Discrimination against gay couples?

[serenity]

Courts has a kiss-a-thon. The last couple standing wins a bed I think. The conditions which apply are as follows:
Participants must be 18 years and over
Male female couples only.

How do u feel about this?

[Falcon]

Damn right.

They sell overpriced and underquality furniture, but at least they know where to draw the line!


Phew!!

[skl]

they fraid that a gay couple would outlast a straight one. :mrgreen:

[Somebody007]

I think this gay couples thing, if they introduced it in the competition would cause a big uproar....then you would see all them pentecostal pastors talking about everyone working at Courts will burn in hell and eventually people will stop buying their furniture.

[serenity]

So allyuh eh feel that this is discrimination and wrong?

Would u be ok with the competition if the rules said u had to be muslim to enter?

I understand the ramifications of having gay couples at the kiss-a-thon. Though on the upside there might have been more ppl entering if entering meant u get to watch two women kiss for an extended period.

Besides, I think it was unnec to limit participants in this manner since I dont believe that there would have been a thousand gay couples entering. Bec of the animousity expected, they'd probably stay home with their old bed instead of chance the wrath of our conservative society.

[sylvestter]

Courts has a kiss-a-thon. The last couple standing wins a bed I think. The conditions which apply are as follows:
Participants must be 18 years and over
Male female couples only.

How do u feel about this?

maybe this will spawn a boycott by gays of courts...

[serenity]

Courts has a kiss-a-thon. The last couple standing wins a bed I think. The conditions which apply are as follows:
Participants must be 18 years and over
Male female couples only.

How do u feel about this?

maybe this will spawn a boycott by gays of courts...

According to the strreotype, gays have better taste in decor. So I doubt they were loyal customers of Courts in any event.

[Somebody007]

Isn't the practice of homosexuality illegal in Trinidad and Tobago? If this is the case, Courts won't encourage something that is considered 'illegal'....that would have gotten them in trouble with the law.

[Falcon]

Courts has a kiss-a-thon. The last couple standing wins a bed I think. The conditions which apply are as follows:
Participants must be 18 years and over
Male female couples only.

How do u feel about this?

maybe this will spawn a boycott by gays of courts...

According to the strreotype, gays have better taste in decor. So I doubt they were loyal customers of Courts in any event.

Hahaha, but to answer your question more clearly: Courts right!!!

[skl]

Isn't the practice of homosexuality illegal in Trinidad and Tobago? If this is the case, Courts won't encourage something that is considered 'illegal'....that would have gotten them in trouble with the law.

Anal sex (both gay and straight ) is illegal --- nothing about two men or two women kissing

[King B]

Then they should arrest Dookeran for screwing you. hahahahahahahahaha!

The uproar that would be created by allowing gay couples to enter would be bad for Courts and that is the bottom line. It cant be legal to make Courts do something that is bad for them. The vast majority of Trinbagonians would be either explicitly or implicitly upset.

I wouldnt mind a bit if they said straight couples could not enter. I dont think any gay couples really care about this event.

[Somebody007]

so King B wha you trying to say here is that Dookeran would have made homosexuality a legal practice then....and gay couples could go to the Red House to get married? :roll: doh know eh....just asking....

[skl]

Then they should arrest Dookeran for screwing you. hahahahahahahahaha!


that's the level KBB's mind works at. I bet he also does fart jokes in public.

[guyguy]

Courts miss the boat here. They should have held a sex-a-ton, opened to everybody, and the last man standing [pun intended] would be the winner. :D :D :D

[skl]

Courts miss the boat here. They should have held a sex-a-ton, opened to everybody, and the last man standing [pun intended] would be the winner. :D :D :D


but that's discrimnation too!!!. How would they judge a female winner ? :P

[guyguy]

Courts miss the boat here. They should have held a sex-a-ton, opened to everybody, and the last man standing [pun intended] would be the winner. :D :D :D


but that's discrimnation too!!!. How would they judge a female winner ? :P
Use yuh imagination nah? If ah go dong dat road de mods go rightfully ban meh tail one time. :D :D :D

[King B]

so King B wha you trying to say here is that Dookeran would have made homosexuality a legal practice then....and gay couples could go to the Red House to get married? :roll: doh know eh....just asking....


Forget it breds, it clearly went over your head.


Anyway, it is just like news programs stipulating that their announcers should be good looking. It may seem discriminatory but having attractive people on air increases viewership. How are you going to ask them to do something that is detrimental to their business?

[serenity]

But by playing to ppl's prejudices, wont u be perpetuating it?

How can u measure the implications of gays being allowed to enter this competition on courts' sales?

Besides, its not like courts would be specifically endorsing homosexuality - they just leaving the competition open...as they rightfully should.

[Somebody007]

Courts aint nothing to talk about yuh know....cuz if it was the UK them couldn't put up that sign dey....straight couples only....that woulda cause one big uproar.

[skl]

But by playing to ppl's prejudices, wont u be perpetuating it?

How can u measure the implications of gays being allowed to enter this competition on courts' sales?

