this should open an interesting can of worms

[BlaqueKatt]

Story here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1095583/Blind-man-turned-away-Indian-restaurant-owner-says-guide-dog-Muslim-beliefs.html?ITO=1490)

A blind man was turned away from an Indian restaurant - because the owner said it was against his Muslim beliefs to allow dogs into his establishment.

the man even showed his permit for the service animal stating he could not be turned away-the restaurant owner threatened to call the police.

So given the recent threads on here regarding service animals, and "accepting other cultures" this should get interesting-discuss....

[Greenday]

Seeing-eyed dogs are among the quietest, calmest, best behaved dogs out there. The dog is not in the kitchen. The dog did no wrong. To kick him out because he is blind and can't walk around without help is a load of crap and the owner can suck a huge one when he is in court and gets owned by the justice system.

[Slytovhand]

Havent' read story (so shoot me now...), but I would have to go with the restaurant.

While I'm definitely one to get really angsty against religions in general, when it comes down to merely a choice in something (as against a law or enforcing your beliefs on someone unwillingly), then I think you stand your ground.

If he allowed the dog in the restaurant, he wouldn't be true to his beliefs - and I think everyone should remain true their beliefs (... as long as they agree with mine :D). I get annoyed when someone berates a believer for a particular belief made public - regardless of what it is (ok, so some beliefs aren't 'popular'.. big whoop! You're still allowed to believe it if it's part of your religion... do we get up the nose of those forbidden to eat pork???)

Back to the specifics, what if a customer was Christian, and objected to Halal meats??? Now how would people view this thread?

[linguist]

normally, i'd err toward freedom of religious practice, but in this case the restaurant was completely in the wrong. if one operates a business open to the public, one must be compliant with all applicable laws, whether you agree with them or not. slyt's example of a christian objecting to halal meats doesn't hold, as there are no laws (that i'm aware of) that force a halal restaurant owner to make accomodations for non-halal customers in the foods they serve, however there are laws (in the u.s., at least, and the u.k. too if i read the article correctly) that state that all businesses open to the public must make accomodations for the disabled, including allowing licensed service animals on premises.

[Slytovhand]

Linguist, I'm not actually debating on legal grounds here. And I think that's why BK posted in the first place - 2 types of discrimination facing up to one another. Should be interesting... especially in the courts. I wonder how it will pan out if the restaurant gets told it's in the wrong, how the Muslim community will react.

So - if we bypass the legalities of the case (unless we've got some professional UK lawyers on the threads...), what are people's opinions. Linguist, if I read you right, you'd favour the restaurant - yes??

[Greenday]

Back to the specifics, what if a customer was Christian, and objected to Halal meats??? Now how would people view this thread?

Then I'd have to ask why he chose THAT restaurant knowing what they serve? Blindness is a disability. A restaurant is not a place of religion, it is a place for food. If it was a religious place, I could understand, but it's not, so I don't.

[linguist]

Linguist, if I read you right, you'd favour the restaurant - yes??

not in this case. as i said, normally i'm in favor of freedom of religious practice in a private setting. if the owner had not allowed the man to come into his home or other such private establishment (and by private i mean restricted access, such as a members only club, not privately owned), i'd support him in that even though i personally don't agree with it. in this case though, the restaurant owner made a choice to operate a business and open it to the public. in doing so he agreed to follow all applicable laws, not just those that fit his beliefs.

[Slytovhand]

Greenday, he didn't. It was a friend's birthday. It reminds me of a time I went to a Chinese restaurant for a birthday with a couple of vegetarians, and they had crap all vegetarian on the menu (read, maybe 1...) and got the 'just pick out the meat' crap... grrrrr. (the chef 'relented'... but still...).

Linguist - Oh, ok.

[Pedersen]

Hmmm, some beliefs from various religions that are viewed with disfavor, and even actively held as illegal here in the US (at least partially, some of these are not uniformly illegal):


Mormon Fundamentalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_fundamentalism) believe that polygamy is acceptable.
The Catholic Church (http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp) denounces homosexuality, as does Fred Phelps (http://www.godhatesfags.com/).
Various Christian groups (http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/nuremberg/aborts.html) will go so far as to advocate nothing less than terrorism on people practicing legal professions.


Each of those items is, in varying degrees, illegal here in the US. In other words, we have gone to the point of saying "Your religious beliefs are irrelevant when they are being used to allow or advocate harm to another."

Legalities aside, being a moral person involves doing as little harm to others as possible. In this case, the man who was ejected faces a real possibility of harm: He requires aid to get around. The only aid he can rely on is his guide dog. If one place is allowed to eject him based on religious beliefs, then any place can reject him using those same claims. He faces potential ostracism for no other reason than the source of his aid to get around.

The restaurant owner should be ashamed of himself for allowing this to occur. His actions are illegal, and immoral.

[Slytovhand]

Ah Pedersen, I just know you're waiting for someone to come along and point out the glaringly obvious hole in your argument, yes??? I'm sure you left it there deliberately so that someone can point it out, and keep the discussion going....:D

[Pedersen]

I do know of at least one hole in there, I'll admit it. But I'm not so sure it's a relevant one. If it was, I rather doubt you'd have left it alone :)

[Slytovhand]

well, I didn't think the analogies were relevant too much. After all, if same-sex marriages become legal in various states, and a couple decides to ask a Catholic priest to do the honours and refuses - is that relevantly similar?? The majority of our laws are based on religious tenets.

