Hate crime or not?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 5:50 AM GMT
    So I was walking to the bank today when I was stopped by some guy who asked me if I wanted to fill out this survey.

    Apparently the surveyors (I guess students or so) wanted to gauge the opinions on gay people and what is perceived as hate crime.

    It was one page with a handful of questions. The first one was if i lived in the West End (yes). The second was phrases something like "There are many gay people living in the West End, do you agree with this". I found the question rather strange, as if it's up to me to agree with whomever lives in the area. It was a multiple choice question going from strongly agree to strongly disagree. I figured it'd be best to just say "agree" to keep it neutral.

    The interesting question was about the perception of hate crimes. This was the question:

    "Two men, a couple, walk into a cafe, and sit down at the bar. After about 10 minutes the bartender has still not asked them for their order. When one of the men asks the bartender if he can take their order, the bartender says he will not have gay people in his bar, and that he refuses to service them. Furthermore, he tells them to leave as he does not want any gay people in his bar. Do you think this constitutes a hate crime?"

    So I answered no to this question. I'm not even sure if refusing service at a bar is legal (I reckon it is actually), and as the word "hate crime" is rather heavy and usually associated with physical crimes, I figured this would be one fucked up incident but not exactly worthy of the term "hate crime".

    On the other hand, it might be technically argued as being one.

    So what do you guys think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 5:53 AM GMT
    Private establishments have the right to refuse service. This couple could, however, immediately go to the media and this bar would go through shit after openly admitting to refuse service based on people's sexuality. It's not a hate crime, though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 5:59 AM GMT
    I think impromptu surveys should be a crime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 6:17 AM GMT
    You said, ""Two men, a couple, walk into a cafe, and sit down at the bar. After about 10 minutes the bartender has still not asked them for their order. When one of the men asks the bartender if he can take their order, the bartender says he will not have gay people in his bar, and that he refuses to service them. Furthermore, he tells them to leave as he does not want any gay people in his bar. Do you think this constitutes a hate crime?""

    That's not a hate crime. Private establishments can refuse service to anyone for any or even no reason.

    To help you think more clearly:

    Imagine if you ran a gay-friendly, and Jew-friendly, restaurant and 12 Nazis came in, and wanted to have a group meeting. Would you like to be compelled to serve them, by law, in your place of business, owned by you? Should the law of the land force you to serve them?

    These things go both directions.

    Folks get refused at night clubs all night long for just not being part of the in crowd, or not dressing a certain way, etc.. Is it fair? Of course not. Does it reflect the right of us to shape our businesses and lives as we see fit? Yep.

    We most often choose to associate with others that have similar status, means, looks, interests, and so on. It's the way of The World. That's not hate, but, it's not necessarily fair, either.

    We've ALL been discriminated against at some point, for any number of reasons.

    Despite laws, private business, can, and does, shape their business in a certain way.

    If I own a fitness business should I be compelled to hire fat folks and smokers? Of course not.

    Many times, this isn't a big deal. Who wants to be where they don't feel welcome? Do I want to hang out in a culture I don't like, nor feel part of, just to make a point? Nope; not unless I like being miserable.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Oct 16, 2010 6:22 AM GMT
    It's a crime of discrimination, refusing service solely because the men were gay. The bar tender said that that was the reason he was refusing service to them.

    Is it a hate crime ?
    Probably so.

    BTW: Putting up a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not enforceable.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 6:26 AM GMT
    It is a hate crime. It's a crime and done purely out of hatred for a class of people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 6:27 AM GMT
    Here in my apartment complex, we only have EVER had one group of folks blast loud hip hop music, despite the fact that they live here, and...any decent folks should know better. They are antagonistic.

    Now, would it be a crime to not rent an apartment to them? They might contend so, given current law, when, in reality, they should be thrown out of the complex because they are rude, inconsiderate, and jerks, but, everyone is afraid of anti-discrimination law and instead grits their teeth. The fact is that they are antagonistic and like it, and know they can get away with it because of current law.

    To be truly fair, those folks should be thrown out because they are jerks, but, they won't be, and...they know it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 6:33 AM GMT
    It's not a simple as saying hate crime. There's lots of other factors.

    A private business does have a right to enforce certain standards.

    Is Hooter's guilty of hate crimes for not hiring gay men to wait their tables? Of course not. The Hooter's business model is based upon having created a customer expectation that they'll be served by a hot babe in a Hooter's outfit...branding...

    When I worked for the state of Nebraska, one gal was last every day in her work, by nearly 2/3. Everyone else would enter 300 1040N returns a day. She entered 83. I made the remark, "Latoya, do you ever get tired of being last?" She said, "I don't have to worry about my job." Of course, she was right. Later, that Friday night, her boyfriend, who also worked at The State, pulled a gun at the bar for "fucking with his woman." The State fired me for "your own protection."