Besides, its not like courts would be specifically endorsing homosexuality - they just leaving the competition open...as they rightfully should.

Courts Ltd have no reason to fight Trinidad "culture". and make no mistake Trinidad is one of those hypocritical psuedo conservative countires where people does do eveything behind closed doors and attack those same things in public.

We "fortunate" in a sense that race overshadows sex in this country but just look at Lucky when she was UNC no body mention her orientation.....when she leave mystriously posters attacking her orientation pop up....and posters agianst Kennedy too......ridiculous ones which asked if the reason he left the army and priesthood was becuase he was gay.

Mind u I think whoever ran that campiagn was dotish given that they didnt take into account that gay people vote too.

[Somebody007]

But by playing to ppl's prejudices, wont u be perpetuating it?

How can u measure the implications of gays being allowed to enter this competition on courts' sales?

Besides, its not like courts would be specifically endorsing homosexuality - they just leaving the competition open...as they rightfully should.

Courts Ltd have no reason to fight Trinidad "culture". and make no mistake Trinidad is one of those hypocritical psuedo conservative countires where people does do eveything behind closed doors and attack those same things in public.

We "fortunate" in a sense that race overshadows sex in this country but just look at Lucky when she was UNC no body mention her orientation.....when she leave mystriously posters attacking her orientation pop up....and posters agianst Kennedy too......ridiculous ones which asked if the reason he left the army and priesthood was becuase he was gay.

Mind u I think whoever ran that campiagn was dotish given that they didnt take into account that gay people vote too.


skl it have plenty of imposter senators in America....alot of them seem to be hiding in the closet and bad talking the gay movement, then you'll see on the Yahoo homepage that some senator get caught with someone of the same sex....is mostly younger ppl they does target.

[King B]

But by playing to ppl's prejudices, wont u be perpetuating it?

How can u measure the implications of gays being allowed to enter this competition on courts' sales?

Besides, its not like courts would be specifically endorsing homosexuality - they just leaving the competition open...as they rightfully should.

Courts is a business. Bottom line. Profitability is their prime objective not dictating morality.

T&T is a very religious society, sometimes hypocritically so. Many people will stop shopping at Courts for a period to send them a message about how they feel about the event. Gillian Lucky is a prime example; with all the love people love her make her leader of any party and I guarantee you she will never win an election. U can take that to the bank.

Why should Courts take such a chance when they dont have to?

[Huma]

Courts is obviously discriminating, but I think it's more about protecting their business interests than perpetuating the kinda homophobia that some posters in this thread obviously proud to express.

I can understand their perspective, in terms of dollars and cents. I don't support it, but I see where they're coming from. This isn't exactly a battle worth fighting, as I doubt most gays (or people in general) care about this competition.

I think this homosexuality debate will only go to the next level when someone like Gillian Lucky comes out and demands an end to the hate and ignorance.

[BW]

Then they should arrest Dookeran for screwing you. hahahahahahahahaha!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v55/PikachuMan/roflmao.gif

Good catch seri. This is as clear cut as it gets. Courts, while I certainly appreciate why they are doing what they are doing, is being very discriminatory.

Now we need to question if this discrimination is morally acceptable or not... :?

[skl]

skl it have plenty of imposter senators in America....alot of them seem to be hiding in the closet and bad talking the gay movement, then you'll see on the Yahoo homepage that some senator get caught with someone of the same sex....is mostly younger ppl they does target.


which means what ? That Trinidad not hypocritical ? or that both US and TT are ?

[dancerboy]

How u go feel if yuh five year old daughter turn on de tv, and see man bussing kiss on man, or ah oman draging ah next oman tongue ?. HOW IT GO LOOK ?

DANCERBOY

[KFCSpicy]

Dancer that is not a good reason for Courts to be discriminatory at all. Laws are in place so that no one should discriminate against another person, gender, race, religion and I would think sexual orientation. That said... if yuh picky headed children eh learn to be doctors or scientists from watching shows like House and CSI?

Why then all kids eh grow up to be Rambos and gunfighters galore after watching years and years of people killing each other on tv?

Ah fail to understand why out of all the negative crap on tv they will imitate the act of kissing another gender just because they happen to watch it. And where are the parents in the household who are supposed to monitor what their kids watch on tv anyhow?

This is all rubbish to me.

To answer Serenity's question it is discriminatory but Trinidad inept and inefficient in law making and law inducing so hey what's one more illegal act eh?

[Falcon]

skl raise ah point that I ent see no one really address.....

isn't this lifestyle illegal according to the books in TT? How does that fit in with the anti discrimination laws....they obviously cant be conflicting can they?

where the legal minds and the legally minded? Ole talkers and San Francisco sympathisers need not reply. 8-)

[KFCSpicy]

u jess biased. most laws are contradictory.

[serenity]

Well, firstly, as skl pointed out, homosexuality isnt illegal. Sodomy is. So lesbians good to go.

Secondly, is the equal opportunities act in place yet? Is homosexuality even addressed in the act?

