Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

[Aethelwine]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

My point is that a private business owner should be able to choose who his clientele will be. I'm sure there are 10 other business owners that will be more than happy to serve those people  he chooses not to serve.

Even if ten other business owners will serve blacks and it is just one that won't, that is one too many.

That battle was fought in the sixties and fought for good reason, private business or not, no one is second class and no one should be treated with such lack of respect or regard for their human dignity.

[Callum Meriman]

In real life (as in SL an avatar is just a costume, and has no rights)

• The argument currently is is bakers should be forced to bake cakes for same sex marriage.
• in the 1950s it was if blacks should be able to enter the restaurants and schools that whites used.
• In the 1900s is was if women should have a franchise to vote, or even work.

BilliJo, how would you feel if all your current rights as a woman were stripped and you were returned back to being subservient to men?

Why are the rights of a woman to be equal with man any more than other rights you say don't matter?

[Paul Hexem]

To be fair, the whole "forced customers" thing is one of those lose/lose situations.

Without a law like this, minorties and the like may suffer. With a law like this, many innocent business owners suffer.

Trying to port these types of things into SL would be a nightmare for pretty much everyone, for the many reasons brought up already.

[Tari Landar]

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Oh Of course, the old "we must do it for the children"

When nothing else works, say it's for the kids.

In some cases, it may well be "for the children"-and I don't necessarily mean that in the minor children sense, but, those that come after us, children, sense.

That said...ever had a business tell you they didn't want you in there because your child was currently hooked up to a feeding pump, or other life saving machines? I have..it kinda sucks..more than kinda sucks when it's santa's elves telling you in front of your kids-one of which knows damn well what was being said(the other couldn't really comprehend it in the same sense, she simply heard "santa said no you can't") and an entire line of other patiently waiting folks, that your kids can't sit on santa's lap because of said machines. It's a bit heartbreaking, really....whether or not one wants to argue about the whole "santa isn't real, you're telling your kids a lie" thing, or not(and I'm not diving into that rabbit hole). That was a *****ty thing to do, made *****tier by the fact that this particular Christmas was-at the time-supposed to be my daughter's last(thankfully...science is amazing..and it wasn't...but that's not the point).

We had similar experiences at countless businesses over the years...and it's pretty damn awful. Granted, we could always go somewhere else, if we so chose, assuming there was another business that would offer the service(s) we were currently seeking..and santa, shopping malls, grocery stores, banks, etc... aren't exactly necessities in life. It's STILL *****ty to be on the end of that kind of discrimination. It's even *****ier to watch your kids hear it, knowing that even if one doesn't understand, the other does, and now you're going to have even more questions to answer, including "why you cryin mommy". So...tell me again why "it's for the children" isn't a pretty damn good excuse to get rid of certain behaviors, certain ways of thinking?

I'd like to know that, should my children ever have children that suffer some kind of disability, or find themselves under some kind of protected class umbrella at any point in their lives(and I'm certain they will), those children won't have to see their mommy cry because some asswipe business owner thought it would be cool to say "nope, your kind isn't welcome here"

Sigh..I didn't want to even delve into that portion of this thread, I was more interested in why it applies to avatars, and not rl...but I think some of you are being completely and utterly unreasonable, primarily(I believe) because you can't fathom being on the other end of that electrified "GTFO you're not welcome here" fence. 

I'm really glad we have some laws in place that tell jerks like that to STFU.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Tari Landar
forgot a word

[Madelaine McMasters]

8 hours ago, Talligurl said:

Why do we have to outlaw stupidity?

Not stupidity, ignorance.

Take immunization, for example. If state laws didn't require parents to immunize their children, we'd lose the herd immunity that provides. People who, for various reasons, can't be immunized depend on avoidance to stay healthy. If we allow people who can be immunized to run around spreading disease, innocent people suffer.

Ignorance doesn't harm only the ignorant.

[Phil Deakins]

16 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

You bring up a point that interests me most...what really was fair between the British and Colonists. It doesn't seem the British were too concerned about what was fair, as they didn't even allow representation from the Colonies that would be needed to determine fairness. It seems they just wanted to impose whatever they wanted.
No doubt the Colonists would be lacking in empathy as well, just judging form how most people/groups determine fairness -- we have trouble seeing the others side.
But I don't like how you're assigning blame solely to the American side by saying it was only fair to get taxes from the colonists because they provided support and that the Colonists rebelled, causing the whole problem.
Also, the idea that backs your supposition -- that the Colonists needed to pay for their militia protection via these taxes -- seems to be false. The Colonists did not want support from the militia and felt competent to defend against the Indians by this point in time...they wanted the militia to vacate, but the British came up with a demand of taxes to pay for support of the militia instead (the Quartering Act).

I haven't made any suppositions. I only wrote what I'd read in the past. It's not my opinion or knowledge. It's only what I've picked up from history books.