No, the hole was that the gentleman in question wasn't refused service for being blind, he was refused service because he wouldn't take his dog outside - that's the actual hole in the argument. And I think it is relevant. After all, you suggest that having the god (oops, sorry, I mean 'dog' :p) was the only means for him to get around. Grossly untrue and inaccurate.

But, the line I'm in general going for is - should a person (or business) give up it's religious beliefs for those who don't fit into them? After all, when it comes to religion, we are talking about a person's immortal soul, and thus, earthly law should take a backseat when it doesn't involve 'harm' to another person. 'Harm' takes on specific meanings, naturally, but usually doesn't involve 'inconvenience' nor 'embarrassment'.

(btw - I'm seeing the other side, not necessarily advocating a stance...)

[Pedersen]

No, the hole was that the gentleman in question wasn't refused service for being blind, he was refused service because he wouldn't take his dog outside - that's the actual hole in the argument. And I think it is relevant. After all, you suggest that having the god (oops, sorry, I mean 'dog' :p) was the only means for him to get around. Grossly untrue and inaccurate.

Well, if you'd like to be ornery about it, let me be ornery right back. Is the guide dog the only way for this man to get around? No, of course not. By the same token, is Islam the only way for this shop owner to save his immortal soul? If so, then I can think of a few other people who have some rude awakenings coming (Christians, Buddhists, Hebrews, Taoists, to name a few).

Just as the blind man is able to find a different means of getting around, so is the Muslim able to choose a different means to save his immortal soul. And for each of them, the change is roughly as dramatic and traumatic.

But, the line I'm in general going for is - should a person (or business) give up it's religious beliefs for those who don't fit into them? After all, when it comes to religion, we are talking about a person's immortal soul, and thus, earthly law should take a backseat when it doesn't involve 'harm' to another person. 'Harm' takes on specific meanings, naturally, but usually doesn't involve 'inconvenience' nor 'embarrassment'.

(btw - I'm seeing the other side, not necessarily advocating a stance...)

The point I am trying to make, though not necessarily well, is that the blind man's choices are limited. We live in a world that relies heavily on sight. In order for him to get around, his choices are, pretty much, as follows:


Exceptional hardship. No assistance. No person, no assisting animal, just a cane, and counting steps.
A constantly available person whose primary function is to take this person around. Without that, the blind man is unable to move about freely, and is entirely dependent on someone else.
A guide animal of some variety.


Not being blind, there may be options that I have missed. I am unable to conceive of them, though.

Now, option 1 is not fair. As a civilized society, we need to try to level the playing field. No, life itself is not fair. That does not mean we should not try to make things better. Option 1 makes hardship where none is required, and thus does harm.

Option 2 is not fair, either, as it makes someone else subservient to the whims of another. It removes the hardship for one, and places it on another. Furthermore, if the blind person has any conscience, he will feel guilty at being such a burden for someone. One person subservient, one person with a heavy conscience? This is counted as doing harm in my book.

Option 3 allows someone to give a home to an animal that, otherwise, might not have one. The animal gets the benefits of living with someone who is wholly dependent on the animal, which means that it will get better than average treatment, and certainly have a better life than if it were struggling for scraps on the street. Furthermore, the person gains back a strong measure of their freedom. Not all of it, but definitely a significant piece of it. This option actually manages to do significantly more good than harm.

As such, as a civilized society, we absolutely should step up and say "Your religion may well tell you that this is wrong. If so, your religion advocates harming another, and therefore your religion itself is wrong. Find a way to make it work, or get another religion. At least you have a real choice in the matter, unlike the blind man whom you are harming."

As I said, allowing this man to cite religious beliefs as a reason for discrimination allows others to do the same. And that is why my analogies were wholly appropriate. We already tell people, as a society, that their religion is wrong and they must therefore change it. We already back this up by force of law.

We do this because allowing one person to harm another in the name of religion is wrong.

This is one of those very rare instances where what's legally right is also what's morally right.

[Greenday]

Greenday, he didn't. It was a friend's birthday. It reminds me of a time I went to a Chinese restaurant for a birthday with a couple of vegetarians, and they had crap all vegetarian on the menu (read, maybe 1...) and got the 'just pick out the meat' crap... grrrrr. (the chef 'relented'... but still...).

I was responding to your hypothetical situation. I know the person in question in the original situation didn't choose the place. I just don't think the hypothetical situation your proposed was similar at all to the situation at hand.

As Pedersen said, the blind guy did not choose his situation. The owner of the restaurant did. He chose to open a PUBLIC place, therefore he should have to follow all anti-discrimination laws, and whether he's kicking the guy out because he's blind or he's kicking out the guy because of the dog, no matter which reason the owner uses, he's being kicked out as a result of his blindness.

[Slytovhand]

Now you're just being confrontational..:D

To a Muslim, following the will of Allah via the dictates of Mohommad is the only way to save one's immortal soul.

No-one is saying this person shouldn't have lifelong access to one's means to help get on in life. The restaurant owner at no time said that people shouldn't have their life made easier on them. And the owner in no way is making this person's life more harm-filled.