Thirdly, where laws contradict each other, the most recent in time prevails.

[snowbird]

When you hold any type of a contest and specifically exclude any legal and law abiding citizen from entering without any valid reason stated then it can be seen as discrimination.
In the case of excluding homosexuals, it can be seen as perpetuating homophobia. However I doubt that the 'moral majority' will kick up a fuss in the later case. :roll:

[KFCSpicy]

What moral majority is that then? The same losers that does look the other way when things happening in front of them? Moral Majority is de name of a pan side ah wah? Cause all yuh does hear from dem is noise once a year and mostly round de savannah. :roll:

[snowbird]

What moral majority is that then? The same losers that does look the other way when things happening in front of them? Moral Majority is de name of a pan side ah wah? Cause all yuh does hear from dem is noise once a year and mostly round de savannah. :roll:


You know de ones :roll: , is de same ones who say yuh kar hang ah man even though de courts find him guilty of buggering dat chile tuh death, or killing dat nice ole couple; dem people :roll: ; dey so moral, dey say yuh shudden kill him, buh yuh cud lock him up in ah cage fer life... go figure.

[KFCSpicy]

Sometimes death doh make things right nah. But I hear yuh with dat SB. Dese so called fake religious freaks, holier than thou hypocrites does kill me.

[snowbird]

. :lol: :lol: :lol: ..... Why then all kids eh grow up to be Rambos and gunfighters galore after watching years and years of people killing each other on tv? ........

The funny thing is, we grew up in a time where the only movies children were watching were Cowboys shooting Indians, and Indians scalping Cowboys, yet today dey have more shootin an hacking goin on in T&T dan all dem years combined..... why is dat? maybe is some sort of residual genetic programming playing itself out here?

(see, ah lettin de Government off de hook, ah blamin Roy Rogers and Tonto :lol: )

[serenity]

Hmmm... This isnt related to the topic per se, but I was just wondering about the children raised in a homophobic environment. Whether it is morally right or wrong, a choice or not, stereotyping or not, it comes out of judging the choices of others and arguably a form of bigotry. Perhaps this is how racism started...and continues. I wonder if children who are raised in homosexual environments would suffer the same discrimination if they should seek to marry into a homophobic home.

[snowbird]

There are allot of twisted and misinformed people out there, but unfortunately until they 'step over that line', there is nothing we can do about it.

Children by the same token, as we know aren't born with any of those negative attributes, those traits are all taught.
It is unfortunate for that poor child that they may go through their whole life believing something twisted, but as long as they are a child they are somewhat protected; however, the minute they become an adult, it is only then can they be called out it..... if the opportunity presents itself; if not, the cycle goes on.

Oh sorry serinity, I guess this was a long answer to your short question, the short anwer being yes, as you generally marry a 'family' not just the person. You'd have to keep your family history a secret in order not to suffer the wrath.

[skl]

How u go feel if yuh five year old daughter turn on de tv, and see man bussing kiss on man, or ah oman draging ah next oman tongue ?. HOW IT GO LOOK ?
DANCERBOY

how it go look ? Depends on how attractive the women involved are :D

what you clearly fail to realize is that not everyone reacts the same way you do

oh and


13. (1) A person who commits buggery is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment—
(a) if committed by an adult on a minor, for life;
(b) if committed by an adult on another adult, for twenty-five years;
(c) if committed by a minor, for five years.

(2) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.

I find they need to start enforcing the bolded part. note consent is not an issue......and know for sure they have real men who will have to ketch.

[KFCSpicy]

That law so antiquated eh it eh even funny no more...it just like the thought processes of most of the people in power. Out dated and useless.

[dancerboy]

u jess biased. most laws are contradictory.
KFC, ah hear u. I always consider myself to be a very liberal individual. But when i looking at the news with meh likkle grand pickney dem, and dey show u man kissing man and woman kissing woman,dey does ask all kinda questions. Children could differenciate between real and fiction. The way some of these homosexual flaunt dey 'GAIETY' in u face it's disgusting.

DANCERBOY

[KFCSpicy]

I know what you mean but you must be careful when using the word "flaunt" they are entitled to act how they please once they are not doing anything harmful to anyone else. We are visually, physically, mentally, spiritually stressful but is that them or is it just we and we many phobias and mindsets?

My grandmother back in the day God ress she soul used to ban me from de newspapers like Punch and Mirror and any dodgy thing in print...I was monitored when it came to the tv and on Fridays when dad brought home movies galore, my moms used to take dem and sit down and go through them and take out all the Rated R ones and hide them from we.

That never stopped we from being inquisitive but it never turned us into anything that we did happen to spy or read. Give kids credit for being sponges yes but discerning ones too. They ask the questions because they need things explained so have no fear but also be cautious what yuh teach. They may interpret it very differently than the way you mean it eh! Remember all the outside influences too, so nah worry bout the kids questions worry about irresponsibile adults behaviour and how it go affect the young ones.

