Pageant contestant disqualified over strange circumstances. - Page 3

Warborn · 2012-03-28, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

You have a right to do with your property as you see fit provided you do not directly harm someone else, yes?

Not that I'm aware of. You can't put a sign on the door to your store saying "No Blacks Allowed" anymore, for example.

Sgt Shultz · 2012-03-28, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Not that I'm aware of. You can't put a sign on the door to your store saying "No Blacks Allowed" anymore, for example.

So the concept of personal property has been completely invalidated by "No Blacks Allowed"?

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-28, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

In the US we stand up for the rights of poor oppressed bigots not because we like bigots, but because sooner or later your own hide might be subject to the same manner oppression.

One can have a distaste, dislike, or even loathing for a private organizations rules and still defend their rights.

... yes, I know that. Thank you. I'm aware of the constitution.

I don't really think I said anywhere in my post that I support taking away their rights. Hang on, lemme re-read it and say if I said that.

Nope. Doesn't look like that. you must have come to that conclusion yourself. Thank goodness I'm here to correct you!

See, I firmly believe that it is a good thing that bigots in this country get federal protection to say dumb, bigoted things, and to form little clubs where they can make all the "No ____ allowed" signs they like. But if you bring up that bigots are struggling in other countries, that I don't live in? Hang on, I'm sure I can find an even smaller violin, somewhere.

Sgt Shultz · 2012-03-28, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

... yes, I know that. Thank you. I'm aware of the constitution.

I don't really think I said anywhere in my post that I support taking away their rights. Hang on, lemme re-read it and say if I said that.

Nope. Doesn't look like that. you must have come to that conclusion yourself. Thank goodness I'm here to correct you!

See, I firmly believe that it is a good thing that bigots in this country get federal protection to say dumb, bigoted things, and to form little clubs where they can make all the "No ____ allowed" signs they like. But if you bring up that bigots are struggling in other countries, that I don't live in? Hang on, I'm sure I can find an even smaller violin, somewhere.

The point was to compare the US concept of free speech and association to the lack there of in Canada. I know those poor sods in Canada can't even get bacon right, but we can still have a little compassion for them.

Quovatis · 2012-03-28, 03:35 PM

Well, I think it's fine if you want to be bigoted in your own home or create an organization of the people of your choosing. If you don't have the right to do that in Canada, then I'm glad I live in the USA. Limiting "hate speech" is a slippery slope as it's subjective. As much as I disagree with Westboro and Traak, they should have the right to have their say as long as they follow the rules and get a permit, etc. Next thing you know, anti-government speech could be considered "hate speech", as it is in some countries already.

For public places, and places of commerce, there should be no discrimination at all. You can't refuse to serve women in a restaurant, for example. But I think it's sad you can't create a boys-only organization in Canada.

Warborn · 2012-03-28, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

So the concept of personal property has been completely invalidated by "No Blacks Allowed"?

You tell me. Does personal property exist in spite of anti-discrimination laws?

Back to my earlier question, though. Is the right to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity, religion, gender, orientation, etc? Not simply expressing an opinion, mind you, but actively denying people service of one sort of another based on the aforementioned criteria. Is that really a quality that society should enshrine as protected?

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Limiting "hate speech" is a slippery slope as it's subjective. As much as I disagree with Westboro and Traak, they should have the right to have their say as long as they follow the rules and get a permit, etc. Next thing you know, anti-government speech could be considered "hate speech", as it is in some countries already.

This I totally agree with. I think it's pretty much bullshit that we make it criminal to speak an opinion, even if it's a very mean-spirited opinion. Even the worst people should be entitled to their words.

Quovatis · 2012-03-28, 03:47 PM

So are you allowed to throw a party in your home in Canada and only invite your white friends or are you required by law to invite your black friends too? Are you required to invite the KKK members that live across the street too (or were they already thrown in jail)? See how silly it can get? I see a private organization the same way.

It reminds me of a case in Georgia many years ago where a student at a high school organized his own private prom. There was a media backlash because he only invited white people. Who the fuck cares. It was a private party. Every race does the same thing all the time. The official prom at the school, was of course open to everyone.

Vecha · 2012-03-28, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

What I'm getting at is that whether she's genetically male or a homosexual, the pageant is about people dressing up and parading around to look the prettiest. Her chromosomes or sexual orientation or favorite colour are not relevant to her ability to look like an attractive woman. The "must be born female" rule is arbitrary, and something that people like Traak would have written because they're bigoted shitheads, not because there's any practical reason for it to exist.

And yeah, she lied on her application or whatever by saying she was born female (although according to her she was, albeit physically male), but good for her, I say. Discrimination is something people should not be obliged to play along with. Hopefully her defiance creates a national thing about this. Maybe it will be the case that Miss Universe Canada is found to be in violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms or something.

I understood what you were getting at...just saying that there is a difference.

She didn't just "dress-up" did she? She probably went through some surgery.

But, you are right...they are all trying to look their best by parading their looks.

(Also, my point is definitely moot if ALL the contestants are allowed to get surgery, implants, etc. )

I personally wouldn't want to be part of something that discriminates against anyone, but if they want to be dickheads, that's on them.

However, If it actually IS against the law, then I hope she is able to do something about that. I like to think that I respect homosexuals, transgenders, heterosexuals, equally. Or at least try to.

Vecha · 2012-03-28, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

It's just a sad example of intolerance. That other people can't accept that she self-identifies as a female. Basically, taking agency away from her to identify herself as she likes, and not respecting her as an individual who knows best for themselves.

Didn't see this post.

But yes, I agree with you.

It is sad...but not all surprising.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 03:59 PM

Meh.

Warborn · 2012-03-28, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

So are you allowed to throw a party in your home in Canada and only invite your white friends or are you required by law to invite your black friends too? Are you required to invite the KKK members that live across the street too (or were they already thrown in jail)? See how silly it can get? I see a private organization the same way.

You're really stretching it here, man. No, the government doesn't tell you who to invite to your birthday party. You don't go to jail if you don't have enough black friends.

Vash02 · 2012-03-28, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Rules say naturally born female. Contestant wasn't naturally born female.

How is this an issue?

Rules say no blacks allowed. Contestant was black.

How is this an issue?

Sgt Shultz · 2012-03-28, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

You tell me. Does personal property exist in spite of anti-discrimination laws?

In the US yes. In Canada, who knows...

Originally Posted by Warborn

Back to my earlier question, though. Is the right to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity, religion, gender, orientation, etc? Not simply expressing an opinion, mind you, but actively denying people service of one sort of another based on the aforementioned criteria.

In the case we are discussing, and if we are talking about US law then yes it does exist. Freedom of association goes hand in hand with freedom of speech and are often associated as one in the same. Furthermore it is derived from the concept of personal property.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Is that really a quality that society should enshrine as protected?

Yes, because the alternative of only associating with groups that are "legally" sanctioned by the state is an invitation to abuse of state powers. Probably the same reason by we couple it with freedom of speech.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 04:10 PM

Meh.

Quovatis · 2012-03-28, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

It's a privately funded contest, not a state funded contest. They can make whatever rules they want for it.

Exactly. If they really said no blacks, there would be quite the outcry and nobody would participate. It wouldn't be very popular. It's self-regulating in that manner. But I see nothing wrong with it, them being a private organization.