    That, of course, was all about quotas, and law suits, and not about what was right. We get to caught up in quotas. I didn't pull a gun on anyone. I wasn't doing 1/3 of the work of everyone else. I had made a casual observation about someone abusing employment law, and exploiting it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 1:08 PM GMT
    Why not- let's call everything a hate crime and make it loose any relevance it may still have.

    If people would stop tossing around the term to the extent they are it might be taken seriously. There is a huge difference between bashing and refusing to serve somebody or calling them a name; to attempt to use the same legislation for all three incidents is insane.

    The actual answer is that no, it is not a hate crime in Canada no matter how many people may wish it were. The only thing that I could find that would support it being a hate crime is "(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor."

    The problem is that the person has to first be convicted of an actual crime (for instance, assault) before you can try to have the sentence increased. If anybody can find a law to convict the person you could possibly argue that it s a hate crime and could, in theory apply to have his prison time increased. I just want to know what you propose to charge him with in the first place, being as hate is not in and of itself a crime.

    If you are interested in the actual legislation regarding hate crimes it can be found here along with a short explanation. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    It's not a hate crime, but is a crime of discrimination, per the Canadian Charter.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    Putting aside whether or not the scenario is a hate crime, it sounds like the survey was not trying to gather information objectively, but was trying to skew results one direction or another in order to present a dishonest and misleading conclusion.

    Phrase a survey question in the right way and you can get any result you want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 3:28 PM GMT
    Canadians shod have to have a scarlet C on their pics so you can recognize them! icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    Not a "Hate Crime"....but it is a BAD BUSINESS move...lack of money and bad public relations if it gets to the media, or even word of mouth... can be ugly, but legal...
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Oct 16, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
    I found this definition online regarding "Hate Crime"


    A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability



    I think this bar example could qualify as a civil "discrimination" matter, depending on the laws in the jurisdiction the bar operates in, but not a "Hate Crime" -- just hateful. It's not really a crime to hate, unless other factors are involved like threats, violence, harassment, or physical harm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 3:42 PM GMT
    Lol, er, this is a survey being done in Canada you guys - different laws. icon_wink.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 4:08 PM GMT
    meninlove said Lol, er, this is a survey being done in Canada you guys - different laws. icon_wink.gif




    ..point is of CRITICAL importance...VANCOUVER, BC, Canada....not in the USA....makes a HUGE difference....it may be a hate crime in Canada..I don't know Canadian law.... Thanks Doug...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 4:16 PM GMT
    Yeah, I agree.... not a hate crime but a hateful thing to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 5:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI found this definition online regarding "Hate Crime"


    A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability



    I think this bar example could qualify as a civil "discrimination" matter, depending on the laws in the jurisdiction the bar operates in, but not a "Hate Crime" -- just hateful. It's not really a crime to hate, unless other factors are involved like threats, violence, harassment, or physical harm.


    I thought so too - regardless of what it is exactly called by the law.

    On the other hand, the survey was a little skewed; I told the guy that he was kinda preaching to the choir, as he was doing in the surveys *in* the West End, which is the gayest neighbourhood in town. So no quite sure what he wanted to get out of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 5:46 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]chuckystud said[/To help you think more clearly:

    Imagine if you ran a gay-friendly, and Jew-friendly, restaurant and 12 Nazis came in, and wanted to have a group meeting. Would you like to be compelled to serve them, by law, in your place of business, owned by you? Should the law of the land force you to serve them?
    .[/quote]

    its a disturbing example,but i think there is a diffrence,nazi ideology resents [and acts] against people that are diffrent from thei ideal, being gay isnt an ideology

    i would refuse to serve the nazis,and make hell in the media if i was the couple,but to the point its not a hate crime its a stupidity crime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 6:02 PM GMT
    chuckystud saidYou said, ""Two men, a couple, walk into a cafe, and sit down at the bar. After about 10 minutes the bartender has still not asked them for their order. When one of the men asks the bartender if he can take their order, the bartender says he will not have gay people in his bar, and that he refuses to service them. Furthermore, he tells them to leave as he does not want any gay people in his bar. Do you think this constitutes a hate crime?""

    That's not a hate crime. Private establishments can refuse service to anyone for any or even no reason.

    To help you think more clearly:

    Imagine if you ran a gay-friendly, and Jew-friendly, restaurant and 12 Nazis came in, and wanted to have a group meeting. Would you like to be compelled to serve them, by law, in your place of business, owned by you? Should the law of the land force you to serve them?


    Hate crime. Hell no. Deeply stupid behaviour... yes. In the UK it would be illegal under the Equality Act of 2006.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 6:16 PM GMT
    Regardless of what the laws are in any country, we all have the inalienable right to associate with whom we choose, including in business. Laws, individuals and groups may exist which violate that right, but it is a fundamental right nonetheless.

