Constitutional Hill

Why “private” businesses cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians

For some inexplicable reason many South Africans still wrongly believe they have a right to discriminate against others if, in their hearts, they feel uncomfortable with treating their fellow human beings with equal concern and respect. Daan and Jeanette Morkel, owners of Diemerskraal wine estate in Paarl, who decided that it “didn’t feel right” to “allow” the gay couple to marry on their property, are just two people labouring under this mistaken belief. But the law is not on their side.

Imagine you have a disabled child who moves around in a wheel chair. Now imagine Vodacom, Cell-C, 8-ta and MTN all “feel uncomfortable” with selling their product to your child because they think it would be bad for their brand to be associated with a disabled person. Imagine, further, that Pick & Pay, Woolworths, Checkers and Shoprite similarly “do not feel right” about allowing a person in a wheel chair to shop at their supermarkets. Imagine SAA, Kulula, British Airways and whatever other fly by night airline operating in the country similarly feel that it would be against their principles to allow passengers in wheelchairs onto their flights.

Imagine every guest house and hotel owner in the town you intend to visit for a holiday adhere to religious beliefs that command them to discriminate against disabled people and bar your child from access to their establishments. Imagine every restaurant owner in the town or city you live in believe that their god would not want to allow a disabled person into their establishment. Although strangely irrational, bigotry is endemic and it would be difficult to persuade such business institutions that they would be better off not discriminating against disabled people – especially if the discrimination is justified on religious grounds. Some people who would not hurt a fly have a tendency to blindly support harmful practices because they believe these practices are mandated by their religious beliefs

Unless the law prohibits all these private institutions from discriminating against your child on the basis of his or her disability, both you and your child will be denied your basic rights to live a life in which your dignity is respected and protected. A failure of the law to ban such private bigotry will have disastrous consequences for all disabled people, who will be treated as semi-humans not worthy of concern and respect.

The absence of a legislation banning private discrimination would relegate some citizens to second class status. In a capitalist society private institutions often have powerful influence on the lives of citizens and merely banning the state from discriminating against citizens would sanction the most egregious forms of unfair discrimination in the name of the freedom of the few.

The owners of these private companies might argue that in order to protect their own freedom of choice and the right to private property the law had to “respect” their private (bigoted) beliefs or feelings and should therefore allow them to discriminate against whom they want. If they don’t want to have gay men marry on their business premises they should be able to say so. If they want to prohibit black people from using their business premises to get married they should be able to do so as well. In short, they argue that to deny them the right to act like bigots is itself bigoted.

This argument cannot fly.

A law that prohibits a business from discriminating against others based on the race, sex, sexual orientation or disability of the potential customer is not preventing the owner from holding his or her bigoted views. Such a law does not ban the owner from abhorring disabled people or believing that his or her god demands him to hate all disabled people. The owner continues to have the right privately to hold these views and to apply these views when deciding who gets access to his private home. The business owner is not forced to invite the disabled person to his own house for a drink or a braai. Neither would the law require him or her to change his bigoted views about disabled people.

What laws regulating businesses normally do is to require the owner of a business to meet various minimum norms and standards in order to carry on a business. This the law does to protect the public from the harm that might ensue if unscrupulous business owners indulge in practices to the detriment of customers.  That is why the owner of a business must obtain a business licence and, if he or she wants to sell liquor, a liquor licence too.

The owner of a guest house would have to meet minimum hygiene and safety standards. No one is going to argue that the owner of a business has a right not to install a fire hydrant at his guest house because he or she “feels uneasy” about this terrible invasion of his property rights. You cannot open a 500 seat theatre and refuse to install fire hydrants or emergency exists. Similarly you have a duty to comply with the prohibition on unfair discrimination.

If the owner of a business does not want to comply with the minimum standards (imposed to protect customers from harm) for conducting business then he or she would have no business to conduct business in South Africa at all. If, say, a business owner tells us he or she would like to offer accommodation in a life threatening structure teeming with cockroaches and TB bacteria because he “feels uneasy” about providing a safe and clean environment to human beings because his or her god instructed him to infect the world with TB, we would start asking around for the number of a good psychiatrist. Of course, the person is free to emigrate to a country where the law does not protect the general public against exploitation and against harm. He is also free not to use his property for business purposes.

This is all uncontroversial, I would think. Only the most extreme crackpots would argue that the state has no right to regulate businesses to protect the general public from harm because such regulation would infringe on the freedom of conscience of the business owner or on his or her property rights. When you offer your services on private property to the general public you choose to subject yourself to the applicable minimum norms and standards aimed at protecting the public from harm.

But somehow when the law prohibits a business owner from unfairly discriminating against a gay couple, many people suddenly argue that these obviously sound and uncontroversial general principles should no longer apply. This means the argument they make is not one based on principle. Instead, it is an argument based on emotion and on their own racial or homophobic bigotry.

Luckily our law does not sanction such prejudice. Section 9(4) of the Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits any person (including a juristic person) from unfairly discriminating – either directly or indirectly – against anyone on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and a long list of other grounds. The section also instructs Parliament to pass national legislation to prevent or prohibit such private discrimination. This Parliament did when it passed the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA). This Act overrides the common law property rights of an owner. So when you see a sign at a restaurant, bar or holiday resort that the “right of admission is reserved”, you must know this rights has been qualified by the PEPUDA Act.

Yes, as the owner of private business you have a right to refuse admission to a prospective client – but not on the basis of a persons, sex, race, sexual orientation, disability or any of the other grounds listed in section 9 of the Constitution. If you do, you are harming that prospective client. The law often prevents owners from indulging in business practices that harm consumers and in the case of PEPUDA it does so by protecting vulnerable groups against the harm of being treated like a second class citizen.

It is important to note that PEPUDA also bans indirect discrimination. This means a business cannot use seemingly “neutral” criteria to admit or exclude patrons which will have the effect of excluding a disproportionate number of people based on one of the prohibited grounds like race, sex and sexual orientation. Often clubs or bars invoke an (imaginary) dress code to exclude black or gay and lesbian patrons. Or a business might exclude you because it is “full” (while allowing other white or heterosexual patrons entry).

These are examples of indirect discrimination and once you have shown that you have been treated differently from others it will be assumed it is based on your race, sexual orientation or other prohibited ground. The owners will then bear the onus of proving that they did not exclude you because you are black or gay. This will be rather difficult to do. This means that owners of private establishments should think twice before invoking their now severely truncated “right of admission reserved”. It also means that those refused entry or service on spurious grounds will often have a strong legal case of discrimination against the owners of a business.

Not knowing this basic legal fact, Daan and Jeanette Morkel, owners of Diemerskraal, have actually been stupid enough to admit to the whole world that they are breaking the law.

  • Chris

    “Not knowing this basic legal fact, Daan and Jeanette Morkel, owners of Diemerskraal, have actually been stupid enough to admit to the whole world that they are breaking the law.”

