Property Rights
No Property Rights!
Submitted by I Run Bartertown on July 20, 2012 - 7:47pm. Hat Tip!2"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."
------------------------------------------
Re: No Property Rights!
Submitted by QE to infinity on July 20, 2012 - 8:00pm. Hat Tip!8Well, 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.
----------------------------------
QE to infinity
Submitted by I Run Bartertown on July 20, 2012 - 8:03pm. Hat Tip!3"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!
-----------------------------------
@IRB
Submitted by QE to infinity on July 20, 2012 - 8:12pm. Hat Tip!9There 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.
------------------
QE to infinity
Submitted by I Run Bartertown on July 20, 2012 - 8:17pm. Hat Tip!2"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.
---------------------
I perfer critique
Submitted by tyberious on July 20, 2012 - 8:35pm. Hat Tip!3IRB, 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.
--------------------------
@IRB
Submitted by QE to infinity on July 20, 2012 - 8:36pm. Hat Tip!4Well, 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/ QE
Submitted by I Run Bartertown on July 20, 2012 - 8:40pm. Hat Tip!1Tyberious - 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.
-------------
hummm
Submitted by tyberious on July 20, 2012 - 8:48pm. Hat Tip!0Which laws? There are ton of them that I disagree with, they most have to do with personal freedom, not those that protect others!
-----------------
Tyberious
Submitted by I Run Bartertown on July 20, 2012 - 8:50pm. Hat Tip!1Freedom of Association IS personal freedom.
--------------
