NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=741743

A woman called a kennel to inquire about an advertisement for a puppy. She told the kennel owner, who is also a woman, that she liked animals and that she and her partner would have plenty of time to care for the dog since they were both students. But when the kennel owner learned that the woman’s partner was also a woman, she put a stop to the sale.

In her explanation for denying the woman her puppy, the kennel owner made reference to earlier contacts she’d had with transvestite couples, saying she’d read that transvestites are connected to animal pornography. The kennel owner made it clear to the woman that she would not be allowed to buy the puppy because she didn’t trust homosexuals.

The stupidity of the "argument" that for some reason people who like to wear the opposite gender's clothing are into animal porn and thus lesbians are untrustworthy... it boggles the mind. The kennel owner was sued by HomO (the Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation), lost in both a lower and an appellate court and must now pay the lesbian 20 000 kr/€2175 in compensatory damages and HomO 45 000 kr/€4781 for its legal fees.

That's some expensive stupid, right there. Homophobes never cease to entertain. :)

Homophobes never cease to appal and disgust.

Fixed.

Some people turn stupidity into an art form.

Everyone involved involved in this case are bitches. :p

This isn't really newsworthy.

:confused:

Fixed.

Nope, homophobes don't "appal and disgust". They get appalled and disgusted so easily.

Some people turn stupidity into an art form.

Well, NSG is a clear testament to that.

This isn't really newsworthy.

Yes, it is. That's why most news desks and papers here are running it. It's an important ruling under toughened-up anti-discrimination laws that apply to the professional offering of goods and services.

:confused:

I'd like to ask the kennel owner if she also didn't eat pasta because she had read that anthrax is deadly.

Yes, it is. That's why most news desks and papers here are running it. It's an important ruling under toughened-up anti-discrimination laws.

Seems like a standard court case to me, unless these sort of rulings are completely new, and businesses were allowed to discriminate and decide which types of customers it sold to only just recently.

That's some expensive stupid, right there. Homophobes never cease to entertain. :)

And that might be the best way to deal with homophobia right there; make it more expensive to discriminate than it's worth. Might not change people's minds, but it might change public behavior. Better than a kick in the arse, i suppose.

I think the other guy had a case. The kennel guy, that is.

I should, and he/she should retain the right to sell whatever I have to whoever I think is proper.

The kennel guy/woman made a mistake, although. He/she explained the reasons.

It would had been easier to say, "Well, I changed my mind", and that's it.

If I don't like to sell puppies to bling bling guys, well, that's it, I should had that prerrogative.

I would suggest next time he/she should explain something alongside the line of..."I changed mi mind because you are...brunette"...Brunettes doesn't have a special lawyer office dedicated to sue you for anything you do against them.

Today's letters are W, T and F.

I think posting a link in Swedish on a forum in English is rude towards non Swedes so here is a link in English:
http://www.thelocal.se/9945/20080211/

I'm not sure what to say about the case, it's amazing how ignorant people can be.

Seems like a standard court case to me, unless these sort of rulings are completely new, and businesses were allowed to discriminate and decide which types of customers it sold to only just recently.

The law is not particularly new, but this is one of the first cases to be finally settled under it.

I think the other guy had a case. The kennel guy, that is.

She was a woman.

I should, and he/she should retain the right to sell whatever I have to whoever I think is proper.

Such a right does not exist - certain reasons to refuse to offer goods and services, that one offers professionally to everyone, to people are not acceptable.

I would suggest next time he/she should explain something alongside the line of..."I changed mi mind because you are...brunette"...Brunettes doesn't have a special lawyer office dedicated to sue you for anything you do against them.

The thing is that she would still have changed her mind about the sale in conjunction with finding out that the buyer was homosexual. The anti-discrimination law deals with culpability in a reverse fashion - it is up to the person offering the good/service to prove they did not discriminate. That would be mighty hard to do in such a circumstance with such a stupid excuse as the "brunette" one you came up with.

I don't know whether to cheer that the kennel owner was punished for her ignorance and stupidity, or be sad that in this country you can't choose freely who you do business with.

I think the other guy had a case. The kennel guy, that is.