Your 3 choices here have little to do with the OP. Your argument is suggesting that the owner is demanding that the customer change his entire way of life to accomodate that one instance. Obviously, that's completely false.

What is happening is that the owners are saying "In my place of business, dogs - any dogs - are not allowed inside". End of story! We already have laws (well, down here, at any rate) that say the business has the right to refuse service.

If you were to come to my bar with a person who has already been banned for fighting, and I refuse to serve you because you insist on bringing your friend in (because he's paying), are you going to scream the same arguments? Sure, that's a choice of yours. Blindness is not. Now tell me, what is the dog going to do for the customer while inside the restaurant? Anything that any other person in the party was unable to do for 5 minutes (contrary to your Option 2 analogy). 5 minutes is not 'constantly', thus the analogy fails (Fallacy of Composition). So, where's the 'trauma' and 'drama' connected with that? Does he always take his dog with him, no matter where he goes? Or, does his cane come in handy from time to time??

Now - your 'examples' of analogy - #3 is clearly harmful to people (I presume no argument there??). #2 is already on the books (so to say). Homosexuality was illegal. Now, same-sex marriages still are in many places. And, it is unlikely that the Catholic church (or any other that opposes it) is likely to be effectively sued for not marrying same-sex couples - that's a choice. #1 is only a matter of time - after all, it is accpetable in some countries, and people on this forum have argued that it also is a life choice that the government should stay out of our private lives - again, no harm is done (well - different thread :p).


My question basically comes down to the same argument I presented on the eHarmony thread - surely we are allowed to conduct business based on choice - choices which may not accomodate or cater to everybody.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, Greenday, I'm not saying the same situation applies with my recall - just mentioning that I recalled it, and there are some similarities, tis all....

Yes, said owner has to abide by the laws of the land (if you wish to not get in trouble with the law enforcers). But, are the anti-discrimination laws black and white? Or is there room for grey? And in this case, I see a case for both to scream anti-discrimination - so whose takes precedence? I know it's damn easy to side on the non-religious when you don't happen to agree with it.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I vote with the blind guy. This reminds me of those cases where these jackasses try to deny women their birth control prescriptions based on "religious conscience." In this case the shopkeeper might well truly BE religious, but public place + Seeing Eye dogs allowed by law = no basis for discrimination, IMO.

[Pedersen]

(btw - I'm seeing the other side, not necessarily advocating a stance...)

Now you're just being confrontational..:D

Hi Pot. I'm Kettle. Now, what's this about me being all black? :)

To a Muslim, following the will of Allah via the dictates of Mohommad is the only way to save one's immortal soul.

Being all kinds of nitpicky, but nothing is forcing him to remain so. He has chosen a religion that has a belief that, if universally imposed, would bring harm to a segment of society. Not for 5 minutes. Not for a day. For their entire lives. His choices can change. The people being harmed by his choices don't get to change.

And therein lies the crux of the issue for me: By allowing one man to claim "My religion forbids me to allow you to do this," we allow anybody to use that argument. All they have to do is show how their religion requires them to discriminate.

For example, Genesis 3:16 states that man shall rule over women ( http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/3.html#16 ). Now, there is no requirement for a Christian to accept orders from a woman.

Another one: Exodus 20:3 states "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Any good Christian can now harass any non-Christian because they don't worship the correct god.

Another one: Exodus 22:18 states "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." This one calls for outright murder of any who can be proven to practice witchcraft. How many pagans would this person be allowed to kill?

I haven't touched on the intolerances in other religions. It's not necessary to make the point, I don't think. As soon as we allow people to start excluding others exclusively on the basis of "God told me to tell you to fuck off," we might as well forget about either having morality or the rule of law to protect people.

Religion has been used to justify more and greater atrocities than anything else in the history of the world. Allowing this man the right to say "Your laws discriminate against me, and therefore I do not have to follow them" is tantamount to simply tossing out every shred of civilization.

What he did was wrong. No grey about it. He excluded someone else on the basis of something that was out of that man's control.

Oh, and another thing: Telling him he could tie up the dog outside? It's December, in England. It's cold outside. The dog would have to brave the elements, and the owner would have to take the risk of the dog being stolen. And this would not have been for five minutes. This was a birthday party at a restaurant. Have you ever seen a birthday party at a restaurant go for less than an hour? The risks were real.

And the owner in no way is making this person's life more harm-filled.

Incorrect. He is actively following a religion that requires him to exclude others. Furthermore, he is putting himself in a position that makes it possible for him to do so. In so doing, he is also requiring any of his staff to follow his example. He is, therefore, actively requiring that others follow his same beliefs.

He is causing harm, and coercing others to cause harm. His religion, and his choices, will ostracize an entire segment of the population. This is reprehensible behavior.

Your argument is suggesting that the owner is demanding that the customer change his entire way of life to accomodate that one instance. Obviously, that's completely false.

If that were what I was suggesting, I'd agree that my premise is false. It's not.

The owner is ostracizing others for things that are outside of their control, and not giving them ways to rejoin society in a meaningful way.

If you were to come to my bar with a person who has already been banned for fighting, and I refuse to serve you because you insist on bringing your friend in (because he's paying), are you going to scream the same arguments? Sure, that's a choice of yours.

