

And to be honest, would anyone really miss Hellmart if they started refusing certain people and tanked for it?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyiah
 


Except the perfect competition that ideologues like those advocating total absence of regulation above seem to envisage doesn't really exist.

Sure, if you live in London or Los Angeles it wouldn't matter too much if a big chain closed you out (it would be hurtful and insulting though).

But if you live in a town where there is only one supermarket you're kind of screwed.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join