sly279 wrote:
Chronos wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Where I live, since the refugee crisis, I've been seeing this rule in pools and other sea activities:


I dunno what incidents may have happened to make those owners to put a such rules, but does it help to suspect any guys-only groups? is it justified?
What if one only has male friends or male siblings?
There is discrimination but there is reasonable discrimination and unreasonable discrimination...or discrimination without just cause.
For example, preventing severely obese person from boarding a helicopter, because it would put the helicopter over the weight limit and would prevent it from flying safely, would be reasonable or just discrimination. Refusing a job to someone because of their race, and you just don't like people of their race, would be unreasonable or unjust discrimination.
Barring only all male groups from these facilities is discrimination. The question is, is it unreasonable or unjust discrimination? I understand there have been incidents in Europe of groups of refugee men who are not familiar with western culture, harassing and assaulting women. Perhaps this was a problem at these places. Though personally I think it would have been better to allow groups of men but have a zero tolerance policy for harassment.
This is the same as banning black men from an event cause there were some incidents of black men harassing people in the past. Most if not all people would say that's clearly wrongful discrimination. But somehow banning all men who don't have gfs isn't. 0.o
But do they have descrimination laws where this happen? If in the us if file a lawsuit.
Most people would say that is wrongful discrimination, and in the example you provided, I would agree. The demographic of black men is a culturally and genetically diverse group of people who have little in common other than a common heritage, their outward appearance and their sex.
But if we reduce the situation to X demographic where X demographic can be any demographic, we can then better address the question of whether or not discrimination against that demographic is justifiable or not.
For example, if we said X demographic was banned from having a drivers license, it's discrimination, but is it unreasonable?
If we let X = a race, or a sex, or a religion, or people with freckles, and so on, then yes, it's unreasonable because there's nothing inherent about those demographics that would cause the members of said demographics to be unsafe drivers.
If we let X = people with uncontrolled epilepsy, or narcolepsy, or blind people, or five year olds, or a history of causing fatal accidents while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then it doesn't sound very unreasonable to withhold drivers licenses from them.
But anyway, it's a moot point because the ban on groups of men encompasses half the human population and is too broad to justify in any manner in my opinion. As I previously said, I think the groups of men should be allowed and harassers should be banned.