"A retired Grand Forks couple who would not allow two gay men to stay in their bed and breakfast has to pay the men more than $4,500, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
Les and Susan Molnar, who owned the now-closed River-bed Bed and Breakfast, held "sincere religious beliefs" opposing same-sex relation-ships when they cancelled reservations for Shaun Eadie and Brian Thomas in July 2009 after learning the couple was gay, tribunal member Enid Marion said in a decision this week.
The Molnars argued they had merely banned Eadie and Thomas from their home, where they conduct prayer meetings and feel responsible for the behaviour of any guests."
Well, for once it was the right decision and nothing to do with property rights. They were running a bed & breakfast business, not receiving this gay couple as (unpaid) guests in their private home, so this was discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the defense is BS. No different to a case of people being thrown out of a restaurant, bus, train, plane or shop for being gay.
"No different to a case of people being thrown out of a restaurant, bus, train, plane or shop for being gay. "
Of those, only buses are .gov
You have a different definition of property rights than I do. (yay Rand Paul!
There are plenty of private bus companies, but that's not the point. The point is, if you run a business, you can't discriminate against customers on the basis of age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation. It's illegal. Kicking people out for being gay is no different in this respect to kicking people out for being black (or white for that matter).
The idea that you can run a BUSINESS but still discriminate because your place of business is your property is ridiculous.
There are plenty of unjustified lawsuits from people out for money or publicity, but this gay couple was well within their rights.
"The point is, if you run a business, you can't discriminate against customers on the basis of age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation. It's illegal."
Laws never are passed despite violating our rights? I disagree. This is a perfect example.
"Kicking people out for being gay is no different in this respect to kicking people out for being black (or white for that matter)."
Every business owner has the right (admittedly, current law does not respect this right) to deny service to anyone, at anytime, for any reason. That's what property rights mean. Again, yay Rand Paul!
"The idea that you can run a BUSINESS but still discriminate because your place of business is your property is ridiculous. "
Feel free to ridicule. It doesn't change the fact that Property Rights entail control of your property.
IRB, your argument lacks one major theme. Business are licensed, therefore they are registered in the "public domain", as such any business has to adhere to social standards and laws governing said business. Meaning if you perform transaction in public, you do not fall under private property category.
Well, would you be happy with people being discriminated against because of their skin colour? If you went to a shop and the shop owner said "Get out of here, you are white/black/oriental", would you think he was within his property rights? Would you then meekly go away? Or if you are denied water in a hotel because the owner is a Muslim and it's Ramadan, so he is not allowing you to drink, because it contradicts his religious beliefs, you think he is within his "property rights" rather than being a nut case?
I think it's STUPID to run a business and openly break laws, anti-discrimination laws in this case. And it's stupid to then come up with BS about how it was "your place of worship" and other BS like this.
If this couple didn't like the laws, they could have campaigned to repeal anti-discrimination laws, stopped running their business if they can't stand gay customers, or obeyed the law and got on with it. They did none of this, but carried on as if laws didn't apply to them, and then came up with idiotic arguments in court. They were lucky the award was very modest.
The situation would be quite different, if the gay couple were their private guests, in their own private home, rather than in a place of business
Tyberious - I'm not confused by the laws. I disagree with them.
QE - "If you went to a shop and the shop owner said "Get out of here, you are white/black/oriental", would you think he was within his property rights? Would you then meekly go away? Or if you are denied water in a hotel because the owner is a Muslim and it's Ramadan, so he is not allowing you to drink, because it contradicts his religious beliefs, you think he is within his "property rights" rather than being a nut case?"
Yes. Yes. Yes. And No. Terrible businessman, though.
Which laws? There are ton of them that I disagree with, they most have to do with personal freedom, not those that protect others!
Freedom of Association IS personal freedom.
you dont understand that a business license, requires certain responsibilities. Freedom and choice, means having the freedom that if you can not or dont want to engage with certain folks, then you have a choice to not have an enterprise where you may come in contact. Simple.
Freedom of Association, is valid argument, if you completely remove morals and ethics from our society. Otherwise, in the context in which you present it Jefferson would oppose.