    Or perhaps just honest enough to admit the truth.

  • Chris

    I see a measure of bigotry against freedom of religion by Prof De Vos in this post, probabably written in a state of severe indignation of perhaps even a fit of rage. Why make use of absurd examples, such as “Imagine every guest house and hotel owner in the town you intend to visit for a holiday adhere to religious beliefs that command them to discriminate against disabled people and bar your child from access to their establishments. Imagine every restaurant owner in the town or city you live in believe that their god would not want to allow a disabled person into their establishment.”

    Is there a religion making such demands? How about something more realistic, such as: Imagine a guest house or hotel owner who is a devout Muslim, just as everyone else in the neighbourhood, adhere to religious beliefs that command them to discriminate against Christians and bar you from braaing a pig on the front lawn on Friday when getting married there. Or the Christian owner of a venue refusing to allow the Satanist to hold their monthly slautering of the cat at his establishment. That many Christians, however unchristian their view may be, honestly belief that a gay marriage is a deadly sin, is a fact of life. And that belief is also protected by the constitution.

    Of course its bad to be discriminated against, but there will always be tention between different rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and there will always be a looser. Sometimes that looser will be the person discriminated against on ground of his sexual orientation. I don’t know anything about this Diemerskraal incident except what I’ve read here. It “didn’t feel right” would probably not be reason enough to refuse a gay couple to marry on their property. From the contents of the blog it is clear that Prof de Vos, like myself, beliefs that it is actually their religious beliefs and not “feelings” that made them refuse the couple. (Q: Then why didn’t they just say so?) If that is the case, the matter is not all that simple. Freedom of religion may just be regarded as more important that freedom to get married at your venue of choice.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    More displacement phenomena/strategy.

    “In a capitalist society private institutions often have powerful influence on the lives of citizens…”

    But you have embraced that capitalist society and excellent post for Worker’s Day then – displace it with Gay Rights day instead.

  • Jay

    Prof De Vos, you should have used religious or racial bias as an example,not compare being gay with having a physical disability.(That’s the feeling I got)Imagine they refused a Jewish couple? Or a bi-racial couple?

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    If god wanted gay people to get married, it would not have been celibate!

    Has anyone met Mrs God?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    “These are examples of indirect discrimination and once you have shown that you have been treated differently from others it will be assumed it is based on your race, sexual orientation or other prohibited ground.”

    Yeah. We all used to believe that. But imo your argument loses any relevance and moral weight when you unapologetically continue to support direct discrimination against certain groups as long as it is considered “fair”.

    I feel very little sympathy for your rights as long as you cannot put yourself in another person’s position – perhaps a “White male”, or a “over-concentrated Coloured”, or “bargaining Indian”.

    It is one thing to be sporadically discriminated against by some homophobic bigot who wouldn’t allow you the relative luxury to get married on his/her private property, it is quite another when there is a systematic, government sanctioned system in place that “fairly” discriminates against all sorts of racial groups when it comes to issues of basic survival and making a living.

    It is time that you stand up for our constitutional rights and acknowledge the difference between the two.
    You make this bed, now you sleep in it too.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    I hope Pierre de Vos received an invite and trust he will take the time off to attend.

    Solidarity challenges Marius Fransman to defend the ANC’s stance on affirmative action in a public debate

    http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=373401&sn=Detail&pid=71616

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Chris
    May 1, 2013 at 5:14 am

    Chris,

    “That many Christians, however unchristian their view may be, honestly belief that a gay marriage is a deadly sin, is a fact of life.”

    I’ve not heard anyone whose religion is opposed to homosexuality deny that god is gay.

    Here’s the thing – god was able to create some amazing stuff in six days. NASA is discovering more and more every day at a macro level.

    The okes at Cern are discovering more and more even beyond the nano level.

    Astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, archeologists, medical scientists, geneticists and and and are in awe of what happened from the first Sunday to Friday.

    Now god had the amazing power to create anything living creature or otherwise.

    It could have made a Ferrari, a fancy watch like Juju had (the missing one), a jet ski.

    God could have created the most gorgeous women ever – it could have created its own Miss Universe entrants, one for each day of eternity.

    But no, god created ADAM!

    Doesn’t that seem somewhat suspicious?

    p.s. Note that god was also a peeping tom, spying on what Adam did with Eve. And then it got angry with Adam’s antics with Eve.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    And while the diversion and displacement strategies rages on. Gays/lesbians whining about their rights to eat cake wherever they want to and so on.

    Universities face May Day strikes – And more cuts
    http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130501095558757

    I don’t see those budget cuts and global disinvestment in public education influencing the future of gays or white males or blacks or disabled people in particular.

  • Gwebecimele

    http://www.iol.co.za:80/mercury/we-can-learn-from-zim-s-flourishing-farms-1.1508335

    Max will be “hanged” for revealing what many do not want to hear. We are in “nothing but NDP mode”

  • Gwebecimele

    Unlike the disabled, I thought we are all born as male or female and choose later how we exercise our sexuality.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Gwebecimele
    May 1, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Thanks for that. Very good article by Max Du Preez.

  • Maggs Naidu – The DA will bring back apartheid! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    And from “the land of the free”?

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Justice Antonin Scalia disrupted the normally tranquil atmosphere of the Supreme Court today, bursting from his office to shout, “I’m never going to another damn N.B.A. game as long as I live!”

    While it was unclear what, exactly, had provoked Justice Scalia’s outburst, one of his clerks said that “he saw something on ESPN that really upset him.”

    After emerging from their offices to see the source of the commotion, the other Justices found a visibly agitated Justice Scalia, his face beet-red and his entire body shaking with rage.

    “I’ve gone to basketball games my entire life,” he bellowed. “I always thought that was a ‘safe place.’ Well, I guess I was wrong. I guess I’ve been wrong about a lot of things, haven’t I? Haven’t I?”

    As Justice Clarence Thomas wordlessly moved to comfort him, Justice Scalia rebuffed his fellow-juror.

    “Get away from me, Clarence!” he screamed. “I can’t trust anyone anymore.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/04/scalia-never-going-to-another-nba-game.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz+%28114%29

  • Maggs Naidu – If WHITE people weren’t sinful, Jesus wouldn’t have died! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Gwebecimele
    May 1, 2013 at 11:56 am

    Gwebs,

    “Unlike the disabled, I thought we are all born as male or female and choose later how we exercise our sexuality.”

    When did you choose how you exercised your sexuality?

    Was there like a “choose your sexuality” event, where friends, family and well wishers gather when you decided and made the announcement?

    Did they bring gifts?

  • Gwebecimele
  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Gwebecimele
    May 1, 2013 at 11:56 am

    You would also note the big injustice here is not the “over-concentrated” alcohol addicted “Coloured” workers (who your ANC feels more or less fokkol for) trapped in subhuman conditions on these farms and who would probably never even dream about hosting a marriage at Diemerskraal wine estate in Paarl. It is the suffering of one rich gay/lesbian couple who could probably pick up the phone to the very next estate and whose money would be welcomed with open arms.