I should, and he/she should retain the right to sell whatever I have to whoever I think is proper.

The kennel guy/woman made a mistake, although. He/she explained the reasons.

It would had been easier to say, "Well, I changed my mind", and that's it.

If I don't like to sell puppies to bling bling guys, well, that's it, I should had that prerrogative.

I would suggest next time he/she should explain something alongside the line of..."I changed mi mind because you are...brunette"...Brunettes doesn't have a special lawyer office dedicated to sue you for anything you do against them.

Well stated Aelosia

you have no right really to 'choose who you do business with". Either you engage in business, or you don't. If you do, then you treat everyone fairly and equally. I have no sympathy for people who open their business doors then bitch that they can't discriminate. If you want to discriminate, do it in your own home on your own private time. If you open the doors of your business to the public, then you open it to the public, and everyone contained therein.

I think ColaDrinkers is aware of the law, I think he is saying that he wants it changed.

I think the other guy had a case. The kennel guy, that is.

I should, and he/she should retain the right to sell whatever I have to whoever I think is proper.

The kennel guy/woman made a mistake, although. He/she explained the reasons.

It would had been easier to say, "Well, I changed my mind", and that's it.

If I don't like to sell puppies to bling bling guys, well, that's it, I should had that prerrogative.

I would suggest next time he/she should explain something alongside the line of..."I changed mi mind because you are...brunette"...Brunettes doesn't have a special lawyer office dedicated to sue you for anything you do against them.

Tough shit. If you open a business you willingly subject yourself to the rules governing the management of businesses. If you avail yourself on the protection of society then you accept the rules of society.

If you want to conduct business in the public sphere, then you just have to suck up the fact that you can't do so discriminantly. Either open your doors to all, or none. If you don't want to sell puppies to "bling bling guys" then don't sell puppies, period. It's not a one way street. You don't get to open your doors to the public and yet flaunt the rules the public put in place. If you want to discriminate in the privacy of your own home you are free to do so. But a business is not a private enclosed system, it is something you have made open to the public. You open the doors to the public, you take on the rules the society puts in place.

be sad that in this country you can't choose freely who you do business with.

Why would you be sad about a thing like that? The market is available at the behest of society. Society has deemed that certain reasons (gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or disability) for refusing to deal with people in the market are not acceptable. I see nothing sad about that - it is a necessary law to give people who've been subjected to such demeaning treatment recourse. I see nothing sad about society not standing idly by while people are affected by homophobia/racism/sexism and so on, and I see no reason for it being beyond reproach just because it is done on the market instead of elsewhere in society. The market is part of society and it is there thanks to society.

I don't know whether to cheer that the kennel owner was punished for her ignorance and stupidity, or be sad that in this country you can't choose freely who you do business with.

you have no right really to 'choose who you do business with". Either you engage in business, or you don't. If you do, then you treat everyone fairly and equally. I have no sympathy for people who open their business doors then bitch that they can't discriminate. If you want to discriminate, do it in your own home on your own private time. If you open the doors of your business to the public, then you open it to the public, and everyone contained therein.

you have no right really to 'choose who you do business with". Either you engage in business, or you don't. If you do, then you treat everyone fairly and equally. I have no sympathy for people who open their business doors then bitch that they can't discriminate. If you want to discriminate, do it in your own home on your own private time. If you open the doors of your business to the public, then you open it to the public, and everyone contained therein.

I see, so your solution is to do all your business in your private home? ;)

Actually, what do you think of bars that have age limits above the age when you can legally drink? Different age limits for men and women? Dress codes in restaurants?

Different age limits for men and women?

Illegal under EU law, as are different pricings for men and women and so on.

She was a woman.

Well, my point was that it doesn't matter anyway, sorry if I got confused.


Such a right does not exist - certain reasons to refuse to offer goods and services, that one offers professionally to everyone, to people are not acceptable.

