quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
You should at least read the article.  According to the particulars contained thereing, the bus driver was off duty, and far from enforcing regulations, insulted the couple and assaulted the man.  If there was a regulatory issue with the lead, it was not reported.

quote:


"I am a pet, I generally act animal like and I lead a really easy life," she said.
"I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."
The bus driver, however, has obviously not been listening.
He has repeatedly refused to allow Mr Graves, 25, and his "pet" on to his bus in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.
Last month, with Miss Maltby on a leash as usual, the couple tried to board a bus at the bus station.

The driver, who was off duty, was standing near the door.
Mr Graves alleged: "He shoved me off the bus. He called us freaks and he called Tasha a dog.

"He said, 'We don't let freaks and dogs like you on'.
"He basically grabbed my T-shirt and slammed me backwards.
"I got a bit angry and called him a fascist pig."

In a separate incident, police were called when the driver, who has not been named, refused to allow other passengers on board after the couple ignored his orders and sat down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
3) If they were following the bus company's code of conduct, why didn't the ON DUTY driver step in and allow the couple to ride?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rukna

whats sick is this picture
http://psyriac.com/2008/01/05/disturbing-on-so-many-levels/
how can a mother put an infant on a leash?
consenting adults is ok, but kids is a strick no no

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain

When it gets hard to explain to a child, that's where the public display should stop.

The world is really for adults, and kids are simply adults in the making; they can deal with any reality we can create, although what we as parents can deal with may be significantly more limited. Where the adult is a ripe peach, the child is an inedible one, but it is still a peach, not a peach blossom. It may be the case that we find the blossoms so entrancing that we want to pretend- for as long as we can- that they are indeed a different kind of being than we are. But that is a lie, and while we may delude ourselves as much as we like, I think it is irresponsible when we allow that delusion to affect how we care for our children, and worse yet to pass it on to them.

Why would we want adults to grow into childhood, rather than have children grow into adulthood?

There is such a thing as coddling a child to death.

Health,
al-Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

But they were not ejected from the bus for their appearance, which I agree would be discrimination. They were ejected because of their behavior, i.e., one leading the other by a leash. People here are crying foul because they are saying this couple received unequal treatment.

I disagree that the leash is an adjunct of behavior rather than appearance, but even accepting your distinction for the sake of argument, how does their behavior warrant such treatment?

If two children are playing patty cake on the bus, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"?

If two college professors are discussing particle physics, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"?

If two lawyers were debating constitutional law, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"?

It would be one thing if their behavior was overly loud, or if they intruded upon other people's personal space.  If their behavior directly interrupted or disturbed other passenger's behavior, that would be grounds for intervention.  Such was not reported in the article.

Attacking someone as a "freak" and physically assaulting them merely because their behavior offends is as rude and lacking in manners as it is discriminatory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

Because their behavior was well outside social norms. Discussing particle physics and constitutional law is not. Every society dictates rules of social behavior. We can always debate whether or not this particular rule is a good one, but that is a different argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

Because their behavior was well outside social norms. Discussing particle physics and constitutional law is not. Every society dictates rules of social behavior. We can always debate whether or not this particular rule is a good one, but that is a different argument.

You are seriously arguing that it is acceptable to insult and assualt people for being outside of social norms? For being "different"?

You are, in effect, arguing that prejudice is "ok".

Suffice it to say, I could not disagree more strongly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

Because their behavior was well outside social norms. Discussing particle physics and constitutional law is not. Every society dictates rules of social behavior. We can always debate whether or not this particular rule is a good one, but that is a different argument.

You are seriously arguing that it is acceptable to insult and assualt people for being outside of social norms? For being "different"?

You are, in effect, arguing that prejudice is "ok".

Suffice it to say, I could not disagree more strongly.

No, and I have already said so. I never condoned the actions of the bus driver. I have only said the couple being denied the right to ride/kicked off the bus was justifiable based on their behavior and not discrimination based on their Goth attire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

Ugghhh...I'm not following you here. You lost me. I was trying to explain that the reaction this couple received was due to their behavior which cannot be construed as discriminatory if the behavior is universally unacceptable. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say above. Help me out?

Okay, my apologies for not being clear enough.

What I was asking you, is whether you are saying that the right to hold hands is about the specific act of holding hands, or about the right to express affection in a manner that does not violate laws. Because if you are talking about the former, then I shall have to be disagreeing with you about that, at length, whereas if you are talking about the latter, I believe it is clear that we're talking about the same thing, and that your position is untenable. Thus, I am asking you for a clarification regarding this (style vs substance; form vs meaning; content vs presentation; action vs expression).

Disregard the bits about Eskimos, gays, rubbing noses, vaginal intercourse, etc. for now.

Am I making more sense this time?

Health,
al-Aswad.

quote:

Being led by a leash is not socially acceptable for anyone, therefore a Goth cannot claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do it. Again, should there be some debate and dialogue as to whether or not this behavior is acceptable? Probably, but that was not the point of my objection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Merely saying behavior is outside of social norms does not justify differential treatment on that basis. 

quote:


Said differential treatment is discrimination by definition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Being led by a leash is not socially acceptable for anyone, therefore a Goth cannot claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do it. Again, should there be some debate and dialogue as to whether or not this behavior is acceptable? Probably, but that was not the point of my objection.

Why are we limited to what is "socially acceptable"?  Since when does one need ask neighbor's permission to live one's life?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Being led by a leash is not socially acceptable for anyone, therefore a Goth cannot claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do it. Again, should there be some debate and dialogue as to whether or not this behavior is acceptable? Probably, but that was not the point of my objection.

Why are we limited to what is "socially acceptable"?  Since when does one need ask neighbor's permission to live one's life?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreeAgent

I know I'm getting off topic but, in reply to celtic:

Your rights begin where mine end.  But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights.  It becomes in a sense, play without consent.  The point of asking a neighbor's permission to live one's life is two fold.  Since when does your neighbor have to live by your standards and be ok with seeing your kink?

quote:


Your rights begin where mine end. But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights. It becomes in a sense, play without consent. The point of asking a neighbor's permission to live one's life is two fold. Since when does your neighbor have to live by your standards and be ok with seeing your kink?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreeAgent

I know I'm getting off topic but, in reply to celtic:

Your rights begin where mine end.  But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights.  It becomes in a sense, play without consent.  The point of asking a neighbor's permission to live one's life is two fold.  Since when does your neighbor have to live by your standards and be ok with seeing your kink?

Erm, this might seem like I'm playing both sides of the fence; I'm not.

I have every right to act as I wish in public; in effect, 'forcing' you to see me kiss my girlfriend.  Your recourse is to look away.  I have the right to walk up to someone, and ask them the time, their full name, or if they like dancing in jello.  They, of course, have the right to refuse to answer, and walk away.  Being in public, means you expect to be exposed to things you have no real control over.  The only recourse, is to never be in public.

If I want to do kinky things that are legal under the letter of the law in my front yard, I have that right.  My neighbor has the right to not watch, or to build a fence if he wishes.

Stephan

quote:

I side with those who are arguing that no one has the right to impose their lifestyle choices on another. Flaunting this behavior in public qualifies.