  • Gwebecimele

    Maggs

    This is not an event. As human beings we develop over time and influenced by our surroundings. I had lots of discussions with my mates and older boys before my first encounter. Watched lots of tv and magazines. I am glad it ended this way.

  • Gwebecimele
  • beetle

    Pierre. Don’t you have better things to discuss???

    For what it is worth – surely Diemerskraal is a family home, a private property, and the owners ought to have a right concerning whom they permit on their home premises?
    Maybe these two dudes weren’t refused a venue because they were gay – maybe they are drunks/unruly/ overly flamboyant and requiring facilities that the venue found exessive?
    I have news for you… not all gays are charming and marginilised. Some are scum in just the same percentage found in the rest of society.
    Does it give you a great deal of satisfaction to trash a couple’s business interests and source of income? What astounding ego allows you to name and shame?

  • Maggs Naidu – If WHITE people weren’t sinful, Jesus wouldn’t have died! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Gwebecimele
    May 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    Gwebs,

    “I had lots of discussions with my mates and older boys before my first encounter. Watched lots of tv and magazines. I am glad it ended this way.”

    So if it hadn’t been for the “education”, you may have been a, er, girl?

  • Dmwangi

    PdV compares homosexuality to having a physical disability. But there is an important distinction that makes it much more analogous to a mental health issue: “sexual orientation” is a subjective state of mind. Nobody can discern from looking at a person whether he or she has predominantly homo-erotic desires. It is only when the homosexual person announces this fact– a choice– or makes it manifest in some public way– obviously a choice– that others become aware of it. So it seems PdV’s argument is not that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong but that discrimination against those who publicly pronounce and/or instantiate their sexual orientation is unlawful.

    If true, then “the law is an ass” as it would require owners of creches, tutoring services, etc. not to discriminate against self-avowed pedophiles; nightclub owners could not prevent entrance of those with a lust for rape; owners of farms and zoos could not refuse entry to those with self-declared bestial or zoophilac orientations. In short, according to PdV’s account, everyone has a right to have his or her public expression of their sexual desires– usually the only way they become evident to any potential counter-party– respected when it comes to private commerce dealings, irrespective of the moral qualms of any of the parties. That is ridiculous and absurd and will violate the religious rights of those who object.

    PdV vastly underestimates the resolve of religious ppl, many of whom would rather die than be forced to violate their religious convictions. I suggest two courses of action to Morkel if the state tries to coerce him into violating his conscience: 1) outright civil disobedience or 2) plaster the walls of your facility with signs stating your objections and avail yourself of loud speakers to audibly do the same. I.e. Use your right to free speech to make your remonstrations so manifest, that no reasonable gay person would want to force you to abrogate your beliefs by using your facility to be “married.”

  • Zoo Keeper

    Prof

    There is an interesting tension here.

    We have the right of freedom of association in the Bill of Rights. That surely measn the right not to be forced to associate with those with whom we disagree.

    Yes, this couple have discrimminated against a gay couple because they are uncomfortable with allowing them to get married on their property. Surely the right of freedom of association also allows the freedom to do business with who once chooses to.

    There is a free market, and those who discriminate must measure the market’s reaction. If the market is disgusted, then they will have to change or go out of business.

    So I’m sorry but I cannot agree with you yet. Yes, on one level the gay couple has been discriminated against, but on another level they have the right to choose not to associate with the gay couple.

    So in order to close out your argument, however angry you may be, you must deal with the tension between PEDUPA and the right to freedom of association.

    Please set out your grounds for the dismissal of that right so we can close this out?

  • Dmwangi

    “[The Morkel] case demonstrates how advocates of tolerance become tyrannical. First, a disputed behavior, such as sexual activities between people of the same sex, is declared so personal and intimate that government should have no jurisdiction over it. Then, having won recognition of “the right to be let alone,” some who have benefited from this achievement assert a right not to let other people alone. It is the right to coerce anyone who disapproves of the now-protected behavior into acting as though they approve of it, or at least into not acting on their disapproval.

    So, in the name of tolerance, government declares intolerable individuals… [like the Morkels] who disapprove of a certain behavior but ask only to be let alone in their quiet disapproval. Perhaps advocates of gay rights should begin to restrain the bullies in their ranks.”
    ———————————————————————————————

    OTTAWA, October 13, 2011 – A case argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, if decided the wrong way, could result in “a virtual open season on anyone communicating a religiously informed position on any matter of public policy,” according to Don Hutchinson, general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which intervened in the case – Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) v. William Whatcott.

    The four-hour-long hearing had a record 21 interveners arguing both sides of a sharply divided stance on free and religious speech vs. hate speech and its interpretation by human rights commissions and tribunals. Hutchinson presented second to last and thus took in all the previous argumentation noting several startling positions.

    Saskatchewan human rights commission considers reading from Paul in Bible on TV could be hate speech

    The SHRC brought Whatcott before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in 2006 over his practice of distributing flyers about the dangers of abortion and homosexuality. The flyer at issue was penned in objection to a classified ad in a homosexual newspaper that sought “boys/men for pen pals, friendship, exchanging video, pics.” It also criticized the promotion of homosexuality in Saskatoon public schools and the University of Saskatchewan.

    The Tribunal found that Whatcott had violated section 14(1)(b) of the province’s human rights code, which prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.” He was ordered to pay a $17,500 fine and to cease publicly spreading his beliefs about homosexuality.

    The Tribunal decision was upheld in 2007 by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, but it was overturned in 2010 by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

    Hutchinson said that he was “really thrown off” when counsel for Saskatchewan human rights commission, the body charged with assessing what constitutes hate speech under the provincial act, said that reading certain of the writings of Paul from the Scriptures on television would be hate speech.

    Key to the debate, noted Hutchinson, is the concept of loving the sinner and hating the sin.

    Lawyers for the homosexual activist group EGALE argued that if a person is gay then their behaviour is inextricably tied to their sexual orientation. “That argument was countered later in the day,” said Hutchinson, “noting that if a person is heterosexual that doesn’t give them free reign to engage in any form of heterosexual sexual activity that they choose.” Additionally, he said, “If a person has pedophilia or bestiality tendencies, it doesn’t leave them free in our nation to act out those sexual orientations.”

    For his part, Hutchinson argued “Evangelical leaders and pastors and members of congregations around the country are feeling that their expression of religious position on public debate matters seems increasingly unwelcome.”

    “These types of provisions in human rights codes make for an overbroad reach and a chilling effect on freedom of expression because human rights codes don’t allow the defense of truth and the sincerity of belief, they focus on the subjective feeling of offense or affront to dignity of the person who feels offended,” he told LSN. “For the average Canadian, that has to hire a lawyer and then be subject to multiple appeals and fines or both, this seems more worthy of an ideological driven society than a free and democratic society.”