That would be true of the British both before and after the rebellion. By imposing themselves, Britain ended up with the largest empire that the world has ever known. It became THE world power, and it didn't get to be that by localised concensus. It did it by force where necessary. So it wouldn't surprise me if the colonists didn't actually want the British army's protection, but that's not the history that I've read. To be honest, I don't know who they needed protection from. You mentioned the Indians, but the French were around too. At that time, France was Britain's enemy and, therefore, the enemy of the British in North America - the colonists. My memory doesn't reach that far.

I can only repeat what I've read in history books, and that's what I've read. I wasn't around in those days, and I don't have any personal experience to draw on, so I'm stuck with history books, my memory of which is not infallible.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

7 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

ROMAN LONDON

 

The Romans founded London about 50 AD. Its name is derived from the Celtic word Londinios, which means the place of the bold one. After they invaded Britain in 43 AD the Romans built a bridge across the Thames. They later decided it was an excellent place to build a port. The water was deep enough for ocean going ships but it was far enough inland to be safe from Germanic raiders. Around 50 AD Roman merchants built a town by the bridge. So London was born.

http://www.localhistories.org/london.html

That's fine, BilliJo, but Ceasar was long dead by then

I said that I doubted that the Romans built London from sratch, but rather that they build on what was already there. Which meant that I doubted that the Romans actually founded London. It was just a doubt, and it has no importance, but someone did post that there is evidence of a settlement there before the Romans arrived. So I suppose it depends on what one understands by the word 'founded'.

Anyway, you seem to be coming under fire from all sides at the moment, so there's no need to continue with this little bit if you prefer not to.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Klytyna]

15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Also, the idea that backs your supposition -- that the Colonists needed to pay for their militia protection via these taxes -- seems to be false. The Colonists did not want support from the militia and felt competent to defend against the Indians by this point in time...they wanted the militia to vacate,

!. The Militia... Were 'colonists'. Militia refers to local civilian volunteers serving as part time temporary amateur soldiers. What you meat to say was MILITARY, regular British Troops.

2. Contemporary American sources, (such as a pastor who was related to one of the senior Al'Republica Terrorists, and who made motes in the margins of the parish register about his flocks political sympathy) show that only about 1/3 rd of the colonists supported the insurrection, 1/3rd remained Loyal to the Crown, and 1/3rd didn't care because they knew that who ever won, the same Old Money New england Country Squires would STILL be in charge. People who lived in houses like this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Vernon,_Virginia.jpg 

3. The Colonists and their Militia had shown that they couldn't protect the colonies from the FRENCH and their Indian allies, during the 7 Years War.

4. Interesting side note, the 'spark' that helped touch off the political powder keg and start the 7 Years War, took place in the colonies... It involved a young colonist called... Georgama bin Washington!

5. The colonists certainly didn't want the 'Militia to vacate', they WERE the damned militia. What they didn't want was Soldiers there to protect the colonists land from foreign enemies such as the FRENCH, actually costing THEM any money. They wanted to be able to shout "Save us Daddy England" when danger threatened but didn't want to pay the bill afterwards.

6. A great many of the colonists LEFT the colonies after the insurrection, and moved to... CANADA! This is one of the main reasons why Canada STILL hasn't joined the United Rebel Colonies, and instead has concentrated on infiltrating your country under the pretext of selling you beer thats 200% better than the carbonated horse urine you make for your selves!

Hope that clears up some of your Typically American (tm) misconceptions about your own country.  
 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

Even if ten other business owners will serve blacks and it is just one that won't, that is one too many.

That battle was fought in the sixties and fought for good reason, private business or not, no one is second class and no one should be treated with such lack of respect or regard for their human dignity.

My refusing to bake you a cake does not make you a second class citizen.

It seems that the right to force someone to interact with you is a now a basic human right?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

That's fine, BilliJo, but Ceasar was long dead by then

I said that I doubted that the Romans built London from sratch, but rather that they build on what was already there. Which meant that I doubted that the Romans actually founded London. It was just a doubt, and it has no importance, but someone did post that there is evidence of a settlement there before the Romans arrived. So I suppose it depends on what one understands by the word 'founded'.

Anyway, you seem to be coming under fire from all sides at the moment, so there's no need to continue with this little bit if you prefer not to.

Regardless of what mud and straw hovels were located on the site before, the city of London was founded by the Romans.

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

In real life (as in SL an avatar is just a costume, and has no rights)

• The argument currently is is bakers should be forced to bake cakes for same sex marriage.
• in the 1950s it was if blacks should be able to enter the restaurants and schools that whites used.
• In the 1900s is was if women should have a franchise to vote, or even work.

BilliJo, how would you feel if all your current rights as a woman were stripped and you were returned back to being subservient to men?

Why are the rights of a woman to be equal with man any more than other rights you say don't matter?

I'm not stripping anyone's rights from anyone. All I'm saying private property rights should trump the rights of others to demand that you serve them.

[Callum Meriman]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I'm not stripping anyone's rights from anyone. All I'm saying private property rights should trump the rights of others to demand that you serve them.

