[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

If individual rights triumph, than a devout muslim is justified of forbidding alcohol to be served in the same establishment he attends, since that would conflict with his individual right.  And since collective rights are non-existent for you, than he would be in his right.

A Muslim (just as anyone else) should have the right to not drink alcohol and if s/he ran a shop have the right not to sell alcohol (which I think it often the default given generally you have to apply for a liquor license).  I'm struggling to see how or why a right not to have alcohol consumed in their presence would exist as a right.

I'M talking about a group of muslimn going to a restaurant that regularly serves alcohol and then requesting the other guests do not drink in the same establishment because it offends their religion.

Since individual rights triumph over collectve rights, they are absolutely justified in their requests.

Or it could be Jewish Orthodox requesting a gym to cover its windows because the sight of women in sports gear is deeply disturbing for the young males of their community.

Or it could be a group of Christians demanding the governent to forbid an heavy metal show because it is satanistic music and against their individual right to practice their religion as they see fit.
These would be perfectly legitimate demands by individuals who want to protect their individual identity and are feeling threatened by the collected assertion of the majority's rights.

Or it could be a group of English canadians demanding the closure of bilingual hospitals because individuals are offended at hearing other languages than English.

[Razgovory]

You don't really understand the concept of "individual rights" do you?

[crazy canuck]

I'M talking about a group of muslimn going to a restaurant that regularly serves alcohol and then requesting the other guests do not drink in the same establishment because it offends their religion.

The restaurant in question in fact does not regularly serve alcohol.  Rather it is a dry establishment and allows patrons to bring in their own on request.  The patrons in question came to the restaurant because they knew it to be a dry restaurant.   The restaurant made a mistake by giving permission to others to bring in alcohol sat the same time.  The restaurant fixed that mistake.  This isn't the narrative you have described.

[Oexmelin]

No, it's a BYOB, which is a different kind of permit in Quebec. It doesn't operate upon request. The owner asked other patrons to abstain from drinking their own wine, despite it being a BYOB.

[viper37]

You don't really understand the concept of "individual rights" do you?

Since you called me a racist and a bigot for preventing such minorities of imposing on me their values, I'd say yes, I do.  Or you clearly do not understand anything I write.

[garbon]

No, it's a BYOB, which is a different kind of permit in Quebec. It doesn't operate upon request. The owner asked other patrons to abstain from drinking their own wine, despite it being a BYOB.

And so the problem is?

[Oexmelin]

That patrons pressured the owner into asking other patrons to do against their wishes despite having nothing to do with that party. 

[Razgovory]

You don't really understand the concept of "individual rights" do you?

Since you called me a racist and a bigot for preventing such minorities of imposing on me their values, I'd say yes, I do.  Or you clearly do not understand anything I write.

Okay, tell what an individual right is and what a group right is.

[garbon]

That patrons pressured the owner into asking other patrons to do against their wishes despite having nothing to do with that party. 

Presumably the owner could have kicked them out if he took issue with the request?

[Admiral Yi]

As a drinking patron I would have refused to pay, on the basis that the implicit contract was being altered.

[crazy canuck]

No, it's a BYOB, which is a different kind of permit in Quebec. It doesn't operate upon request. The owner asked other patrons to abstain from drinking their own wine, despite it being a BYOB.

Right, which is a very different thing than what Viper claimed.  The establishment does not in fact "serve" alcohol.   It will permit its patrons to bring it in.  But the owner has decided not to allow then it he has other patrons who come to his restaurant because he does not in fact serve alcohol.  Sounds like a reasonable rational position to take.

The alternative would be the state dictating that a business owner must do whatever is permissible under the law even if the business owner thinks it will hurt his business - that seems much more tyrannical to me.

[crazy canuck]

As a drinking patron I would have refused to pay, on the basis that the implicit contract was being altered.

What implicit contract are you talking about.  Here there appears to have been an express contract to be allowed to bring in the alcohol which was then altered by the owner of the restaurant.  The patrons who brought in the alcohol could have then left.

[Oexmelin]

No, it's a BYOB, which is a different kind of permit in Quebec. It doesn't operate upon request. The owner asked other patrons to abstain from drinking their own wine, despite it being a BYOB.

Right, which is a very different thing than what Viper claimed.  The establishment does not in fact "serve" alcohol.   It will permit its patrons to bring it in.  But the owner has decided not to allow then it he has other patrons who come to his restaurant because he does not in fact serve alcohol.  Sounds like a reasonable rational position to take.

The alternative would be the state dictating that a business owner must do whatever is permissible under the law even if the business owner thinks it will hurt his business - that seems much more tyrannical to me.

Except it's not how it happened really. The owner did not want to alter his actual BYOB « implicit contract » as Yi said. He only did it after other patrons has begun their meal, and began drinking, and the other devout Muslims complained. He was apologetic about it. It's not about allowing or not allowing. It's about changing course in response to a complaint about people wanting to police what's happening at your own table, and using the threat of their larger clientele to pressure the owner into complying.

Imagine if the same story had happened about pork being served at your table, and the larger group said no pork, and the owner came and asked you to change your meal choices.

[crazy canuck]

No, it's a BYOB, which is a different kind of permit in Quebec. It doesn't operate upon request. The owner asked other patrons to abstain from drinking their own wine, despite it being a BYOB.

Right, which is a very different thing than what Viper claimed.  The establishment does not in fact "serve" alcohol.   It will permit its patrons to bring it in.  But the owner has decided not to allow then it he has other patrons who come to his restaurant because he does not in fact serve alcohol.  Sounds like a reasonable rational position to take.

The alternative would be the state dictating that a business owner must do whatever is permissible under the law even if the business owner thinks it will hurt his business - that seems much more tyrannical to me.

Except it's not how it happened really. The owner did not want to alter his actual BYOB « implicit contract » as Yi said. He only did it after other patrons has begun their meal, and began drinking, and the other devout Muslims complained. He was apologetic about it. It's not about allowing or not allowing. It's about changing course in response to a complaint about people wanting to police what's happening at your own table, and using the threat of their larger clientele to pressure the owner into complying.

Imagine if the same story had happened about pork being served at your table, and the larger group said no pork, and the owner came and asked you to change your meal choices.

The problem is there is no implicit contract as Yi has asserted.  A permit is permissive not mandatory.  The business owner has preferred one set of patrons over another.  There is not much more to this story.

If I showed up to my usual vegan restaurant and it was now serving steaks, although they were permitted to do so under their licence, I would take a dim view.  I don't want to smell steak when eating my meal.  That is a decision for the owner to make.

[Oexmelin]

In the middle of your meal?

Your analogy only makes sense if you are a vegan, going to a restaurant that serves meat, and insist patrons at the other table not be served the hamburger they ordered.