    According to Hutchinson, best case scenario would be for the court to say that the criminal code provisions on hatred, which are limited to intent to incite harm, are sufficient for the limitations for free speech in Canada and that the ones in the human rights codes which are subjective and have caused a host of restrictions on free religious speech should be set aside.

    In the worst case, “if the court concludes that these types of provisions are fine and that there are no changes required in regard to their interpretation then it would be a virtual open season on anyone communicating a religiously informed position on any matter of public policy.” He added: “Before you say something you best load up and put some money in the bank because you’re going to have to hire a lawyer to deal with the human rights complaint that is coming.”

    “Let’s leave genuine public discourse to the public square and promotion of hatred to conviction under the criminal code,” he said.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi

    Would you agree with me that the most ignored aspect of a free society is the freedom to be offended? That one cannot stop being offended.

    The freer the society, the tougher one’s chin needs to be in my humble opinion.

  • Dmwangi

    Zoo:

    Agreed. But with one important caveat: the freer *and more pluralistic.* I imagine you could have quite a free society if it was relatively homogenous and everyone voluntarily held the same monolithic worldview.

    PdV does not want a freer society. He so intensely wishes for one that conforms with his social preferences, he is quite willing to sacrifice freedom to obtain it. He is illiberal in the extreme.

  • Dmwangi

    PdV says: “Section 9(4) of the Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits any person (including a juristic person) from unfairly discriminating – either directly or indirectly – against anyone on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and a long list of other grounds.”

    That “long list” includes, among others, “religion, conscience, belief, culture,….” Seems PdV thinks it is fine to discriminate against business owners whose religion, conscience, beliefs, culture compel them not to participate in certain ACTIONS –as opposed to merely holding “private” opinions– they find morally objectionable when the source of that objection relates to secual orientation. This is akin to requiring, for example, a business dedicated to rape trauma therapy to provide services to those of a “schadenfreude” sexual orientation. Rape therapists may, to PdV’s mind, maintain their private moral disgust but cannot refuse to engage in the business transaction:

    “Such a law does not ban the owner from abhorring [those with rapist inclinations] or believing that his or her god demands him to hate all [rapist] people. The owner continues to have the right privately to hold these views and to apply these views when deciding who gets access to his private home. The business owner is not forced to invite the [schadenfreude pervert] to his own house for a drink or a braai. Neither would the law require him or her to change his bigoted views about [such] people.”

    So even in the case of a business whose raison d’être and constituting purpose is to do a particular thing (e.g. provide a facility for marriages or sexual trauma therapy), this can be ignored, and the founders of the business can be compelled to violate their consciences if they do not believe it moral (or even metaphysically possible in the case of gay “marriage”) to make the service available to people of a particular sexual orientation (homosexuals in the former case, pedophiles/sexual schadenfreudes in the latter case).

    Brilliant!

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi

    Agreed on the caveat!

    And agreed on the rest too.

    It is remarkable how some folk only want freedom but only insofar as everyone conforms to their world-view.

    People are only “free” to do what they’re told…

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 1, 2013 at 15:51 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “PdV compares homosexuality to having a physical disability”

    Good point, doos!

    p.s. So why is god still in the closet?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Maggs

    Depends on the god. Weren’t the ancient Greek gods very keen on a the pleasures of the flesh…?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi

    Let’s see if the Professor can rise to the challenge?

    Can he balance the right to freedom of association with his post above?

    It would seem the right to freely associate does not exist in the Professor’s analysis, because one cannot choose not to associate with anyone.

  • Helen

    There are a good number of regular readers of this blog who clearly lack an understanding of the listed grounds of discrimination which will be presumed unfair, not to be mistaken with personal dislikes and preferences.

    Also are there really still people who say that Rights can conflict???? Isn’t that clashing Rights talk so last millennium?

  • Jay

    You’re missing the point here people! This is about the law! If people can discriminate accprding to religious beliefs,what’s to stop them from discriminating on grounds of race? You all know the bible was used by many to justify apartheid. You all also know many people(mostly white),still have those racist ideas rooted in religion,the law keeps them from acting on it.who are the owners going to have to offend for anybody to take the law seriously?
    Andto the anti- gay bigots,that’s what you are, an ignorant bigot. Grow up.

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Jay
    May 1, 2013 at 20:03 pm

    Jay,

    “You all know the bible was used by many to justify apartheid.”

    You will be please to learn that APARTHEID was UNCHRISTIAN.

    Dworky will explain that Brett will explain!

    p.s. “And to the anti- gay bigots,that’s what you are, an ignorant bigot.”

    Dmwangi may appear slightly stupid, but don’t be fooled by the foolish impression he creates.

    He is not ignorant – in fact WHITE people are most impressed with the graduate schools that he attended.

  • Dmwangi

    @Helen:

    While I agree that “rights-conflicts” may not exist in the strict metaphysical sense, they appear to in practice because people like PdV misunderstand what the nature of a right is. I refer you to the work of Harvard legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon for a further exposition.

    @Jay:

    What prevents the law from discriminating against those who practice certain religious beliefs (e.g. wearing hijab)? I presume that protagonists for any law, whether motivated by religion or not, will need to articulate their views in terms of “public reasons.” Merely slandering people as bigots or claiming that a law is invalid by virtue of the fact that it complies with religious teaching– something which would include laws proscribing murder, theft, rape– hardly rises to such a standard.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    As long as we can rationalise racial discrimination to the effect that someone cannot get a job/promotion because of the color of his/her skin you can take you little gay issues and your socalled constitution and shove it right up your arse.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    In fact, sometimes I really hope that we get a real African government as in Uganda or Zimbabwe that would shut these gayish White liberal types so obsessed with their little struggles up once and for all.

    That day couldn’t come sooner.

  • Zoo Keeper

    OB

    Careful how you put those invectives, I would think the gay lads out there might been keener than you think on shoving stuff up their arses. If in doubt, ask the Professor…

  • Jay

    @ Dmwangi
    You nisunderstood.
    The law cannot be used to discriminate, it’s there to protect us from being discriminated against.people use religion to discriminate. We cannot allow any of that. Where do you want to draw the line?
    People who look down on others and think them lesser human beings are bigots. It’s only slander if it’s not true.
    ………..
    If those business owners refused let’s say,muslims,all hell would have broken loose. We cannot let anyone discriminate against anyone. There are huge unequalities in our country,sadly,but if we let these little things slide, we put ourselves on a very slippery slope towards destruction of our democracy.

    And now I’m going to tick most people off: Christians see themselves and,this is important,THEIR OWN BRAND of Christianity as morally superior and feel they deserve special protection.
    Good night everyone, I will be back tomorrow!

  • Dmwangi

    @Jay:

    Kindly, I think it is you who misunderstand. Study the Constitution. There is a good reason why it inserts the word UNFAIR prior to the word discrimination.