[snowbird]

...... I know what you mean but you must be careful when using the word "flaunt" they are entitled to act how they please once they are not doing anything harmful to anyone else. We are visually, physically, mentally, spiritually stressful but is that them or is it just we and we many phobias and mindsets? ......

This statement is so apropos. I was just viewing a website of Carnival Tuesday Pictures; the one thing I noticed is that most of the men seem to be in such good shape :lol: . And of course, none of them are wearing a shirt, noooooooooo :lol: , everyone is proudly displaying their 'wash board' stomachs, and firm almost sculptured abs; in other words 'beef cake city' (real poster boys for Golds Gym) :lol:

Now tell me, would the photographer have been so eager to take, and publish those pictures had it been of extremely effeminate looking men, with limp wrists and waxed legs :o (I'm just using a stereotypical description, and admit most homosexuals look like you and I), and even if he did, other than of a Gay Pride Parade, they would never be in the numbers as was published of 'Beef Cake City, and why not? because he knows he would probably be offending the sensibilities of the majority; who by the way, are more than happy to watch pictures of all the 'wining couples and threesoms'.

[sylvestter]

How u go feel if yuh five year old daughter turn on de tv, and see man bussing kiss on man, or ah oman draging ah next oman tongue ?. HOW IT GO LOOK ?
DANCERBOY

how it go look ? Depends on how attractive the women involved are :D

what you clearly fail to realize is that not everyone reacts the same way you do

oh and


13. (1) A person who commits buggery is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment—
(a) if committed by an adult on a minor, for life;
(b) if committed by an adult on another adult, for twenty-five years;
(c) if committed by a minor, for five years.

(2) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.

I find they need to start enforcing the bolded part. note consent is not an issue......and know for sure they have real men who will have to ketch.

when last anybody get charged for buggery???

[serenity]

when last anybody get charged for buggery???

Appended to many a rape charge is a charge of buggery I think.

[Scorpio]

I don't see how this is discriminating against gays. Courts didn't say no gays allowed, they said only male/female kissing, it is their contest so they can make the rules. There is nothing stopping a gay person from entering.

[serenity]

:roll:

[Huma]

I don't see how this is discriminating against gays. Courts didn't say no gays allowed, they said only male/female kissing, it is their contest so they can make the rules. There is nothing stopping a gay person from entering.

Steups.

[KFCSpicy]

lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Scorps meh body in pain and yuh have meh laffing. Not fair. Ah cyah believe yuh made that moronic statement. So what is gay construed as in the year 2008? Not anyone who is same gender? So if Courts say only men and women kissing then ummm...... They definitely did not say only men and men or women and women. So I think it's an anti gay thing Scorpie hunny.

Yuh make Huma steupse and Serenity roll she eyes. but yuh made my evening! :mrgreen:

[Scorpio]

Serenity, Huma and Kfc Spicy, can any of you say for a fact that no gay persons entered the courts kiss-a-ton ?

Here's an even easier question : why do you assume that because the contest rules says "only male/female couples allowed", a gay person could not enter the contest ?

and, btw, don't bother to answer if all you can come up with is a roll eyes icon or a steups. ;)

[serenity]

Huuuuummmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Scorpio want yuh to explain it to him...slowly.
*Goes to make popcorn for the main event*

[Falcon]

I'm with you on this one Scorpio, I ent think them understand your argument here....but it will stand up in court me thinks....good spot! (big stone coming though)

[KFCSpicy]

Serenity, Huma and Kfc Spicy, can any of you say for a fact that no gay persons entered the courts kiss-a-ton ?

Here's an even easier question : why do you assume that because the contest rules says "only male/female couples allowed", a gay person could not enter the contest ?

and, btw, don't bother to answer if all you can come up with is a roll eyes icon or a steups. ;)


I know you are being mundane when you talk about the word GAY not being used in their rules. I also know that men/women kissing could mean anything anyone can twist it to mean. I also know that in a court of our peers this point will be a salient one. But for argument sake, let's just say that yuh dealing with rational, level headed thinking human beings online here for a moment who doh have time to read anything but the obvious into the rules of the contest as projected by court.

Plain Eglish? I think not in this case (as anyone can twist yuh words) but common sense does abound when one is trying to interpret.

[Scorpio]

As long as Falcon agrees I know I not mad.... :D

[Chicabonita]

Well, firstly, as skl pointed out, homosexuality isnt illegal. Sodomy is. So lesbians good to go.

Wait a minute guys, if homosexually is not illegal in Trinidad as some of you stated. How come it is illegal the entrance of homosexuals in the country? :shock:

Section 8 (E) of the Prohibition Class of the Immigration Act, states that the following should not be allowed on local shores:

"...Prostitutes, homosexuals or persons living on the earnings of prostitutes or homosexuals, or persons reasonably suspected as coming to Trinidad and Tobago for these and any other immoral purposes..."

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl ... =161143888 (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161143888)

So we are saying that for the law it is okay to have open local gays but we cannot allow the foreign ones to enter the country? :?