Oh, I can scream that all I want, but I'll be wrong then. The difference between them is the basis for the refusal to provide service. In your example, we have a known disruptive influence that has been banned for a specific business reason that was disrupting services being offered.

The blind man is being kicked out because god said so. The invisible friend won't stand up for you in court, so he doesn't get to say who can come into your public place of business.

Blindness is not. Now tell me, what is the dog going to do for the customer while inside the restaurant?

Irrelevant to the issue. That only matters after accepting the initial premise that their is a valid reason to keep the dog out. Since I don't accept that, this point simply doesn't matter.

My question basically comes down to the same argument I presented on the eHarmony thread - surely we are allowed to conduct business based on choice - choices which may not accomodate or cater to everybody.

Ah, if you would like to discuss this issue in those terms, let's do so: This restaurant owner's target market appears to be "The members of the public who do not require service animals to function normally."

Not quite the same as the eHarmony case, now is it? I mean, after all, at least there the argument could be made that their software couldn't accommodate the homosexual community. Here, making the accommodation is not a material burden on the restaurant owner.

The restaurant owner is quite definitely in the wrong. I'd say you are, too, except you haven't taken a side yet. You're just arguing to be ... what's the word you used? Oh, yeah: confrontational :D

Something I find rather interesting from the article: The owner himself did not confirm his religious beliefs to the reporter: the brother of the owner did that.

The owner's religious beliefs are so important to him that he will kick someone out, threaten to call the police, but will not even stand up and admit to them for the reporter. That says a lot about the owner, actually.

BTW, I realize this came off rather vitriolic. I do apologize. This owner set me off, though. I don't even know why, since this sort of thing shouldn't get me so riled up. But he did. And I find myself hoping that he either publicly apologizes or loses his business over this. He was in the wrong, and needs to admit it or have consequences.

[Slytovhand]

Hi Kettle. Are you Ma or Pa?? :p

BTW, I realize this came off rather vitriolic. I do apologize. This owner set me off, though. I don't even know why, since this sort of thing shouldn't get me so riled up.

Meh, Don't worry about it. I think we both like to stir the pot a bit from time to time. That's what makes us both valid targets to each other :D (oh, that and when we do lock horns in a nice logical straight-forward way). I am curious, though... what has gotten you riled up??

Yes, I certainly do think there should be a consequence by losing business over it.

Amethyst's point does come into it though - do people unable to get contraceptives have the right to scream discrimination, and then sue for it?

Although you (Ped) haven't actually gone too much into how intolerant religion is, the point will be made that it does already do as you have suggested - discriminates against people. Some things now have laws saying you can't, others don't. Just depends on who's in control, and where. After all, you go to Islamic countries, you'll start to feel the heat.

Originally Posted by Slytovhand View Post
Your argument is suggesting that the owner is demanding that the customer change his entire way of life to accomodate that one instance. Obviously, that's completely false.
If that were what I was suggesting, I'd agree that my premise is false. It's not.

Ah, that'd be the: "Find a way to make it work, or get another religion" that I was referring to.

and not giving them ways to rejoin society in a meaningful way Poppycock! Confusing 'a restaurant for a couple of hours' with 'society'???? Bah - humbug!

The restaurant's target market is: people who want to eat Indian food, as prepared and following Islamic tradition. I still think the eHarmony connection runs true - the only significant difference being that with the eHarmony situation, the individual wasn't put in a situation of having to deal with the issue, while the customer in the restaurant was.. he was right there, and asked to leave. He was put on the spot, and an ultimatum (and threat - that of ringing the police) was given. Also, in said article, I don't recall reading anything about the police response....

Would the same case be made if the birthday organisers had enquired of the restaurant first, and then be told no dogs inside?

A couple of things that I do agree with here - December in UK (didn't notice that bit at first). Stupid to say dog has to go outside....

Secondly (and hasn't been mentioned here yet...), if they have the problem with the dog and the religion, surely they should also be following all other laws/traditions of Islam? Wouldn't that mean the women would have to change their behaviour? And how you eat (IIRC - no using the left 'unclean' hand??) etc etc. Bit of hypocrisy there! I didn't get that he refused to confirm his religion with the reporter, though. I figure that's just misinterpretation or misunderstanding...

Btw, I'm thinking my 'side' is..... in the middle! On one hand, I believe that people have the right to follow their religion/beliefs of choice, and have the right to discriminate on their own property - even if it's extremely exclusive. That's a part of the society we live in, and it's called 'diversity'. Also, it's 'tolerance'. All religions and beliefs are discriminatory in one way or another - that's a fact of life (and part of the definition). And the solution for all of us who don't follow that religion? Simple, don't put yourself in their firing line. ie - steer clear of those situations. I wouldn't wear my shoes in a temple/church that required I take them off. When I go out to a place of business, they have business rules. If I don't like them, I leave.

On the other hand, I'm thinking as you do - we, as a race that is supposed to be intelligent - should have gotten over such silly petty things as 'my god has said that X practice is out, even though it's silly, stupid and has no real place in intelligent society'. For a race that is so 'intelligent', we're also so damn ignorant. And let's not make people's lives unnecessarily difficult.

So, I can't say they were in the wrong... but I'm not prepared to say they were 'right' either.