    Not all discrimination is bad but it is inevitable. E.g. Proscribing rape discriminates against those inclined to rape. Same goes for murder, theft and a host of other socially undesirable behaviours. You cannot pass any law, or even make distinctions between persons or concepts, without discriminating.

    The pertinent question in this case is whether the state can use its coercive powers to discriminate against those who object to being required to participate in business relations with those of any “sexual orientation.” This need not have anything to do with religion per se. For example, in the scenario I mentioned previously, a secular couple operating an entirely secular sexual trauma therapy practice, will likely object, with good reason, to being forced to do business with those of an openly “schadenfreude” or SSM sexual orientation.

    It strikes me as unreasonable that the state should force creche owners– religious or secular– who object to doing business with those of a self-avowed pedophilia sexual orientation to engage in commerce.

    Where does this right you allege exists, to violate the consciences of said sexual trauma center or creche operators, and force them into transactions they morally object to in order continue operating their businesses, originate from?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    @zookeeper

    Ja. Whatever. What a pity that May Day in here has been displaced with another Gay Parade.

    But whatever they do the world revolution is building. Sooner or later something is going to give. And when it does the fakes and pretenders will be separated from the real liberation fighters, much like the wheat from the chaff.

    ‘Athens/Madrid – Trains and ferries were cancelled and hospital staff walked off the job in Greece on Wednesday and thousands were due to demonstrate across Spain as May Day triggered protests against harsh government spending cuts.

    Separately, Turkish riot police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse crowds gathering in central Istanbul for a rally on what has become a traditional labour holiday.

    In Spain, where the unemployment rate stands at a record 27 percent, the two largest trade unions, CCOO and UGT, called on workers and the unemployed to join over 80 demonstrations across the country.’

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/thousands-rally-against-austerity-1.1508956

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    @dmwangi

    ‘There is a good reason why it inserts the word UNFAIR prior to the word discrimination.’

    Correct. It is a steaming pile of shit for a constitution. Workers rights and the poor feature almost nowhere. PdV didn’t mention the colour or gender of the gay couple either. Could just be that they are white males or boers which would make simply shooting the bastards quite fair.

  • Armandt Gardner

    While I support freedom of expression and religion and a person’s right to do as he wishes with his property, I have to say that this couple was not right in their actions. They lacked tact. I am homosexual, and in my opinion they should not be allowed to show people away. Ask yourselves, would they have uttered a word if they were against bi-racial marriage and a bi-racial couple approached them? Extremely unlikely. They would have shut up and put up, as all business people in this country do. Everyone has some or the other issue with one group or another, but the only group that is open to publicly supported bigotry is homosexuals. All the other groups are vehemently defended by at least a few other parties. The correct way to approach this affair, would have been to have a word with the couple, saying that although you may not refuse them service, your religion prohibits you from participating and this places you in an uncomfortable position. 99% of the gays I know would be immediately put off the venue and leave willingly. Problem solved. No laws were broken. A sad gay couple walks away and you lose the ‘pink dollar’ which is bad business. But everyone feels that they were honest and no one is up in arms about being refused out of hand. I could go on about people needing to get with the program, and to stop placing gay issues on the back burner because we’re a minority group and there are more ‘important’ things than the systematic removal of a group’s humanity over the course of thousands of years primarily due to judeo-christian religious indoctrination, but I won’t, since most of you clearly don’t care.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    ‘And go on about people needing to get with the program, and to stop placing gay issues on the back burner because we’re a minority group’

    In fact go right ahead and hijack May Day with this grevious injustice. Im all tears and sobing for you. How do you feel about your white male friend’s human rights in general right – like the right of poor white men irrespective of their sexual orientation to compete fairly for something as trivial as a job. How about coloureds and indians?

    And how about those minimum wage coloured workers on these fancy wine farms – do you think their rights should include slightly better standards of living ?

  • Gwebecimele

    Maggs

    Well, I am nothing but a man. Others might assist on how to become something else.
    My point is sexuality or sexual orientation IS NOT a disability.

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Gwebecimele
    May 2, 2013 at 6:58 am

    Gwebs

    “Well, I am nothing but a man. Others might assist on how to become something else.”

    Well, the clue on how to “become something else” lies perhaps in your own comment above.

    “As human beings we develop over time and influenced by our surroundings. I had lots of discussions with my mates and older boys before my first encounter. Watched lots of tv and magazines. I am glad it ended this way.”

    It may well have been that men who were surrounded by girls at an early age and encouraged through tv and magazines may well have become girls.

    If in those circumstances you ended up a girl perhaps you may have been equally (perhaps more?) glad with that too – but of course you, and us, will never know since you made the right choice at the tender age!

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    Gwebecimele May 2, 2013 at 6:58 am

    I totally agree gwebs. In this free market of competative disadvantage all we need is yet another designated group to be affirmed at the cost of Africans for a job opportunity or HE.

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Gwebecimele
    May 2, 2013 at 6:58 am

    p.s. I agree entirely that sexual orientation is not a disability. Pierre was being silly in the way he contextualised it.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    @maggs

    Don’t you think gays/lesbians should be a ‘designated group’?

    Perhaps I could encourage my white boy to become gay so have a better chance of surviving in the nonracial South Africa?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Non-discrimination on religious grounds raises a unique issue for me.

    Sexual orientation and race are arbitrary characteristics, physical disability can also fit into the category of stuff you really cannot do anything about. Discrimination against those who can do nothing about something is something worthy of tackling.

    But religion?

    Religion is an idea of how the cosmos operates and what happens after death. Why should people not be discriminated against because of their ideas?

    These ideas are a choice and can be changed.

    Why, when someone says “Its my religion” does everything change? Science and the secular world are not protected at all. You can discriminate against flat-earthers all you like if you disagree with their ideas. Why is religion protected like this?

    Is this nettle too prickly to grasp?

  • Armandt Gardner

    @ ozoneblue – Please stop referring to the plight of the workers as if giving gays the rights that they should have is taking something away from the poor. The issue of extreme unfairness in this country is not an issue only in this country, but globally. And the workers have several people already campaigning for them. Gay rights are equally as important as workers rights and the equalization of standards of living. Do you not see that the wealth distribution in this country comes from discrimination exactly as is faced by the LGBT community? This case might be a poor example, but it is based on the same principle as someone not employing a poor man because he is gay, or beating a man because he is gay? Your inability to grasp that the principle of discrimination is what got this country in the state that it its in does not bode well for the future. The country is still rife with discrimination, only now the ANC and Cosato dictates whom is discriminated against. Africans are so busy bickering which one of the disenfranchised subgroups are the worst off that they do not realize that everything has stagnated and that we are stuck in a loop of repetitive and non-correcting discrimination that leads to nothing but greater poverty and worse inequality (and by Africans I mean all Africans, not only the Black ones nor only the wealthy ones).

