ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Feel free to say something - just be aware there may be consequences: http://www.llbc.leg....crimination.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I believe this particular debate is "pointless". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I personally haven't been discriminated against and any women I know wouldn't act undiscrete if she could help it so I am fine, I am simply discussing my opinion. My opinion is the law as stated can easily be contradictory to free speach that would otherwise be considered reasonable by a majority of people. If the government wants to come and get me that all the power to them. If for some reason I am discimated against then I will be sure to use your link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I'm pretty sure that's not irony... Buy anyway, this is stupid. People need to grow up and get past their ridiculous puritan heritage. I just heard on the radio this poster in Kelowna (Kamloops? Somewhere up there) is being blacked out because *gasp* it shows a nude male. It's 'pornography'. Everyone they interviewed said it's art, but think of the children!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Ya, I couldn't help but pointing out the irony of him saying I was ignoring his point, especially given that reading through this board I like the majority of people have no problem with nursing mothers or respecting their rights, I think it's just common sense for all parties to exercise discretion (and if you link that it's against the law for me to say that remember I already noted that the law is crystal clear that apparently what I am typing would be illegal if I actually directed it at anyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_time_hockey Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 That's the spirit! Anyone take you up on that? Mind you, I could have just as easily bolded the "as best she could" since that's probably all that anyone asks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Button Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 dont mind if there breast feeding in public....but they should cover up....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 dont mind if there breast feeding in public....but they should cover up....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 The thing is the number of women just having them hang there while in the act is slim to none. Which is why I don't get where all this belly aching is coming from. But Nitro's take(s) on this issue is interesting. Given the same human rights and tribunal that protect his rights to be a gay person and not be discriminated against are the same that protect nursing mothers. But he wants to edit or get rid of some of those protections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 You seem to assume that free "speach" is an absolute - it is not. As noted US jurist Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously remarked: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. He also wrote of rights generally: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I do not view this as a matter of "common sense" but rather expecting someone to subordinate a clear legal right to someone else's particular sensibilities. That is the very essence of discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I'm pretty sure that's not irony... Buy anyway, this is stupid. People need to grow up and get past their ridiculous puritan heritage. I just heard on the radio this poster in Kelowna (Kamloops? Somewhere up there) is being blacked out because *gasp* it shows a nude male. It's 'pornography'. Everyone they interviewed said it's art, but think of the children!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Art is up to the beholder and I would personally like to minimise the number of naked dudes that scar my retinas. Mind you, the sheer number of topless establishments possible under the existing laws seems endless so you never know. If they go ahead and do that then I will get over the naked guy posters. P.S. Can you please stop insulting people's heritage? Isn't that discriminatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_time_hockey Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Art is up to the beholder and I would personally like to minimise the number of naked dudes that scar my retinas. Mind you, the sheer number of topless establishments possible under the existing laws seems endless so you never know. If they go ahead and do that then I will get over the naked guy posters. P.S. Can you please stop insulting people's heritage? Isn't that discriminatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Insulting people's heritage? 'Scar your retinas'. How old are you? Why is a naked body so scary? We regularly see woman with about 2% of their body covered with clothing and that's a-ok. But naked? No no no, that's over the line! Totally hypocritical and ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 That would be a tough sell...unless you have record of him doing it repeatedly to a person. If he were to not give you a job if you were the most qualified candidate or refused you service open to the general public that would be a shoe in or if he were to physically assault you. But yes country of origin and ancestory are two of the prohibited heads of discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultan of Sarcasm Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 I'm going to go a bit off topic here for a second... I'd really hate to see what this place would be like without ron, inane, and WC. You guys are all gems I tells ya. Most days I want to kick at least one of you, but your banter sure is entertainment. Now, back to the topic. I have nothing of value to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 Get over your puritan heritage? Why are people somehow immature if they don't have the same beleif system as you? What's wrong with not wanting to see naked dudes? Maybe my comment was over the top but so what? As for things being hypocritical and ridiculous, that's not at all inconsistant with society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 It is. Not that I have seen it in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 This happens all the time, including in this law. The whole law is a series of conforming to other people's sensibilities. The only subordination is the person who is being told to hold their tongue and avert their eyes. If that's not subordination I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.