[Sirius]

A jury of level headed peers would have to concede that Courts has not committed discrimination. Think about it: A gay man can kiss a woman. A lesbian woman can kiss a man. It just won't turn them on. So then...they're not being prohibited from entering the contest because of their sexuality. Therefore, no discrimination has been committed as the person can still enter once their contest partner (not romantic partner!) is of the opposite sex. The rule that it must be a man/woman pair kissing then becomes just a part of the regulations for a contest, much like for instance saying you can't enter a given contest if you're under 18.

Just breaking it down a little for those who might not get it.

It may not be desirable to a gay individual to be told they can't enter the contest and kiss someone they're genuinely attracted to, but at the same time no real discrimination has taken place that can be pursued in a court of law and won.

[Huma]

Huuuuummmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Scorpio want yuh to explain it to him...slowly.


I was actually into the second paragraph of an explanation in that earlier post, then I realized that nobody on this forum could be dumb enough to see Scorpio's post as anything more than semantic legalese rubbish.

And it's not even that legally sound, when you consider the legal trouble building owners can get themselves into when they fail to provide facilities for the disabled. But ay...they never say that de disabled cyar enter de building!

[skl]

So we are saying that for the law it is okay to have open local gays but we cannot allow the foreign ones to enter the country? :?

well effectly......yes :D

but what it is , is this. Homosexuality is a thought process, you cannot charge someone for a thought, only for an action. So being attracted to the same gender is quite alright......acting on it in the case of males is a Not. Women get away apparantly.

now you cannot charge someone for a thought but you can bar them from entering your jursidiction, so assuming customs and immigration new that someone was gay they could bar them from entering.

of course enforcing that is kinda difficult.

but I hope people understand something--sodomy applies whether the "catcher" is male or female. I want someone to start a crusade telling fellas not to have anal sex with women. i just wish we still had the older version of the law which banned oral sex too :D .

[serenity]

I CANNOT believe I'm going to actually explain this, but here goes Scorpio.

Firstly, we already established early on that the laws in relation to discrimination does not address sexual orientation. So there is really no issue of it reaching litigation stage.

That aside, how can it not be discrimination?

Look at the context of the competition - a valentine's day competition to win a bed.
The competition is open to couples only - to see who could hold a kiss the longest.
Which other couples would enter such a competition but a romantically involved couple? Do u figure a father and daughter couple could qualify?

By specifying only male/female couples, u are in fact negating all homosexual couples and the right of two same sex persons to be recognised as same. What they are saying therefore, is, this valentines day competition is for couples. But we dont recognise gay ppl as being 'true' couples, so u not allowed to expose yourself and express yourself as a couple in our competition. If u want to pretend to be straight and kiss a member of the opposite sex, feel free, we'll pretend along with u.

That is discriminatory behaviour. U are essentially saying that only male-female kissing allowed in what should be a general, open competition for couples of any orientation. Which part of the contest makes it physically impossible unless at least one party is male and the other female? None. Its a kissing competition and we all, regardless of gender, have lips.

And though its not explicitly law yet, if it were, Scorpio's argument would have a not have fat chance as the courts are not fooled by form - meaning all the semantics in the world cant help your case if it is found to be interpreted a certain way by the average joe.

[Falcon]

Scorpio, congrats....
every naysayer who try to ridicule you up top now check-in to cover themselves (with various degrees of success and legitimacy). Justice late but it come. :lol:

As was pointed out early on, is Courts call, and them decision.

[serenity]

Scorpio, congrats....
every naysayer who try to ridicule you up top now check-in to cover themselves (with various degrees of success and legitimacy). Justice late but it come. :lol:

As was pointed out early on, is Courts call, and them decision.

Steups.
Only bec according to him, your endorsement legitimises his misguided view. And Sirius' to boot(h)! :twisted:
And ah couldnt leave that so.
Community service... something like your grammar patrol. :mrgreen:

[Scorpio]

Scorpio, congrats....
every naysayer who try to ridicule you up top now check-in to cover themselves (with various degrees of success and legitimacy). Justice late but it come. :lol:

As was pointed out early on, is Courts call, and them decision.


:D

[Scorpio]

Scorpio, congrats....
every naysayer who try to ridicule you up top now check-in to cover themselves (with various degrees of success and legitimacy). Justice late but it come. :lol:

As was pointed out early on, is Courts call, and them decision.

Steups.
Only bec according to him, your endorsement legitimises his misguided view. And Sirius' to boot(h)! :twisted:
And ah couldnt leave that so.
Community service... something like your grammar patrol. :mrgreen:

:roll:

[Scorpio]

A jury of level headed peers would have to concede that Courts has not committed discrimination. Think about it: A gay man can kiss a woman. A lesbian woman can kiss a man. It just won't turn them on. So then...they're not being prohibited from entering the contest because of their sexuality. Therefore, no discrimination has been committed as the person can still enter once their contest partner (not romantic partner!) is of the opposite sex. The rule that it must be a man/woman pair kissing then becomes just a part of the regulations for a contest, much like for instance saying you can't enter a given contest if you're under 18.

