An Australian museum excluded men from an exhibit to highlight misogyny. A man sued for access and won.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/mkwF8
An Australian museum excluded men from an exhibit to highlight misogyny. A man sued for access and won.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/mkwF8
IDK, I’d see issues with a cafe saying ‘No colored people allowed’.
I feel like running a museum is a lot more like a form of expression than running a cafe is. “Who is the audience for art?” seems like a topic where a government-imposed “correct answer” is more of a problem than it would be if the topic were “Who eats a sandwich?”
The answer to “who the audience of art” is is a lot more inclusive than that of “who eats a sandwich.” Literally every human consumes art. It is probably one of the most fundamentally human things. Not every human eats sandwiches.
That said, if you’re allowed to exclude people by class (a price in entry) then obviously some amount of exclusion is allowed. Not that it should be allowed, but it is.
I (a white person) wouldn’t knowingly going into such a Cafe, but I still allow them to exist. It is a matter of defending - as much as possible - the right of others to do things I find stupid. There are lines, but I try to use them to cover as little as possible: all lines can be used against me.
I don’t mind other people doing things that are stupid. I do mind other people doing things that are harmful. The difficult part is finding where that line is, if and how to legislate it and what the implications are on other important societal values.
In this example of a cafe refusing to serve people based on race, I’m personally totally fine with that being illegal.
How do you ban such a cafe while also banning slavery? How do you draw a line between permissible and impermissible compulsory labor when you’re drafting your Constitution to reign in future politicians?
It is not permitted to own another human being.
It is not permitted to discriminate against a human being based on a protected class such as race.
Is there some contradiction there that I’m not seeing?
Nah. The guy tried a false dilemma to move the posts a bit.
I think the reasoning is that since having a job is essential for almost everyone, by making it illegal to have a job in which one may refuse to deal with members of a protected class, the government is effectively compelling everyone who needs a job to deal with them, which might be seen as a form of forced labor.
That’d be a massive stretch. Getting paid to do a job you don’t like isn’t slavery.
From the libertarian point of view, being compelled to do something is bad even if that thing itself isn’t all that difficult or unpleasant. I’m a pretty stubborn, libertarian-leaning person myself and I would resent doing even all my favorite things in the world if the government were making me do them.
I still wouldn’t make the comparison to slavery myself, but I think that most people are missing how much anti-discrimination laws actually do restrict freedom of speech and of association because most people weren’t going to engage in that sort of speech/association anyway. I would compare them to laws against boycotting Israel.
You’re the one who made the comparison to it being slavery? There are plenty of things you’re not allowed to say, why are you fighting against this instead of the right to make bomb threats?
how about having to wear out body and mind to earn money to not be excluded from the wealth society has produced? Or is that the part you gladly submit to?
I’m not seeing a problem with ‘treat people as people regardless of their skin colour’.
Jobs having responsibilities is nothing new. If you don’t like the responsibilities of a particular job, get a different one.
To deny access to any one group on the basis of an immutable characteristic of their physical being is a dangerous precedent to set for a government. It just gives a license to discriminate against any out group. I believe you have a right to do whatever you want, so long as doing so does not violate the rights of others.
To take it to a logical extreme, would you defend the right to drink and drive, given that stupid people should be allowed to do stupid things, even if it is incredibly dangerous to the drinking party and everyone else around them? No? Then don’t tolerate the intolerance of others. That’s how the social contract frays.
So you’d be fine with a towns only hospital receiving a patient in the ER while the only doctor on the clock refuses to treat the patient based on them being part of a protected class? Or do we need to create a law that says doctors can’t discriminate but everyone else can?
There are lines. Make them as narrow as possible but no more.
that covers your situation and many others.
I’d rather we just don’t encourage people to be horrible.
Be careful lest oppression of ideas spread them. Also be cafeful lest something unpopular you do is banned too.
I try to support free expression even if it means defending tyrants doing what I hate.
I’ll be sure to. And you be careful not to tolerate intolerance. I try to support people not being murdered because you tolerate tyrants.
deleted by creator