  • Paul Kearney

    This has to be one of the new PDivvy’s funnier ranting blogs. From his little sinecure at UCT he’s been comfortably championing discrimnation against citizens based on their race for some time. Now suddenly he remembers ” from unfairly discriminating – either directly or indirectly – against anyone on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and a long list of other grounds.”

    Is PDivvy finding this “open to interpretation” to suit his own bigoted ideas?

    Or duh, maybe it was “fair” discrimination, what a great oxymoron!

    The quote from Pastor Niemoller and equality before the law (constitution) also comes to mind. Maybe he should look up the definition of “bigot” and look in the mirror.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Paul Kearney

    Good point.

    The Professor champions discrimination based on race (whilst refusing to give up his job for a black candidate).

    Maybe those gay kids were white? Maybe too many whites had been married at that place and no more white people could get married there until the next financial year?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    Armandt Gardner May 2, 2013 at 9:43 am

    ‘Do you not see that the wealth distribution in this country comes from discrimination exactly as is faced by the LGBT community?’

    No. The [lack of] wealth distribution in this country comes from around 150 years of ruthless capitalist exploitation of the native people. Not because gay native people could not conduct marriage ceremonies at [some] Paarl wine farms.

  • Jay

    @Dmwangi
    No question apartheid was evil. Point is people can take anything from the bible and justify harm to others. You and I see the evil but they don’t.People use holy books to justify murder, wife-beating,witholding medical care from children, all sort of things that are harmful to others.

    Sad that we still have people who believe a certain type of person should be shot.(White boers for example). Be of the opinion that a type of person of another race be shot,o boy!we’ll have war.
    My bottom line is that discrimination using religious grounds is not OK.you can bet your last cent that should a Muslim or Hindu (or any other religion) discriminate against a Christian on religious grounds, it will be fought tooth and nail, other issues like unemployment etc. forgotten.

    Peace.

  • Michael Osborne

    Should a bigoted minister (some come to mind), have his marriage license revoked because he declines to marry a gay couple? I suspect that most people (including Pierre?), would say no. Is this inconsistent with his position on the public accommodation issue? Perhaps not, because the countervailing right in the first instance — freedom of religion — ranks higher than the right to property, and the right to trade, in the second instance.

    On the other hand, the minister as marriage officer is performing a public function, which may weigh in favour of disallowing him from discriminating.

  • Dmwangi

    @Jay & MO:

    Bracket the religious question for a moment and address the secular examples I posed:

    Dmwangi
    May 1, 2013 at 23:14 pm

    I imagine there are many secular people who would object, on solid moral grounds, to being forced to engage in business relationships with people of various sexual orientations.

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 14:07 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “I imagine there are many secular people who would object, on solid moral grounds, to being forced to engage in business relationships with people of various sexual orientations.”

    How perceptive of you.

    As you rightly say, that would only happen in your imagination!

  • Brett Nortje – Dunning–Kruger effect: Is it possible the ANC do not realise how badly they suck at running our country?

    Michael, where can I read up on this ‘hierarchy’ of rights you refer to?

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Fuck the Blacks!!!!!!!!!!

    “Gupta`s Family gets state security at Sun City

    2 May 20132

    The Congress of South African Trade unions in the North West province have been informed that the Gupta family, who are staying in the Sun International-owned resort of Sun City in the North West, are getting what could be called preferential treatment by the state and that they continue with racism against our members.

    COSATU has been informed that the family is under police protection while they are in the resort and all their trips have police escorts using state vehicles.

    COSATU is also informed that the family does not want to be served by the African staff members who are employed in the resort. They demand that their services must be rendered by white personnel, starting from the cleaning of their rooms, the cooking and the drivers of the shuttles they use in the resort

    For us as COSATU this is racism at its worst and this cannot be allowed to continue to take place in a country where racism is a crime. At Sun City our members have been facing racial attitudes from some of the service providers such as the 24/7 security company with which we have an outstanding case with, as we have with Sun City.

    It also cannot be allowed that people who are on a private trip are provided with state security while in the country, and this applies only to this family and not to all the foreign visitors who come and visit our country.

    For us as COSATU there is a link between their private jet landing at the air force base and the use of police as their escorts. This can only mean that this has been authorised somewhere in the security departments of the country, as we believe that the members of the police services take directives from their superiors.

    COSATU calls on the government to stop using state resources for private business and all the member of the police services who have been deployed to protect the Guptas must be withdrawn with immediate effect.

    COSATU also calls on Sun City not to allow the Guptas to practise racism in their resort.”

    http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?ID=7252

  • Michael Osborne

    Brett, look at CLOSA. Also, Ackermann’s new book, Human Dignity.

    The CC has (rightly or wrongly) subordinated ss. 21 and 25.

  • Dmwangi

    @Maggs:

    Oh, ye of no faith: give more credit to your atheist brethren. They too seem to be capable of reason.

    “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex….“it is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”

    -Bertrand Russell

    “the family—based on a union, more or less durable, but socially approved, of two individuals of opposite sexes who establish a household and bear and raise children—appears to be a practically universal phenomenon, present in every type of society.”

    -Claude Levi-Strauss

  • Chris

    Can this Diemerskraal incident really be worth ranting about like this.

    By contrast, here is something worth ranting about: http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/mpumalanga/get-out-school-tells-lesbian-couple-1.1508888

  • beetle

    It is a great pity that persons with religious/ moral convictions should be dismissed as bigotted and on the fringe of mainstream society.
    Religous belief [of any faith] is generally paired with altruism. Soup kitchens, hospices, education centres, drug rehabilitation and some free specialised medical services spring to mind, … all where persons of faith are likely to be found manning the stations.
    There are a lot of good people out there. Let us not dismiss them.

  • Maggs Naidu – The soul of the ANC is sold! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 15:35 pm

    Hey Dm

    “two individuals of opposite sexes who establish a household and bear and raise children—appears to be a practically universal phenomenon, present in every type of society.

    Two individuals? Two?

    Claude Levi-Strauss is outdated and outmoded.

    Perhaps he should be introduced to President Zuma!

  • joeslis

    Maggs -

    “COSATU is also informed that the family does not want to be served by the African staff members who are employed in the resort. They demand that their services must be rendered by white personnel, starting from the cleaning of their rooms, the cooking and the drivers of the shuttles they use in the resort”

    You made this bit up, right?

  • Jama ka Sijadu

    “Yes, as the owner of private business you have a right to refuse admission to a prospective client – but not on the basis of a persons, sex, race, sexual orientation, disability or any of the other grounds listed in section 9 of the Constitution.”
    I have lost count of the number of times I have been refused entry in to restaurants, bars, holiday resorts, rented accomodation etc in this country on the grounds of race. Ofcourse, the people refusing entry are “smart” enough to disguise their reasons behind neutral criteria such as “we are full” or “you do not fit the dress code” etc & I am quite sure I am not the only African person to have experienced this.
    Rather than forcing my hard earned Madibas down some racist bigot’s throat, I just walk away & spend my money somewhere else, where my patronage is appreciated.
    Why not just name, shame & boycott these establishments, let them get a taste of FAIR DISCRIMINATION in their pockets & bank accounts?