Just breaking it down a little for those who might not get it.

It may not be desirable to a gay individual to be told they can't enter the contest and kiss someone they're genuinely attracted to, but at the same time no real discrimination has taken place that can be pursued in a court of law and won.

Nice explaination, Sirius.....I didn't break it down like this on purpose, I wanted them to think a little, but now I realise I may have been expecting a little too much. :D

[Huma]

I didn't break it down like this on purpose, I wanted them to think a little, but now I realise I may have been expecting a little too much.


Nobody was challenged or confused by your argument, Scorpio. Don't flatter yourself.

It's because the semantics of it are so obvious and shallow that nobody bothered to go into explanations in the first place.

Funny thing is that technical arguments like those have been swatted down for decades now in the name of the greater spirit of equality. The argument that serenity and KFC put forward, the one that doesn't insult thinking people, has been trumping semantics for years. As I pointed out, it's not even that legally sound.




Scorpio, congrats....
every naysayer who try to ridicule you up top now check-in to cover themselves (with various degrees of success and legitimacy). Justice late but it come. :lol:

As was pointed out early on, is Courts call, and them decision.

Stop shifting goalposts. Nobody's arguing about whether Courts has the right to do it...we're questioning whether it's right of them to do it.

Your attitude reminds me of when Beenie Man was claiming that a chichi man is a child molester...and when Wanskie was claiming that a chichi man was someone who starts fights in parties. And every homophobe with a phone was callin in tuh "verify" that.

You're proudly homophobic; instead of trying to obfuscate, yuh should be honest and say they damn right.

[sylvestter]

our laws are so antiquated.

the pedantic among us might argue that kissing in public may fall in the ambit of public indecency, which in itself is an offence....

[Scorpio]

Courts has a kiss-a-thon. The last couple standing wins a bed I think. The conditions which apply are as follows:
Participants must be 18 years and over
Male female couples only.



Huma, it doesn't matter how many "technical arguments have been swatted down for decades now in the name of the greater spirit of equality"......

......until Serenity or someone else posts the contest rule that says "no gays allowed", the answer to her question in the subject line is NO !!!

[Falcon]

You're proudly homophobic; instead of trying to obfuscate, yuh should be honest and say they damn right.

The second post on this thread:

Damn right.
They sell overpriced and underquality furniture, but at least they know where to draw the line!
Phew!!
The ninth post on this thread:

Hahaha, but to answer your question more clearly: Courts right!!!

Ketch yuhself before yuh start talking about honesty and dishonesty ok mate?

[Scorpio]

btw, Serenity...yuh ent find this thread shows "how easily we adopt headlines [or subject lines] without asking questions" ?

[serenity]

btw, Serenity...yuh ent find this thread shows "how easily we adopt headlines [or subject lines] without asking questions" ?

Clever. :roll:

The thread header was a question. The point was for u to consider if it was, in your opinion, discriminatory behaviour. I guess u made it clear what your opinion was. Thanks.

I suppose if Courts had decided that they were holding a Valentine's Day competition and only men on men kissing, or women on women kissing were allowed, u wouldnt see that as a 'gay competition' targeting gays. U see it as a competition open to the public but requiring a lil gay behaviour. If that makes sense in your world, then good for u.

Besides, we're not reaching to far to say its discriminatory either, if u read the fiirst post, they said male/female couples only. Lemme break it down for u: Gay couples not allowed.

[serenity]

I didn't break it down like this on purpose, I wanted them to think a little, but now I realise I may have been expecting a little too much.


Nobody was challenged or confused by your argument, Scorpio. Don't flatter yourself.

It's because the semantics of it are so obvious and shallow that nobody bothered to go into explanations in the first place.



We really need that clapping emoticon back.
See why ah love Huma?

[Huma]

Huma, it doesn't matter how many "technical arguments have been swatted down for decades now in the name of the greater spirit of equality"......

......until Serenity or someone else posts the contest rule that says "no gays allowed", the answer to her question in the subject line is NO !!!


The law doesn't only act in terms of technicalities and semantics.

Even if a rule/law/condition doesn't explicitly discriminate against a certain group, it can be (and more often than not has been) argued that it implicitly discriminates or encourages discrimination. Schools that ban headwear or enforce hairstyles don't say that certain religions aren't allowed...but they've consistently been found guilty of discriminating against students whose headwear or hairstyles is part of their religious, thus social, identity.

Buildings that don't have facilities for the disabled don't explicitly say that the disabled can't enter...but they've consistently been found guilty of discriminating against them.

Similar major cases have been won in favor of women, various ethnicities and even legal immigrants. It's a regularly beaten-down argument in rent discrimination cases in developed countries as well.

The legal precedent against implicitly discriminatory tactics is well-established, and the tactics themselves are nothing new. The law regularly dismisses technicalities and focuses on the big picture. And I'm sure Sirius will confirm these points.

So I'll say again, don't flatter yourself. Your argument is cliched, shallow and nowhere as clever as you think it is. Frankly, I'm kinda surprised you're the one who presented it.