Btw - nitpick... "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you" is a mistranslation from the King James Bible. The actual word which has been translated as 'witch' is better translated as 'poisoner', in both the literal and metaphorical sense (ie, poisoner of minds... aka, gossip-monger). Of course, this still has little to do with people who choose to follow that particular religious interpretation....:D

[AFPheonix]

Oh, Greenday, I'm not saying the same situation applies with my recall - just mentioning that I recalled it, and there are some similarities, tis all....

Yes, said owner has to abide by the laws of the land (if you wish to not get in trouble with the law enforcers). But, are the anti-discrimination laws black and white? Or is there room for grey? And in this case, I see a case for both to scream anti-discrimination - so whose takes precedence? I know it's damn easy to side on the non-religious when you don't happen to agree with it.

In this case, I would figure that the British version of the ADA is pretty black and white regarding service animals. Since there is no direct law regarding muslims not having to tolerate dogs, I would say the direct letter of the law of the land trumps the possibly culturally-influenced fuzzy law from an ancient book.
Laws of the land regularly trump such religious rules, including Jewish law found in the Pentateuch.

[smileyeagle1021]

Now, option 1 is not fair. As a civilized society, we need to try to level the playing field. No, life itself is not fair. That does not mean we should not try to make things better. Option 1 makes hardship where none is required, and thus does harm.

.

I know of at least 5 people who would disagree with you... those being the 5 people I know who are blind who depend solely on their cane... granted they do get help, you'd be amazed the kindness of strangers in telling them when it's safe to cross streets, where they are, etc... but they've told me (and I believe them) that even all by themselves they can handle with minimal difficulty sense they have learned how to deal with it... much like a diabetic will learn how to deal with controlling blood sugar, a deaf person will learn how to read lips, and a paralyzed person will learn how to get around quickly in a wheelchair. No it's not easy but it's doable.

That and as has been mentioned, the shop owner, to my understanding, did not say that the man must give up his dog permanently, just that the dog could not come in the restaurant... could not the customer and owner come to an agreement where the blind man left the dog outside and the store owner had someone keep an eye on the dog to make sure no one stole it? This doesn't have to be a black and white issue, there are many shades of gray that could be utilized.

[Boozy]

Service dogs are allowed in restaurants. A blind individual depends on their service dogs for their independence, self-reliance, and dignity. And the law does not allow restaurant owners to tell blind people to check these things at the door.

Slyt - Why do you still insist that businesses can serve or not serve whomever they want? Businesses are not private property.

[Rapscallion]

It's debatable that a business is not private property. The business owner either owns the premises or pays the lease - therefore within reasonable limits they can say who can enter. Does that sound reasonable?

The limits for the UK are usually at the owner's discretion, I believe, with the exception of certain categories. A business owner cannot bar entry to someone on grounds of race or gender, for example. I suspect Crazylegs will give a better run down of UK legislation than I could.

Just had a look at the article - the law is stated fairly clearly there, though the Daily Mail is more of a hard wing newspaper, in my experience. It's generally amongst the first to scream 'No' to immigration.

Is it ethically wrong to force them to accept the dog? I don't think so - when they opened a business, they should have known this could happen and be prepared to deal with the results.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

It's debatable that a business is not private property. The business owner either owns the premises or pays the lease - therefore within reasonable limits they can say who can enter.

The law doesn't consider it debatable. It's pretty clear on the subject.

The law in the US (and Canada) says that businesses that are open to the public are not private property. Just because something is owned and paid for by a private citizen does not necessarily mean that it is not a public place.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religious persuasion, or sexual orientation. And a shop or restaurant isn't forced to be wheelchair accessible, but they are forced to make reasonable accommodations (ie, those that do not cost you anything out of pocket) for those with disabilities. Service dogs do not cost the business anything to allow in, so therefore they are required by law to permit them entry.

One may agree or disagree with these laws, but that's the way it is. I agree with these laws, given that many areas would still be almost completely racially segregated without them.

If I were an adherent of ultra-fundamentalist Islam, I might require any women in my presence to wear a burkha. And I could also open a restaurant. But I cannot open a restaurant and refuse entry to any woman not wearing a burkha.

[smileyeagle1021]

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religious persuasion, or sexual orientation. .

just nitpicking... in some places it is still legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation... Utah being one of them. If I wanted to refuse to rent a room to a gay couple (which I wouldn't do for two reasons, one being that I see nothing wrong with being a gay couple, and the second being that, and I know this one for a fact, a gay man's money will spend just the same as a straight man and with the economy the way it is, the hotel needs as much revenue as possible) I could do so with minimal legal consequences (at least from the state... we'd be in violation of our franchise agreement and would have legal trouble there).

And back on the original topic... I think I'll stick with saying that this is a case of shades of gray... it seems like neither side wanted to accommodate the other or even come to a compromise, which while wouldn't be easy, would be possible. (IE, have an employee look after the dog outside while the customer was inside or bring his purchase out to him... neither is perfect, but both would have worked if the owner was insistent on no dogs inside).

