Club Fined for Banning Man Based on Race

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Yes, I know when I'm walking the streets and I see a person with a turban, the first thing I think is, "What type of heat is that guy carrying". And all those turban gangsters committing crimes every night freaks me out. And every time I'm at the medical clinic or the hospital, I hate how my wait is extended because of all those turban-wearing Asians with stab wounds coming from the nightclubs are in front of the line. Thanks for your opinion, it was very well thought out.

Yeah, and it's like their Turban wearing gangster doctor friends always deal with them first. Shenanigans I say....SHENANIGANS!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

They do. That's been included in this particular case, I think. If not, then Penny Lane Entertainment got slapped using the system, which the police have a tie-in to.

So now we're setting a precedent that says we can't use an ID system AND we have to let anyone in, otherwise it's a race issue, even despite the fact that people of all colors can pose some kind of threat, and bars can't check their record. All in the name of human rights.

Seems sort of backwards to me.

I'm sure if you'll look straight up, you'll notice the Sarcasm in that guy's post, that seems to have soared direclty overhead.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Yes, I know when I'm walking the streets and I see a person with a turban, the first thing I think is, "What type of heat is that guy carrying". And all those turban gangsters committing crimes every night freaks me out. And every time I'm at the medical clinic or the hospital, I hate how my wait is extended because of all those turban-wearing Asians with stab wounds coming from the nightclubs are in front of the line. Thanks for your opinion, it was very well thought out.

Wow, freak out much? I don't think he was being racist as much as he was potentially describing the truth. What if he's right?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm sure if you'll look straight up, you'll notice the Sarcasm in that guy's post, that seems to have soared direclty overhead.

Didn't detect sarcasm at all. Don't know where you're getting that from.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Didn't detect sarcasm at all. Don't know where you're getting that from.

Well considering he made a comment describing the exact system that another club was just told they couldn't use no more than a few weeks ago, I figured it was a pretty clear case of sarcasm.

Edit: also after a pretty quick check, he did post in that thread about Tantra not being able to use the system, so I'm pretty sure he knew it existed, and was just being funny.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well considering he made a comment describing the exact system that another club was just told they couldn't use no more than a few weeks ago, I figured it was a pretty clear case of sarcasm.

Edit: also after a pretty quick check, he did post in that thread about Tantra not being able to use the system, so I'm pretty sure he knew it existed, and was just being funny.

Perhaps, but without a 'sarcasm' smiley, he just may not have known about that at all...

Edit: BBS was too quick on the draw! lol

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well considering he made a comment describing the exact system that another club was just told they couldn't use no more than a few weeks ago, I figured it was a pretty clear case of sarcasm.

Edit: also after a pretty quick check, he did post in that thread about Tantra not being able to use the system, so I'm pretty sure he knew it existed, and was just being funny.

Well, his 'sarcasm' isn't very obvious. Most people don't go searching for prior threads to see if said poster made any complimentary or contradictory statements. Most people, that is.

[MelBridgeman]

1. I thought sikh's are forbidden to drink.
2. Shouldnt a private establishment be allowed to decide who gets in and who doesn't.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well, his 'sarcasm' isn't very obvious. Most people don't go searching for prior threads to see if said poster made any complimentary or contradictory statements. Most people, that is.

Hey, I thought his sarcasm was pretty darn obvious. I only checked the Tantra thread to prove a point.

But come on, the guy made a statement that that was realted to this and referenced a topical issue with a perfect description of that topic.
You seriously need a smiley to find the sarcasm in that?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by fotze

Sounds like you are a roid monkey, whatever the fata a roid monkey is.

I wish. I'm usually sound asleep by 10pm.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Hey, I thought his sarcasm was pretty darn obvious. I only checked the Tantra thread to prove a point.

But come on, the guy made a statement that that was realted to this and referenced a topical issue with a perfect description of that topic.
You seriously need a smiley to find the sarcasm in that?

How about we just avoid ambiguously sarcastic posts altogether? That makes more sense. There's a different between overt sarcasm, and sarcasm that isn't detectable due to ignorance of city news items, which is the way I took the post. The guy didn't make any forewarning of him knowing about the ID system prior, so I took it that he just didn't know about it. And I'm sure other people thought that way too.