[KFCSpicy]

8-) hee hee hee beehhhh dohhh Ah sorry ah cyah stick out meh tongue and roll meh eyes at all yuh now.

I quite agree with Huma's last post...hence my victory cheer... :mrgreen: :geek:

[Huma]

Our recent Trinity Cross debate is an excellent example of rulings against implicit discrimination. Nowhere does it say that non-Christians couldn't win or accept the award...however, the form the award took was seen as a clear marginalization of an integral part of the aggrieved individuals' identities.

And just like this discussion, it was a good example of how those with a stake against the aggrieved eagerly introduce semantics (Hindus believe in de Trimurti!) and legal obfuscation into the debate to give their arguments some illusion of neutrality.

[Scorpio]

btw, Serenity...yuh ent find this thread shows "how easily we adopt headlines [or subject lines] without asking questions" ?

Clever.


I know....:D

[Scorpio]

So I'll say again, don't flatter yourself. Your argument is cliched, shallow and nowhere as clever as you think it is. Frankly, I'm kinda surprised you're the one who presented it.

:shock: That almost sounded like a compliment :?

Thanks anyway, Huma. :D

[serenity]

btw, Serenity...yuh ent find this thread shows "how easily we adopt headlines [or subject lines] without asking questions" ?

Clever.


I know....:D

*sigh*

[Scorpio]

:roll:

[Sirius]

Here's the deal. I'm all for equal treatment. I've repeatedly chastised people for their homophobic behaviors. But with that said, look at how the contest was advertised and conducted, look at our laws and look at our culture and mentality as a people. Yes, it may have been morally wrong of Courts to set the rules in the manner they did. But can anybody honestly expect Courts to be taken to court (oooh, pun) and be fined for discrimination over this issue?

Too many Trinidadians are a set of overly conservative, closed minded fools who are too homophobic to see this as discrimination. They, in some sort of twisted logic actually have the capacity to see discrimination as upkeeping moral values as long as that discrimination doesn't affect them and upset the roost they grew up knowing.

[serenity]

Here's the deal. I'm all for equal treatment. I've repeatedly chastised people for their homophobic behaviors. But with that said, look at how the contest was advertised and conducted, look at our laws and look at our culture and mentality as a people. Yes, it may have been morally wrong of Courts to set the rules in the manner they did. But can anybody honestly expect Courts to be taken to court (oooh, pun) and be fined for discrimination over this issue?

Too many Trinidadians are a set of overly conservative, closed minded fools who are too homophobic to see this as discrimination. They, in some sort of twisted logic actually have the capacity to see discrimination as upkeeping moral values as long as that discrimination doesn't affect them and upset the roost they grew up knowing.


Sirius u kinda late with this one - I'm referring specifically to your question.
The discussion already moved past if they could be taken to court (no laws in place yet, so no) or if it was good business to do what they did (it is, for the reasons repeated by u)
We currently deciding whether their actions can be termed discriminatory. By saying u feel its morally wrong, then, I presume, your answer is yes.

[Huma]

Sirius, I think the same thing you do, but luckily that doesn't prevent us from having this discussion here.

[Scorpio]

So, the right of a child to attend a publicly funded school in traditional religious garb is being compared to the right of a gay person to kiss his/her same sex partner in a contest held by a private company as a sales promotion.

Interesting.

[Huma]

So, the right of a child to attend a publicly funded school in traditional religious garb is being compared to the right of a gay person to kiss his/her same sex partner in a contest held by a private company as a sales promotion.

Yes.

The main difference is that the private company has more leeway to discriminate than a public institution.

But discrimination is discrimination, and discrimination is what we're discussing. You going too far off on what can and cannot be prosecuted.

I really like how you ignored the other examples, though.

[Scorpio]

The main difference is that the private company has more leeway to discriminate than a public institution.


More leeway to discriminate you say ?

Sounds like discrimination against public institutions to me...

Interesting...

[serenity]

Scorpio, in your eagerness to sound clever u are confusing the current position of the law with the topic which is not based on law but personal perception.

The law does not recognise gay couples, so there is no issue of prosecution.

If we're looking at discrimination that is recognised by law, then it might be more correct to say that it may be more difficult to prove implicit discrimination by private companies as opposed to public companies/authorities.

The Freedom of Information Act for example, (which I believe is a brilliant piece of legislation) makes it much easier for the public to gain access to information on which one can base one's case. A brief study of the case with Sat Maharaj's son being denied promotion at the NLCB would be useful to see how that works.
While there are similar responsibilities of disclosure by private companies, it might be much easier for them to deny the existence of such documentation, thereby making it more difficult to prove your case.

Besides, common sense would dictate that for the sake of public policy considerations, public authorities be held to a higher standard of accountability for their actions.

[Scorpio]

Scorpio, in your eagerness to sound clever u are confusing the current position of the law with the topic which is not based on law but personal perception.

:? I never mentioned anything about the law. :twisted:


The law does not recognise gay couples, so there is no issue of prosecution.