  • Dmwangi

    Be that as it may, these are two (of countless) examples where secularists/atheists opposed the notion of gay “marriage,” demonstrating that this is not simply a doctrinal religious matter and, in fact, has little to do with theology/religion outside of the fact that religious believers have an additional– albeit powerful– motivation for resisting the falsehood of gay “marriage” aside from its assault on pure reason.

  • Maggs Naidu. The soul of the ANC is sold – 40 pieces of silicon?! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    joeslis
    May 2, 2013 at 15:57 pm

    Joey person,

    “You made this bit up, right?”

    Eish – not even Dmwangi could make something like that up.

    Here’s the COSATU statement again.

    http://www.cosatu.org.za/show.php?ID=7252

  • Dmwangi

    @Chris:

    You’re right. Religious people have no right to discriminate against gays by inculcating their children in the manner and moral environment they wish. After all, Plato teaches that children belong not to their parents but to the state. In that spirit, I am DEMANDING that all madrasas allow equal access to same-sex couples, same-sex polyamorous units, openly pedophiliac parents, and those of all other sexual orientations, as prescribed by the Constitution.

  • Brett Nortje – Dunning–Kruger effect: Is it possible the ANC do not realise how badly they suck at running our country?

    Jama ka Sijadu says:
    May 2, 2013 at 15:57 pm

    Pierre’s attempt to argue moral (un)equavalency between a child who is not in a wheelchair by choice and homosexuals trying to find a venue to get married in is risible.

    Having said that: You set up a website listing the places refusing you access and I’ll exercise my choice not to go there.

    You’d be surprised how many people exercise their choice based on their worldview. My brother would not move his company’s insurance to the company my dad used to work for because it is a rogue employer.

    The first time I was introduced to this principle I was just a kid. My friend Katherine Mary Mason – the smartest person I’ve ever met – phoned me to come have dinner at her place. When I got there I asked her why sh hadn’t gone to dinner with her parents. They’d gone to the Joburg Country Club, she said.

    When I asked why she didn’t go along, she said: “I don’t set foot in there as a matter of principle. They discriminate in their admissions policy. Try to keep out Jews as members.”

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 15:35 pm

    Dm,

    So you posted some quotes.

    Firstly where do those come from? Did you get it at THAT graduate school or was it made up on the fly?

    Where in those quotes do you find that the ATHEISTS object to same-sex marriage?

    And mainly where in those quotes can conclusions be drawn that those “secular people … object, on solid moral grounds, to being forced to engage in business relationships with people of various sexual orientations?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Jama

    “I have lost count of the number of times I have been refused entry in to restaurants, … the people refusing entry are “smart” enough to disguise their reasons behind neutral criteria such as “we are full””

    Jama is right. In late December, a snooty white lady at a restaurant in the V&A told me that, because I did not “have a reservation,” she could not give me a table. I did not doubt for a moment this was a RACIST pretext for excluding Slovenians!

    Thanks.

  • Dmwangi

    @MO:

    As an aside, I should add that rights-clashes and hierarchical orderings result from a misconception of what rights are. Rights function as injunctions to promote or protect goods, which are themselves incommensurable and therefore, not subject to aggregative accounts.

  • Dmwangi

    Maggs:

    What percentage of atheist principals do you suppose would flout the Constitution and refuse to hire a teacher, secretary, counselor, cleaner, etc. of an openly pedophiliac or SSM sexual orientation?

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 17:34 pm

    Dm,

    You’re slithering.

    Your contention that “there are many secular people who would object, on solid moral grounds, to being forced to engage in business relationships with people of various sexual orientations” remains imaginary.

    Admit and we can move on.

    p.s. Make a convincing case that refusing to hire ” an openly pedophiliac” would be be flouting our Constitution!

    p.p.s. What’s “SSM sexual orientation”?

  • Dmwangi

    Btw Maggs, it is not only heterosexuals who do not believe in gay “marriage.”

    Hard to understand how the homosexuals opposed to it are “homophobic bigots” or are motivated by religious zealotry, as the pink mafia likes to say of anyone who disagrees with them:

    ‘”Though Rupert Everett blazed a trail for homosexual actors when he came out decades ago, he’s now saying that gay men don’t make good parents.

    The actor best known for “Shakespeare in Love” and “My Best Friend’s Wedding” told Britain’s Sunday Times Magazine that his mother has met his boyfriend but “still wishes I had a wife and kids.”

    “She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her,” he said. “I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.”

    “Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That’s just my opinion,” he said, adding that he doesn’t consider himself part of the “gay community.”‘

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 17:55 pm

    Dm,

    LOL – give it up dude.

    You’re struggling to establish credibility for your contention!

    p.s. But if I was a WHITE person, I would have been impressed.

  • Dmwangi

    I have no problem conceding that I have no hard statistics indicating that “many” — however you define that– secularists would be opposed to being forced to engage in commerce with those of an openly pedophiliac sexual orientation. Just my intuition….

    “p.s. Make a convincing case that refusing to hire ” an openly pedophiliac” would be be flouting our Constitution!”

    Hmmmm…the Const. protects *sexual* orientation from unfair discrimination, not just *homosexual* orientation. So why don’t you explain to me why you presume that the Const. provision does not apply to those of necrophiliac, pedophiliac, incestuous, polyamorous, sado-masichistic sexual orientations?????? “Sexual orientation” is simply an orientation towards a particular kind (or kinds) of sex. If the provision were aimed at only proving solicitude to homosexuals, why does the Const. not use the word “homosexual” but rather a much more capacious phrase of general applicability??????

  • Lisbeth

    Dmwangi -

    “Religious people have no right to discriminate against gays by inculcating their children in the manner and moral environment they wish.

    One could go a step further and say that religious people should tell their children what religion is all about, and at the same time talk to them about evolution. Then they could advise their children to make up their own minds.

    Also, it might be prudent for parents to insist that their children treat all people equally, i.e. with caution.

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 18:29 pm

    Ok, concession (albeit reluctantly) is noted – that’s big of you Dm.

    I don’t presume as you suggest, but rely what is before us.

    Either sexual (or other) activities are acceptable as defined by our Constitution or not.

    p.s. Is SSM = “sado-masichistic sexual orientations”?

  • Dmwangi

    SSM=sexual sado-masochism.

    “Either sexual (or other) activities are acceptable as defined by our Constitution or not.”

    There’s the rub. Sexual orientation does not imply [activity]. It is merely an orientation towards a specific sexual activity. So how can the Const. not protect those of a pedophiliac orientation, who, let’s say, up to that point are non-practicing? E.g. Is it not unconstitutional (according to PdV’s account) for a principal to refuse to hire a 22 year-old of an openly pedophiliac sexual orientation, who has not at that point in his life acted on those desires and thus, has never violated any law?