[linguist]

That and as has been mentioned, the shop owner, to my understanding, did not say that the man must give up his dog permanently, just that the dog could not come in the restaurant... could not the customer and owner come to an agreement where the blind man left the dog outside and the store owner had someone keep an eye on the dog to make sure no one stole it? This doesn't have to be a black and white issue, there are many shades of gray that could be utilized.

a properly trained and certified service animal represents a time and money investment of hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in training, and there are waiting lists months or even years long to get one. would you be willing to leave something like that tied up outside, even with someone watching, knowing that if something were to happen it would be a very long time indeed before you were able to get another, and that chances were very good that you wouldn't be compensated?

[Flyndaran]

Since gays can't get married, I would claim that all the U.S. discriminated based on sex.

As to the religious doofus and blind guy....
There are such creatures as minitrue seeing eye horses. The live longer and are less temperamental.

This is also a queistion abput how much accomodation should handicapped people make to others as well as religious freedom to discriminate.

A blind man's dog isn't really needed in the restaurant. But of course a seeing eye dog isn't a pet. They are medically needed employees. It would be like refusing entrance to a man with an oxygen tank because the owner doesn't belive in prolonging life.

[Rapscallion]

The law doesn't consider it debatable. It's pretty clear on the subject.


This tale is in the UK - quite frankly, I don't know what the exact legislation is over here. That's why I'd be very interested in hearing from Crazylegs.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Boozy - as Raps has indicated, businesses (in some parts of the world) do have certain rights regarding who they serve and who they don't. 'Discrimination' - ie, choosing not to serve someone based on a completely irrelevant bias, is out in this country. That doesn't stop them from having legitimate reasons to not serve someone. And it's also the reason that businesses have the right to 'evict' someone and have them charged with trespass. It is also why businesses must have insurance to cover against personal injury (rather than it being public space, and thus would fall under public space).

Well - at least the subject of this is good... it's opening up a can of worms. :)

[MannersMakethMan]

I can remember not long ago that an imam issued a fatwah to allow a blind man in Leicester to bring his guide dog into the mosque for prayer. There is room to work together on this if both parties are willing. I have no idea of legalities, but there certianly exists a precedent for allowing the dog in.

[Flyndaran]

Boozy - as Raps has indicated, businesses (in some parts of the world) do have certain rights regarding who they serve and who they don't. 'Discrimination' - ie, choosing not to serve someone based on a completely irrelevant bias, is out in this country. That doesn't stop them from having legitimate reasons to not serve someone. And it's also the reason that businesses have the right to 'evict' someone and have them charged with trespass. It is also why businesses must have insurance to cover against personal injury (rather than it being public space, and thus would fall under public space).

Well - at least the subject of this is good... it's opening up a can of worms. :)

I believe it is still legal to refuse service to gays as they aren't protected under the consitution or the americans with disabilities act.

[Slytovhand]

I believe it is still legal to refuse service to gays as they aren't protected under the consitution or the americans with disabilities act.

Say what??? While I get they aren't 'protected' under the constitution, they're still human..(aren't they? Not sure about my co-worker J :p).

Don't spose you've got any examples of this one happening?? I'd be shocked to see it.

[Flyndaran]

Say what??? While I get they aren't 'protected' under the constitution, they're still human..(aren't they? Not sure about my co-worker J :p).

Don't spose you've got any examples of this one happening?? I'd be shocked to see it.

Only protected groups are protected. I can refuse service to those under 35 if I chose. The young are not protected.
Only gender, race, ethnicty, and religion are protected. The elderly have effective protection because they vote every local law for themselves.

I'ld rather have a list of who you CAN discriminate against rather than a list of who you can't.

[smileyeagle1021]

Don't spose you've got any examples of this one happening?? I'd be shocked to see it.

there are quite a few places that can and do refuse service to homosexuals... many bars refuse service, I've heard of restaurants doing similar. More common is people denied employment... if my manager so desired he could fire me at any time for being gay.

[AFPheonix]

There have been an assortment of ballot measures put forth in different states to make it legal to discriminate against gays as well.

I recall one in particular when I was in Junior High, Measure 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_9_(1992)) The public voted it down, but more than 40% of people that went to the polls voted for it, and it had gotten enough signatures initially to pass through the initiative process. Not all that long ago, either.

[smileyeagle1021]

AFPheonix... that link truly terrifies me... the fact that so many people thought it acceptable to legalize discrimination of any form.

[Slytovhand]

My question would be - how on earth (well - that part of the democratic bit of the Earth) could such ballots even be proposed in the first place??? Isn't that against the Human Rights Convention?

[smileyeagle1021]

Isn't that against the Human Rights Convention?

sense when has the United States cared about the Human Rights Convention?
For that matter, look at how long it took for us to care about any human rights... much less those that people misunderstand and think is a choice, not something that you are.

[AFPheonix]

Yep, OCA was full of shitheads. Between them and Bill "Dickhead" Sizemore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Sizemore), our initiative process gets good and hijacked every election.
Oregon has a very active citizen's initiative process for submitting stuff for vote. It's pretty cool in a lot of ways, but it's gotten to the point with a few of these professional signature-getters that I look at who submitted the initiative before I even read the text to get an idea of how crappy it's going to be. Pretty much anything from Sizemore or Kevin Mannix gets an automatic no vote from me.
Fortunately, Sizemore's been getting pretty dogged about some naughtiness happening in his organizations, so hopefully he'll get pushed out of the way eventually.