Let's just not argue this anymore ok? We're getting off topic.

[jolinar of malkshor]

So what about all the other people that aren't allowed in? Should they all go to the human rights commission to?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

2. Shouldnt a private establishment be allowed to decide who gets in and who doesn't.

Here's the piece of legislation in question:

Discrimination re goods, services, accommodation, facilities
4 No person shall
(a) deny to any person or class of persons any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public, or
(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public,
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.

This begs the question when are goods, services, accommodations or facilities "customarily available to the public"?

According to the Human Rights Commission interpretive bulletin:

Determining if services or facilities are customarily available to the public
Some clubs and cultural organizations provide services to members only, or to members and their guests. This does not necessarily mean that those clubs or organizations are automatically exempt from the HRCM Act. The Act applies to goods, services, accommodation and facilities that are “customarily available to the public.” These factors can help you determine if a service would be considered customarily available to the public, or if it would be exempt from the Act: 4

1. How is membership defined? The more specific the membership criteria, the more likely the club is exempt. For example, a social club that limits membership to people of a particular religion sets very specific membership criteria, and is probably exempt.
2. Who receives services? The more that a club limits its services only to members, the more likely the club is exempt. For example, a club that does not allow guests to attend club events clearly limits many services to members only, and is probably exempt.
3. Is the service a commercial venture? The more that a club is engaged in non-commercial activities, the more likely the club is exempt. For example, a cultural association that provides most services to its members without charge is mainly non-commercial, and probably exempt.

The HRCM Act covers most commercially operated nightclubs and bars that require customers to become members. Any attempt to limit membership to this type of club based on a person’s protected characteristics is prohibited discrimination under the HRCM Act.

[Pagal4321]

I'm going to the human rights commission after work.....

[Slava]

Racism is a blight and should be stopped whereever and whenever it can be.

But seriously...is this the biggest issue in that fight? A guy can't get into a seedy club? Surely there have to be other fronts on the war against racism that are more important?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Racism is a blight and should be stopped whereever and whenever it can be.

But seriously...is this the biggest issue in that fight? A guy can't get into a seedy club? Surely there have to be other fronts on the war against racism that are more important?

Baby steps.
You've got to start setting precedents somewhere, so start small and work your way up.

Or it could be that most of the major battles have been won, and that things like this are the last remaining remnants of a time when it was okay to descriminate based on race, so this is where the last battles are being fought.

It's probaby somewhere in the middle though.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Slava

But seriously...is this the biggest issue in that fight? A guy can't get into a seedy club? Surely there have to be other fronts on the war against racism that are more important?

I agree. It's a nice victory in some regards, but I wonder if those efforts could have been put towards something bigger with more meaning than getting into Tequila, which is one of the seediest bars in town. Trying to prove a point that unfair policies exist at sketchy clubs is like complaining that there's nudity at a strip bar, and you won't stand for it.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Baby steps.
You've got to start setting precedents somewhere, so start small and work your way up.

Agree.

A little off topic, isn't there some sort of logical fallacy or some such about diminishing the value of small efforts at change when larger steps could have been taken? I think it might have a semi-formal name even. Anyone?

[Matata]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Yes, I know when I'm walking the streets and I see a person with a turban, the first thing I think is, "What type of heat is that guy carrying". And all those turban gangsters committing crimes every night freaks me out. And every time I'm at the medical clinic or the hospital, I hate how my wait is extended because of all those turban-wearing Asians with stab wounds coming from the nightclubs are in front of the line. Thanks for your opinion, it was very well thought out.

I never implied any of the things you've accused me of. I just described the situation in terms of business logic, probability and investment. If your going to attack my post, bring up statistics and business strategy.

I couldn't help but notice that the media wouldn't mention the cause of this problem, and I believe the most likely scenario is the one I described in my first post. People like their easily digestible 'racism is bad' news stories, but bringing up the causes opens up a whole new can of worms with a myriad of complex issues attached.

[fredr123]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...la-rights.html

Man, some of the comments on that CBC story are pretty brutal.