Again, I didn't say anything about prosecuting anyone.... :o

[serenity]

My humblest apologies Scorpio.

I thought we were talking about 'leeway to discriminate' according to the law.
I thought your reference to discrimination against public institutions was in relation to the law.
I thought your comparison of the rights of the child in a public school vs the 'right' of a gay person was in relation to the law.

Bec that's the only way your objections are worth considering - the question of apparent disparities in the law. But I guess we were overreaching...

Pray tell, what other ground of comparison were u basing all these 'interesting' posts on?

[Scorpio]

My humblest apologies Scorpio.

I thought we were talking about 'leeway to discriminate' according to the law.
I thought your reference to discrimination against public institutions was in relation to the law.
I thought your comparison of the rights of the child in a public school vs the 'right' of a gay person was in relation to the law.

Bec that's the only way your objections are worth considering - the question of apparent disparities in the law. But I guess we were overreaching...

Pray tell, what other ground of comparison were u basing all these 'interesting' posts on?

None of those above quotes were in reference to the law.

I am not a lawyer, and therefore I don't know anything about anybody's "leeway to discriminate according to law". So why & how would I be arguing law here ?

Ditto for your other two point.

I did not make any objections to anything in that post you're referring to.

Finally, I was not the one who introduced "leeway to discriminate" into the thread, my post said what it sounded like to me therefore, ask Huma what the basis of comparison is, because all I am saying is that when Huma says one group has "leeway to discriminate" whereas another group doesn't this sounds like discrimination to me. ;)

Wikipedia defines discrimination as "the discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences between things"

and I see you have 'rights' in quotation marks, however "rights" could refer to legal or moral entitlements.

[serenity]

:lol: Well boy!
Cant have a serious discussion with u on the matter if u conveniently leave off certain aspects of the topic in an attempt to show that there isnt discrim in the Courts case. Esp when huma shows u instances of discrimination found by the courts ie the law. And Huma isnt a lawyer. It just takes some thinking.

If u not talking about the law then,


Pray tell, what other ground of comparison were u basing all these 'interesting' posts on?


And yes, u did say 'sounds like', all I did was inform u how it isnt.

:lol: Thanks Scorpo, I dont need setting straight on the use of quotation marks, perhaps some patient soul would explain to u why they were used in that sentence.

And I really dont think that definition of discrimination is the one we're working with so u might wanna do a lil more research.

Feel free to laugh at me Scorpio. In fact, take win. U obviously think u have outwitted us all and refuse to entertain any further serious discussion on the matter.

[Scorpio]

And yes, u did say 'sounds like', all I did was inform u how it isnt..

Poor innocent Serenity, all you did was inform me how it wasn't...of course you started off by saying, "Scorpio, in your eagerness to sound clever..." :roll: [/quote]

[serenity]

Poor innocent Serenity, all you did was inform me how it wasn't...of course you started off by saying, "Scorpio, in your eagerness to sound clever..." :roll:

I apologise for that comment Scorpio.
(no sarcasm) :)

[Scorpio]

ok, Serenity, and I apologise sincerely for losing my cool there.

Interestingly, I discussed this with a very good friend, and she pointed out that since the only way a gay person could enter this contest is by kissing someone who is not of his/her sexual preference, they are at a natural disadvantage in the contest because they will not be as comfortable with the kissing and therefore not continue the kiss for as long as they would with someone of their sexual preference.

I agree with this totally.

[KFCSpicy]

:? Am I missing something here?

If I gay and go into a competition with a hetero friend just to win a bed....who de hell getting de bed if we win? So why would I do it anyways? :roll:

[Scorpio]

:? Am I missing something here?

If I gay and go into a competition with a hetero friend just to win a bed....who de hell getting de bed if we win? So why would I do it anyways? :roll:

^^They could just give me de bed. ;)

[trinidadobserved]

Courts has a kiss-a-thon. The last couple standing wins a bed I think. The conditions which apply are as follows:
Participants must be 18 years and over
Male female couples only.

How do u feel about this?
Good business practice.

[trinidadobserved]

But by playing to ppl's prejudices, wont u be perpetuating it?

How can u measure the implications of gays being allowed to enter this competition on courts' sales?

Besides, its not like courts would be specifically endorsing homosexuality - they just leaving the competition open...as they rightfully should.

Courts Ltd have no reason to fight Trinidad "culture". and make no mistake Trinidad is one of those hypocritical psuedo conservative countires where people does do eveything behind closed doors and attack those same things in public.

We "fortunate" in a sense that race overshadows sex in this country but just look at Lucky when she was UNC no body mention her orientation.....when she leave mystriously posters attacking her orientation pop up....and posters agianst Kennedy too......ridiculous ones which asked if the reason he left the army and priesthood was becuase he was gay.

Mind u I think whoever ran that campiagn was dotish given that they didnt take into account that gay people vote too.
Gays, already a small percent of the population in even the most liberal countries, do not vote as a block in Trinidad; and almost certainly not in a political way.