You mean George Jefferson? I'm sure you're right.
Thomas Jefferson, well, perhaps you ought to look into that fella's view of Property. I'm not advocating that.
You guys seem intent on believing that I'm misunderstanding some distinction. I'm not.
Believe it or not, here I am, in 2012 and still standing, saying that a business owner can tell me to leave his establishment for any reason of his choice. A home seller should also have unimpeded decision making with regard whether to sell to me or not. Up to and including honoring any community restrictive covenants he may have signed specifically to keep out people like me.
Yeah, QE, property rights are so 18th century! /sarc off/
Is there something in the water here tonight? I don't recognize half these people
Freedom and choice, means having the freedom that if you can not or dont want to engage with certain folks, then you have a choice to not have an enterprise where you may come in contact. Simple.
I am trying to make the same point, but obviously not getting through. There are cases where people are being punished for choices made in their PRIVATE lives, such as somebody reported to police for looking for a Christian roommate (she put an ad on a Christian notice board, I believe). However, the case of pig-headed business owners who thought the law banning anti-gay discrimination didn't apply to them, is not in that category. They were punished for being morons.
Who is George Jefferson?
As a Jeffersonian libertarian and true conservative, I would say theres not much about the man, his views and his writings that I do not know! I was raised in VA. In regards to him owning slaves, he drafted legislation for the abolition of slavery before 1800.
Anyway, for now we live in a Republic, with supposedly free and fair elections. And on a micro scale I guess our disagreement about who can do what to whom, is trivial, as most things are. It is much easier to identify those things the separate us as opposed to the commonalties we share as humans. But, hey its your world and you are entitled to you own thoughts and opinions.
And imagine my surprise when he took my side!
He thinks he should hire who HE wants to for HIS business!
Yay George Jefferson!
Also, TY Tyberious/QE for the civil discussion on the topic. Refreshing. I'm not sure why people think dialog like this is 'fighting'...
Rights versus Privilege. Many of you, your logic is not just twisted, it's stunted. Freedom to not have an enterprise/business? Give me a break. There was a time where Rights were God-given and privileges were something conferred. If I have the Right to Life, I obviously have the right to sustain life - the right to engage in commerce and economy to sustain life. The freedom and choice is not whether or not to HAVE a business it is the freedom and choice to run it as I see fit, and live and die with the consequences.
That's how it used to be, but not now. Are things better now? Maybe for that gay couple, but not for the business owner who is shackled more and more with being told HOW he must live. And if you don't think a business is NOT part of a person's life, you are gravely mistaken.
Is this not the whole point of Atlas Shrugged (which I assume we all know here)? If the state insists on telling the producers who they must produce, then they are slaves. And the day always comes when the slaves revolt. Society is no worse off if the producers are allowed to set their own rules. I'm sure there are as many gay-friendly B&Bs as those like the one closed. But if you insist that a business owner is forced to transact in a certain way, then you have just empowered the statists and the elites that much more.
Hope you sleep well with that thought.
All businesses are regulated and most business hate regulation, not matter what. But the right to engage in commerce is not abridge, simply do not get a business license. I know several people that drive with out a license or insurance for that matter, on principal, and are not subject to the applicable laws. And I have friends at the farmers market, that only transact in cash and provide no receipt, they come and go and do as they are pleased. The right to engage in commerce can only be executed if that right does not infringe on others rights, sorry.
FREEDOM is the ability to choose your poison. FREEDOM means NO government involvement in your decisions. Right or wrong.
I personally have no problem with the gay lifestyle. I think they should be able to get married and gain access to marital benefits that society bestows (spousal medical care for example). BUT in the interest of freedom, the owner of a bed and breakfast has the right to be free and make the decision that they do not want to extend their business relationship with gays (or blacks, or muslims or one eyed sloths). That's FREEDOM, freedom from government interference, freedom to choose based on one's own personal beliefs. Whether government considers their choice right or not. It's not my right or governments right, to impose beliefs on another. Even if my beliefs are 'wrong', 'childish', 'uninformed', biased or bigoted. It's my business, I built it and I have to live with my own dumb decisions.