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 19:10 pm

    Dm,

    “Is it not unconstitutional (according to PdV’s account) for a principal to refuse to hire a 22 year-old of an openly pedophiliac sexual orientation”

    Only our Constitutional Court (or the Guptas?) can decide what is or isn’t Constitutional!

    The rest of us mere mortals (including our President – well sort of President) can only speculate.

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Lisbeth
    May 2, 2013 at 18:47 pm

    Lisbeth,

    “One could go a step further and say that religious people should tell their children what religion is all about”

    Eish – that’s so unfair to religious people.

    Dear child, religion is a load of kak!

  • Dmwangi

    “Only our Constitutional Court (or the Guptas?) can decide what is or isn’t Constitutional!”

    True. And as the authoritative expositor of the Constitution, I am expecting that our CJ will explain that the Constitution cannot oblige ppl like the Morkels to do the impossible: allow two males to use their property to be “married.”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    I am vehemently opposed to private use of public resources for public gain. But is there not at least an element of RACISM in the whining of the liberal press about Mr Gupta’s wedding?

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 20:05 pm

    Hayibo Dm,

    “And as the authoritative expositor of the Constitution, I am expecting that our CJ will explain”

    I think you’re confused. Again.

    If Mogoeng-squared says, for example, that anointing oil will save your soul, then do buy some. It will.

    But regarding the interpretation of our Constitution, there are eleven judges on the CC.

    Mogoeng, despite his utterances, is not the third most powerful person in South Africa – his views weight 1/11.

    Even Zuma is not the third most powerful person in our country.

    First there are the Guptas, then there’s the 200 people who comandeered the SANDF, SAAF, SAPS, Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Metro Police, WHITE people at Sun City and more (why not only Zuma as President and Mogoeng as CJ cannot do, but they also cannot explain).

    Then there’s others in the queue whom Zuma owes many favours to.

    So maybe Mogoeng is the 395th most powerful person in South Africa.

    After THE WEDDING when Zuma is summoned to attend THE WEDDING Part II in India, then Mogoeng will be higher up in the chain of command, for a short while that is.

  • Dmwangi

    MDF:

    No. But “private use of public resources for public gain?” Is that like saying private corporations shouldn’t use public infrastructure to increase employment and benefit the public welfare?

  • Jay

    This is getting very funny.
    No such thing as SSM. S&M,yes.
    Pedophiliac is not a word. A paedophile is a person who has sexual desires towards children.Children cannot consent to sex,they are coerced into sexual acts which harm them.Paedophilia is a crime.
    Consenting adults have the right to have sex with anyone who consents there to! That means an adult human being! Not dogs or tables,’cause those things cannot consent to anything.
    I find it interesting that christians are not willing to admit that some Christians use the bible as a justification to discriminate against certain people and generally spread hatred.

  • Brett Nortje – Dunning–Kruger effect: Is it possible the ANC do not realise how badly they suck at running our country?

    Welcome to the real world. The essence of Christianity is the tension of the choices we make measured against the code we believe in which we believe defines our acts as good or bad and ultimately defines us.

    Move on. No-one is talking about burning you at the stake.
    You’ve set yourself against this code. It is a bit cheeky to try and rewrite it.

    My favoured definition of fascism is that it entails the use of public power to achieve private personal ends. Lets not pretend we do not know who is doing that to whom here.

  • Dmwangi

    @Jay:

    Apologies. You’re clearly much better versed in “Paedophilia” and “S&M” than I. And, of course, you’re correct that actions pertaining to the former (perhaps the latter too) are crimes. However, being of a “paedophilia” orientation is not. In fact, it is constitutionally protected. Similar to how acts of sodomy were once crimes but being of a homosexual orientation was not. And actually, I have no issue with your “consenting adults” principle. The issue is whether the state ought legally compel ppl to engage in commerce with those who partake in ACTS– as opposed to merely having internal “orientations” to certain acts– the counter-party finds morally objectionable.

    Btw, I notice you ignored my request to address the secular examples I posed:

    “Dmwangi
    May 2, 2013 at 14:07 pm
    @Jay & MO:

    Bracket the religious question for a moment and address the secular examples I posed:

    Dmwangi
    May 1, 2013 at 23:14 pm”

  • lshmael Malale

    Gays are a designated group to benefit from non discrimination in terms of PADUDA and Constitution, thus part of the “free market of discriminatory disadvantage”.

  • Maggs Naidu. UBUNTU is real! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 3, 2013 at 1:25 am

    Hayibo Dm,

    “The issue is whether the state ought legally compel ppl to engage in commerce with those who partake in ACTS–”

    The state is not compelling ” ppl to engage in commerce with those who partake in ACTS”.

    But our constitution does say (the short version) that unfair discrimination is – er, well, ummm – unfair!

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Maggs, given that religion is the quintessential voluntary association what conclusion do you come to about a couple who reject its basic tenets putting their children in a school which sells its niche in the market as being of Christian character?

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma knows what he is doing! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Guptastan!
    May 3, 2013 at 8:08 am

    Hey Brett,

    It’s people’s right to place their children in private schools.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    lshmael Malale
    May 3, 2013 at 3:39 am

    “Gays are a designated group to benefit from non discrimination in terms of PADUDA and Constitution, thus part of the “free market of discriminatory disadvantage”.

    Really Ismael. And when it comes to bread and butter things, like a job and promotion how “designated” are gays and lesbians? And when it comes to “transformation” – how many gays and lesbians are there in the NEC or government. But the only time you embrace your racially charged “equality” invective is when it comes to winning “black African” votes by attacking and vilifying white in general and white males in particular? In the mean time you don’t give a fuck about your socalled “Coloureds” and Indians who have left your party in droves.

    Lets face it Ishmael your ANC has betrayed the struggle, you were the ones to unite us into one nonracial, non-sexist nation. You failed miserably my friend.

  • Captain

    Pathetic example of a disabled person you have used pierre. Disability is not a choice.

  • http://thestir.squarespace.com Servaas Hofmeyr

    If this truly is unconstitutional, South Africa has a flawed constitution. But I believe it may rather be the interpreter of the constitution who is flawed? I judge this from the fact the he compares a disabled person with an institution (mis)representing and communicating an idea about gender functionality and roles and in effect calls for a suppression of freedom of conscience.

  • http://www.lgm.cl/ Locoluis

    This is not a public place. This is my place. I decide who is allowed and who is not.

    Educated, morally conscious people of all races and faiths are welcome. Men and women, children and disabled people are all welcome, as long as they’re educated and morally conscious.

    Your actions prove that you’re neither educated nor morally conscious. Hence, you aren’t welcome.

    If you think that this is illegal, sue me. Sue me out of business if that makes you happy. I’m still not letting you in. I’d rather spend the rest of my life in prison and die poor as a rat than to support your outrageous style of life.

  • Pingback: WHY ‘PRIVATE BUSINESSES CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS & LESBIANS