Then it's ok for Comcast (or whomever is the ISP in your town) to say "We don't give internet to women". 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

6 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Not stupidity, ignorance.

Take immunization, for example. If state laws didn't require parents to immunize their children, we'd lose the herd immunity that provides. People who, for various reasons, can't be immunized depend on avoidance to stay healthy. If we allow people who can be immunized to run around spreading disease, innocent people suffer.

Ignorance doesn't harm only the ignorant.

I thought the innocent people had already gotten vaccinated. Seems to me if you refuse to be vaccinated and get sick it's your own fault.

OMG what a concept personal responsibility

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, Callum Meriman said:

Then it's ok for Comcast (or whomever is the ISP in your town) to say "We don't give internet to women". 

and once again one choses an extreme example to try and prove its ok to force someone to bake you a cake.

[Callum Meriman]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

and once again one choses an extreme example to try and prove its ok to force someone to bake you a cake.

Same idea as white only shops, or straight only bakers.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

There are still two areas where it is permitted to discriminate in any way shape of form with no recourse to the "victim"

1) If you are renting a room in your house which will have common areas with the potential renter, you can exclude anyone you wish from consideration.

2) if you are advertising on a dating website, you are free to set preferences and exclude anyone you wish for any reason.

I guess these should be eliminated too.

 

[Callum Meriman]

I don't. Why do you?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

Same idea as white only shops, or straight only bakers.

There could be Black only shops too, so whats the problem?

[Talligurl]

10 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

How about because they can't buy real estate in favorable areas or get bank loans? It takes money to make money.

Favorable areas? You mean they need to be able to move out of the areas where the 10 percent live, and go to the places where the 90 percent are. This whole attitude just perpetuates the problems and leaves those left behind all the poorer. Your social programs are not compassionate, they perpetuate the divisions between the rich and the poor, and leave behind the majority of those they claim to be helping.

[Callum Meriman]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

There could be Black only shops too, so whats the problem?

And male only internet. That services your town.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Klytyna said:

!. The Militia... Were 'colonists'. Militia refers to local civilian volunteers serving as part time temporary amateur soldiers. What you meat to say was MILITARY, regular British Troops.

2. Contemporary American sources, (such as a pastor who was related to one of the senior Al'Republica Terrorists, and who made motes in the margins of the parish register about his flocks political sympathy) show that only about 1/3 rd of the colonists supported the insurrection, 1/3rd remained Loyal to the Crown, and 1/3rd didn't care because they knew that who ever won, the same Old Money New england Country Squires would STILL be in charge. People who lived in houses like this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Vernon,_Virginia.jpg 

3. The Colonists and their Militia had shown that they couldn't protect the colonies from the FRENCH and their Indian allies, during the 7 Years War.

4. Interesting side note, the 'spark' that helped touch off the political powder keg and start the 7 Years War, took place in the colonies... It involved a young colonist called... Georgama bin Washington!

5. The colonists certainly didn't want the 'Militia to vacate', they WERE the damned militia. What they didn't want was Soldiers there to protect the colonists land from foreign enemies such as the FRENCH, actually costing THEM any money. They wanted to be able to shout "Save us Daddy England" when danger threatened but didn't want to pay the bill afterwards.

6. A great many of the colonists LEFT the colonies after the insurrection, and moved to... CANADA! This is one of the main reasons why Canada STILL hasn't joined the United Rebel Colonies, and instead has concentrated on infiltrating your country under the pretext of selling you beer thats 200% better than the carbonated horse urine you make for your selves!

Hope that clears up some of your Typically American (tm) misconceptions about your own country.  
 

Actually a great many loyal colonists had no choice but to move, they were forced out by the rebels seizing their property, just one of many forced migrations instituted by that bastion of democracy and freedom.

And yes, that's where United Empire Loyalists came from.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

3 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

And male only internet. That services your town.

And why would an internet company cut off half its customer base? As I've said all along, in business, money trumps everything else.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Favorable areas? You mean they need to be able to move out of the areas where the 10 percent live, and go to the places where the 90 percent are. This whole attitude just perpetuates the problems and leaves those left behind all the poorer. Your social programs are not compassionate, they perpetuate the divisions between the rich and the poor, and leave behind the majority of those they claim to be helping.

If the democrats have been dedicated to helping the poor for the last 70 years, why are there more and more poor people than ever.

Republicans: cut taxes so business owners can expand, putting more people to work and reducing government dependance.

Democrats: raise taxes so business cut back and hire less people, forcing more and more people onto government assistance...and in gratitude, vote democrat |:0p

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

14 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I thought the innocent people had already gotten vaccinated. Seems to me if you refuse to be vaccinated and get sick it's your own fault.

OMG what a concept personal responsibility

So a baby who doesn't get vaccinated is responsible for that? Bad toddler!

[Theresa Tennyson]

3 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

If the democrats have been dedicated to helping the poor for the last 70 years, why are there more and more poor people than ever.

 

Because there are more and more people than ever. However, the percentage of poor people has dropped considerably:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States