Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist
I've read and fully comprehend what has been stated but don't agree with this notion of justifiable or selective discrimination. We either have or strive to achieve a society based on equality where there exist no limitations or exclusions or we have a society where it is acceptable for a certain group to be exclusionary but not others.
|
With respect to your question about organizing clubs and groups, a club or group isn't the same as a public business so it's not directly comparable. Groups or clubs vary in nature and some may be covered by human rights acts (in Alberta a trade union, employers’ organization or occupational association can't limit membership by gender) while others won't be. A public business is expected to not discriminate based on gender.
You may not agree with the notion of justifiable discrimination, that's fine. But then having any discussion about cases like women's gyms is worse than pointless because the actual discussion lies elsewhere. Either work on the presumption that justifiable discrimination is valid even if you don't agree, or argue the merits of justifiable discrimination itself.
Similarly with respect to the requirement that a public business not discriminate based on gender my guess would be (and you may have even said this outright, I can't remember for sure) that you also don't support the idea either. Which again is fine, but again makes any discussion about businesses discriminating pointless since the actual discussion is about the merits of the law requiring non-discrimination.
It's like me trying to argue about orbits and gravity and stuff with someone, not getting anywhere, and the actual difference is I think the earth is flat. Any arguments about gravity or orbits would then be a waste of time and would just go around in circles (ha!) because the root of the difference isn't being looked at.
Any disagreement should dig down to a point of agreement and work forward from there.