[Pedersen]

Meh, Don't worry about it. I think we both like to stir the pot a bit from time to time. That's what makes us both valid targets to each other :D (oh, that and when we do lock horns in a nice logical straight-forward way). I am curious, though... what has gotten you riled up??

Took some time away from this thread before replying. Needed some cool down time.

What's had me so riled up, I think, is the fact that I could, trivially, find myself in that man's shoes. One accident somewhere, and I'm suddenly blind. I'd be left incapable of doing things that, right now, are trivial for me to do. My current profession would become extremely difficult without sight. I'd probably lose my home over it.

And here's someone who would tell me that the one thing that gives me a respectable measure of independence in those circumstances should not be allowed. And, before you (or anyone else) says he's not saying to get rid of it entirely, I'll respond: Yes, he is. By his (and, judging from what I've read elsewhere, most) interpretation of Islamic law, the dog would not be allowed to go most places with me, thereby stripping me of much of my independence.

Such actions and attitudes are, simply put, revolting.

I didn't get that he refused to confirm his religion with the reporter, though. I figure that's just misinterpretation or misunderstanding...

Go back and re-read the article. The reporter got confirmation from the owner's brother, not the owner himself. And that tells me that the owner was only willing to do so much to stand up for his beliefs. Once he realized just how bad of a shitstorm he'd started, he backpedaled away.

Which also means that his beliefs aren't worth much, even to him.

I know of at least 5 people who would disagree with you... those being the 5 people I know who are blind who depend solely on their cane... granted they do get help, you'd be amazed the kindness of strangers in telling them when it's safe to cross streets, where they are, etc... but they've told me (and I believe them) that even all by themselves they can handle with minimal difficulty sense they have learned how to deal with it... much like a diabetic will learn how to deal with controlling blood sugar, a deaf person will learn how to read lips, and a paralyzed person will learn how to get around quickly in a wheelchair. No it's not easy but it's doable.

Interesting. Since I made the statement "Option 1 makes hardship where none is required, and thus does harm.", and your rebuttal of that statement amounts to "No it's not easy but it's doable."

If anything, it sounds like you are agreeing with me. Hardship happens. I have no reason why we should try to create more of it. And yet, you take exception to my statement by agreeing that hardship happens.

I've missed something in the translation, though I'm sure I don't know what that something is.

[AdminAssistant]

Not why this was opened, but this is what SHOULD have happened.

The blind guy was there for a birthday party, right? Whenever he was refused service, the entire party should have said, "It is obvious that you do not want our business, since you are refusing service to our friend. We'll take our business elsewhere"

We can all posit all we want on the legality and ethics of the situation, but the solution is ultimately financial.

[smileyeagle1021]

We can all posit all we want on the legality and ethics of the situation, but the solution is ultimately financial.

thank you admin assistant.

That is exactly the way to get things like this to change. The business owner can tell people all he wants that he will not allow dogs in his business. There are plenty of other businesses that will allow the service animal in the restaurant that he can go to. Eventually either enough people will leave stop going to the restaurant that doesn't allow service dogs (either because they can't go there themselves or out of distaste for the business practice) and the owner will either have to close or allow service dogs or it's not a big enough issue and he continues operating, just without the revenue of those customers who have decided to stop coming. Let the market decide on this one.

[Boozy]

Let the market decide on this one.

The market is amoral, and is not an acceptable force in deciding on issues of civil rights.

This is about what society we want to live in, not what kind of rights you can afford.

[smileyeagle1021]

The market is amoral, and is not an acceptable force in deciding on issues of civil rights.



the market may be amoral... but people are... and people do help decide where the market goes... public pressure can do a lot.

[Boozy]

I disagree with your assertion that the masses will demand civil rights for minority groups.

Did Prop 8 not pass in California?

[smileyeagle1021]

I disagree with your assertion that the masses will demand civil rights for minority groups.

Did Prop 8 not pass in California?

Prop 8 did pass... something that I'm still having problems with... but you have to keep in mind, it's popular to be homophobic now, it's not popular to admit you hate disabled people. That just isn't cool anymore. It's cool now to help someone with disabilities... that said Prop 8s passing is temporary at best... if you look at the public outrage across the country it will eventually turn into the single greatest achievement of the gay rights movement. So I'm willing to say, let the shop owner be a douche and risk awakening public outrage.

[AFPheonix]

Sorry, civil rights are not a popularity contest. That's why we have the law. The shop owner violated the whatever ADA equivalent Britain has and should receive the due consequences.

Protests and a loss of business would be icing on the cake at this point.

[smileyeagle1021]

Sorry, civil rights are not a popularity contest.

you won't ever hear me arguing against that... but, I do think that if you can use a popularity contest to attain those ends, then why not?

That aside, California unfortunately has proven that civil rights are a popularity contest... hey, I'm one of the people they deemed unpopular so I don't like it anymore than you do, but we have to face facts eventually.

[Greenday]

you won't ever hear me arguing against that...

I will. As long as what is considered a civil right is something voted on by the public and not only people who understand what actually defines a civil right, it IS a popularity contest.

[Rapscallion]

I will. As long as what is considered a civil right is something voted on by the public and not only people who understand what actually defines a civil right, it IS a popularity contest.

I have to admit that the one thing that bothered me about the constitution of the US and the rights enshrined in there is that it's effectively a small group deciding what's decent. I don't disagree with most of it, but is it really democratic?