What's the difference between withholding service from a gay couple, and refusing to do business with me because I cursed at them one time? NONE. It's the owners subjective decision and that should be inviolate.
All this crap came about because of the discrimination of the Jim Crow laws. Where separate facilities for different races was deemed unequal and unamerican. Since then the all knowing government put themselves between the private individual and any public dealings he may have. The camel's nose entered the tent of private business. THAT"S NOT FREEDOM of individual choice. It's bondage to government edicts. People should be free to make dumb decisions, to conduct business with whomever they choose, because over time the dumbest decisions on how a private entity needs to respond to customers will eventually come from government as total control, eventually controls all, and all freedoms are eventually lost. Because government knows best.
Let me live my life as I see fit, not as you demand me to live.
The right to engage in commerce can only be executed if that right does not infringe on others rights, sorry.
Does a gay couple have the right to sleep in my business? If I have the right to a business, then isn't it my right to confer the privilege of sleeping in my establishment or withholding it? Both cannot have a right here. If one is sovereign, the other must be submissive.
I choose a society that favors the property holder.
These are all valid arguments and I make not attempt to change anyone's view point, but there is an implied social contract when you apply or receive your business license. I mean I have seen signs that say no shoes, no shirt no service, so there are obviously community or business standards that can be applied.
Freedom of Association IS personal freedom. - Video got left out of first post:
I thought the exchange above was interesting.
In light of the considerable bulk and cost of our Federal Government, I thought it worth taking a look at how much LESS of it we could have, were it not for social engineering and interference with Property Rights.
I hope everyone feels welcome to continue the discussion.
Recently, the topic of property rights was discussed. I still maintain that vast swaths of our government, on every level, exist solely for the purpose of interfering with Property Rights (as well as the Right to Free Association). I set up a forum here https://www.tfmetalsreport.com/forum/4037/property-rights with that discussion.
This case of two competing propositions to regulate and enforce smoking laws in bars is another example. Both of the sides of the argument involve lawyers, bureaucrats, judges, and police to dictate terms of business against the will of business owners.
What the hell happened to the idea that it only takes one person to make that decision? The proprietor.
Smoke-Free Arizona Prop 201 supporters say:
The Department of Heath Services enforces the law and monitors compliance. Fines range up to $300 for individuals, and for a business, up to $500 for a single offense and up to $5,000 for repeated offenses. Many local ordinances - even ones that permit smoking indoors - have more teeth than the tobacco company-funded proposal, said Michelle Pabis, the Arizona government relations director for the American Cancer Society, which backs 201.
The Non-Smoker Protection Act, Proposition 206, is "vague" and has "loopholes," she said. While there is a penalty for bar owners who violate the act, there are no penalties for other types of business owners, she said.
Non-Smoker Protection Act Prop 206 supporters say:
It's tougher than Smoke-Free Arizona because it penalizes parents or business owners who bring children into the smoking section of a business.
A bar owner who allows smoking in an area where smoking isn't allowed would be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, said Steven Duffy, an attorney who represents Arizona Licensed Beverage Association. A person guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor could be fined up to $500 and sentenced to 30 days in jail. A business guilty of such a crime could be fined up to $2,000, he said.
It's likely that local law enforcement officials would enforce the act, he said.
Trust me, they don't exist.
If your local government declares an emergency the back hoes will be driving across your yard. Google Manitoba flooding and dykes (also check out flood compensation claims). The people on Lake Manitoba were flooded out by the government (who diverted water to save the city of Winnipeg). This wasn't natural flooding (that water should be in Lake Winnipeg via the Red River) but the direct result of man made decisions and actions.
Once the state of emergency is in effect you lose any semblance of property rights. People are now left with huge dykes on private property (for example in your strawberry fields) while others had their homes or cottages destroyed by flooding. Bully for you if your property wasn't your primary residence as the government excluded your property from any claims of compensation (not that anyone has been compensated).
This is beyond any business decision about a Bed and Breakfast.
Private property rights are an illusion. Try not paying your taxes for a while and see what happens to your "private property". (Disclaimer: don't actually do this, trust me it won't work out well)