    Yes, it is bigoted and demonstrates hate. However, if enough people truly understood where hatred and bigotry come from, these types of issues would all but disappear. The fact is, bigoted people don't associate or distinguish sanely. Hatred most often comes from a need to justify an underlying and hidden guilt. Fear may stem from false information given by those who hate. Persecution, which is acting on hate and fear, comes from a loss of ability to then distinguish differences and similarities in others, within the proper context. The hate, lies and fear are what bring about that disability. The guilt of having then persecuted, creates more need to justify and therefore more hatred and on and on.

    An example of this disability might be a man who insists that all women are bad drivers. This person has lost his ability to distinguish one woman from another when it comes to driving. However, it is quite obvious to others that good women drivers do in fact exist.

    Sex is a natural expression as well as the procreative medium in the human species. Laws against sexual conduct are insane except where it causes actual harm. Of course "harm" needs to be defined in a way that does not violate the right to choose based on one's own personal nature, the rights of consenting adults and which does not enforce religiously based morals on those not of that religion.

    Laws should exist to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with one set of beliefs. That's the American way, or is supposed to be. It is governments job to protect those rights. Something California has failed in. America was founded with the idea that everyone was created equal with equal rights and equal liberty. This would necessarily have to include one's sexuality.

    We all have differences. We all have likes and dislikes. But, if someone doesn't like me or want to be around me for some bigoted reason, I know that they have serious issues of kind described above and cannot be trusted. I know that I'm a good person. I bear no ill will to others and I take responsibility. I do a good job and I leave a place cleaner than when I found it. I practice the golden rule.

    I look at them like I would a wild and dangerous carnivore. Bigoted people behave in an animal-like manner. They don't associate or distinguish sanely. So, just as I would not sit in a tiger's lair, I would not want to sit in an establishment where the proprietors or employees are bigoted. But, they do have the right to their point of view, just as long as they don't actually harm others because of it. And that part I respect.

    Although, if you were in a life threatening situation and they were the only one’s available to help but neglected to do so, that would indeed be a hate crime if based on bigotry. But, either way, that would be criminal negligence. We all have a moral and legal responsibility to help in any way possible in a life and death crises when circumstances truly call for it. There are a great many precedents on that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 8:09 PM GMT
    Well put. I might add that we have laws to protect UNPOPULAR views, and situations. Popular views and situations don't need protection.

    Any reasonable person picks and chooses their associations. Do I like hanging out with fat folks or smokers? No. Do I choose to allow them in my inner circle? No.

    The question really gets down to how much you have to accommodate someone that really strikes you badly, no matter what spot you sit in.

    While discrimination is an evil thing, anti-discrimination has been exploited, too.

    Many organizations run scared of all that.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 16, 2010 8:25 PM GMT
    Private establishments can refuse service to anyone for any or even no reason. ...
    A private business does have a right to enforce certain standards.


    Not exactly, some examples:

    California Civil Code:
    PDF from California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing site
    The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations. The term "business establishments" may include governmental and public entities as well.

    [example of violation]
    A same-sex couple is denied a table at a restaurant even though there are vacant tables available and other customers are seated immediately.





    U.S. Code Title 42>Chapter 21>Subchapter II>2000a
    (a) Equal access
    All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
    (b)
    Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
    ...
    (e) Private establishments
    The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 8:33 PM GMT
    You're right. There are the usual anti-discrimination things on gender, color, religion.

    That being said, if a black person comes into your place of business with a boom box blasting hip hop you have every right to throw them out, even if you run a risk of them using the "race card."

    The gym is a PRIVATE CLUB, and can refuse service to anyone, including ADA folks. Any lawyer can verify that for you.

    Logan is a type 1 diabetic and takes insulin injections. We've had run-ins with ignorant Texans about his right to take his medication. The gym insists that he never show a visible syringe or they'll revoke his membership. Of course, insulin is what keeps him alive.

    In my case, at the State, the gal that was black, and female, and who did 1/3 of the work of everyone else, was right in stating that she didn't have to worry about her job. She was a double EEO stat, and the State wasn't about to make her accountable for work performance.

    A lot of the anti-discrimination / EEO stuff is over the top out of control and now is being aggressively abused.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2010 8:38 PM GMT
    Kell_la saidRegardless of what the laws are in any country, we all have the inalienable right to associate with whom we choose, including in business. Laws, individuals and groups may exist which violate that right, but it is a fundamental right nonetheless.


    Oh yes, of course. There was nothing wrong in refusing to serve negros because they were negros. I mean you can´t expect decent white folk to associate with coloureds or allow them in their restaurants or neighbourhoods. Civil rights legislation violates this fundamental right.