Mind you, looking around at the population of my country, I wouldn't be likely to approve of complete control by some of the idiots around me.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

I have to admit that the one thing that bothered me about the constitution of the US and the rights enshrined in there is that it's effectively a small group deciding what's decent. I don't disagree with most of it, but is it really democratic?

Mind you, looking around at the population of my country, I wouldn't be likely to approve of complete control by some of the idiots around me.

Rapscallion

Eh, America isn't really democratic. We are generally a republic, run by people we elect into power, and those people we elect into power get to make the decisions, whether we agree with them or not.

As for your second paragraph, that's what bothers me the most. So many people demand the right to vote for whatever they want, but so many of the citizens are far too stupid and ignorant to really know about the issue to really deserve a vote.

[Rapscallion]

Eh, America isn't really democratic. We are generally a republic, run by people we elect into power, and those people we elect into power get to make the decisions, whether we agree with them or not.

It's a form of democracy called 'representative democracy', as far as I understand it. It's far less cumbersome than everyone voting on everything.

Of course, when it comes to election time and you're facing a choice between two or three parties, I always wonder how I can select a little from column A and a little from column B...

I'm not keen on party politics.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

you won't ever hear me arguing against that... but, I do think that if you can use a popularity contest to attain those ends, then why not?

That aside, California unfortunately has proven that civil rights are a popularity contest... hey, I'm one of the people they deemed unpopular so I don't like it anymore than you do, but we have to face facts eventually.

Not if the courts have anything to say about it. This is why there are motions to challenge prop 8 before the California Supreme Court. This is why laws that are made ultimately are compared to the constitution. If they do not measure up, they will be struck down, as I think this one will be. I hope that within the next decade DOMA will follow.

[Flyndaran]

Not if the courts have anything to say about it. This is why there are motions to challenge prop 8 before the California Supreme Court. This is why laws that are made ultimately are compared to the constitution. If they do not measure up, they will be struck down, as I think this one will be. I hope that within the next decade DOMA will follow.

With this court? I seriously doubt they'll strike down laws that even on their face are unconstitutional. They'll just keep finding reasons to avoid taking the cases, in effect turning a blind eye to bigotry and hate.

[AFPheonix]

It hasn't gone to the US Supreme Court. The Californian Supreme Court can probably handle it just fine.
But yes, the USSC would probably pussy out of it.

[Evandril]

thank you admin assistant.

That is exactly the way to get things like this to change. The business owner can tell people all he wants that he will not allow dogs in his business. There are plenty of other businesses that will allow the service animal in the restaurant that he can go to. Eventually either enough people will leave stop going to the restaurant that doesn't allow service dogs (either because they can't go there themselves or out of distaste for the business practice) and the owner will either have to close or allow service dogs or it's not a big enough issue and he continues operating, just without the revenue of those customers who have decided to stop coming. Let the market decide on this one.

One problem with that...The store has been open for HOW long, and this *just* came up? 'Tis not a common situation, and the loss of money from blind people I do not think will really be noticeable, to be honest.

[Slytovhand]

One problem with that...The store has been open for HOW long, and this *just* came up? 'Tis not a common situation, and the loss of money from blind people I do not think will really be noticeable, to be honest.

No, but like the cake shop that refused the swastika and 'Adolf Hitler' on it, it will get publicity, and those people who heard of this may make an effect. TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if they get a bit more flack out of this than just people staying away.

(naturally, the cake store will get more positive results :) )

[Evandril]

No, but like the cake shop that refused the swastika and 'Adolf Hitler' on it, it will get publicity, and those people who heard of this may make an effect. TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if they get a bit more flack out of this than just people staying away.

(naturally, the cake store will get more positive results :) )

Could just be I'm more of a cynic ;) I don't really think this will have a negative effect on the resturant's buisness, overall, unless they are punished in some way. There is truth to that saying 'There's no such thing as bad publicity'...He got lots of free advertizing, and quite a few people will happily go to a place that doesn't allow dogs *sighs* IMO, at least, would love to be proven wrong :)

[pile of monkeys]

I can only speak from a US perspective, but the laws here are very clear: service animals are allowed anywhere their owners are allowed. The lack of legal licensing and/or certification for such animals is somewhat problematic, but that's a separate issue (you are not legally required to register your service animal with any type of government agency, and the laws are fuzzy-ish on what constitutes a service animal).

I work in a spa, a business that is regulated by the Board of Health, among others. We are absolutely required, as are restaurants, to grant access to service animals and their owners. It's only come up a few times that I recall, but I had an employee ask me what to do once when a woman and her dog came in. (Keep in mind, people try to bring their pets in, especially small dogs, all the time. We do not allow that.) I asked the woman if the dog was a service animal (it had a vest and harness, and was freakishly well-behaved). She said yes, it was a seizure alert dog (she was not obligated to disclose what condition necessitates having the dog, but she chose to. I didn't ask). I said, "No problem, enjoy your services." As I am legally obligated to. Afterwards, she thanked me and I asked a few questions about the dog (I love dogs), which she kindly answered, and she said that access issues are very common, especially in restaurants and, unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart. Honestly, the dog was better behaved, cleaner, and less trouble than many of our clients. No big deal.