Anyone should be able to offer their services or goods to whatever they think likable, no matter race, gender, or either sexual or religious orientation. Public services should be open to everyone, and private services up to the person owning it. If I own a store/kennel/ or something else, it is not public, and as such, it is not compulsory or mandatory to be opened to everyone. If that would be, I could pull an extremely stupid case about how I must sleep during day and be awake only at night, so forcing people to either remain open for me at midnight or discriminate me. Of course, I don't have a legal office for me and the likes of me in said hypothetical case, so it doesn't matter.

Of course, it is your country, and oyur laws. Still seems silly to me.

The thing is that she would still have changed her mind about the sale in conjunction with finding out that the buyer was homosexual. The anti-discrimination law deals with culpability in a reverse fashion - it is up to the person offering the good/service to prove they did not discriminate. That would be mighty hard to do in such a circumstance with such a stupid excuse as the "brunette" one you came up with.

My main point is that indeed she humiliated the buyer telling her the reasons, and with that gave her a case. With just "changing my mind", I would like to see how anyone, including the buyer or the court, would have found out the motives behind the change of decision.

Unless your courts have a marvelous system to read people's minds, and so finding out "true" motives, I would like to know how would you have proven the woman guilty. Although even with that "reverse guilt" proccess, a one that I find unfair, (mostly because you would be assuming someone is guilty because someone accused him/her as such), I would just prove myself not guilty saying that I changed my decision on an emotional whim that not even myself can understand. What is the court going to do? Force me to sell the puppy because I can't act on emotional impulses? Fine me because I react on emotional impulses? That sound silly, don't you think?

I think he is saying that he wants it changed.

and as I said, I have little to no sympathy for those who would avail themselves on the public sphere then bitch that they don't get to discriminate. Both from a legal standpoint, and an ethical one. if you want to do business with the public you accept the public as it walks in your door.

must now pay the lesbian 20 000 kr/€2175 in compensatory damages and HomO 45 000 kr/€4781 for its legal fees.

still not getting a puppy though :p

and I've always been slightly worried of students with animals myself...

Illegal under EU law, as are different pricings for men and women and so on.

But yet it's extremely common. By the way, my local hairdresser has one price for men and one for women. Illegal?

still not getting a puppy though :p

She can get several puppies for that money, if she hasn't already purchased a puppy elsewhere.

and I've always been slightly worried of students with animals myself...

How silly of you.

and as I said, I have little to no sympathy for those who would avail themselves on the public sphere then bitch that they don't get to discriminate. Both from a legal standpoint, and an ethical one. if you want to do business with the public you accept the public as it walks in your door.

Ok, when I clicked quote I only saw your original message and not the qualifier you edited in.

I'd like to ask the kennel owner if she also didn't eat pasta because she had read that anthrax is deadly.

That's what I'm trying to tell everyone. Don't you realise how dangerous it is???

But yet it's extremely common.

No, it isn't. I haven't come across such gender discrimination since the application of the pertinent EU directive into Swedish law. If you have, I suggest you report it to the relevant authority and/or ombudsman.

By the way, my local hairdresser has one price for men and one for women. Illegal?

Yes, and you should report it. My hairdresser doesn't have such pricings any more, and I haven't seen one have them in a while now.

you have no right really to 'choose who you do business with". Either you engage in business, or you don't. If you do, then you treat everyone fairly and equally. I have no sympathy for people who open their business doors then bitch that they can't discriminate. If you want to discriminate, do it in your own home on your own private time. If you open the doors of your business to the public, then you open it to the public, and everyone contained therein.

Your law, your thing. Thanks god I am ont there, in any case.

I'm not really against lesbians or travestites, but my point stands.

I see, so your solution is to do all your business in your private home? ;)

Actually, what do you think of bars that have age limits above the age when you can legally drink?

Bad

Different age limits for men and women?

Bad

Dress codes in restaurants?

Somewhat different in that you can change your dress, you can't change your age.

Dogs for dykes?? No way!! Yuck!

This isn't really newsworthy.

Seconded.

This is one of the more bizarre cases of discrimination I've ever encountered. Lesbians shouldn't have puppies because (theoretically) transvestites like bestiality porn? Ooooookay....

Why would someone link lesbians to transvestites? lol

Tough shit. If you open a business you willingly subject yourself to the rules governing the management of businesses. If you avail yourself on the protection of society then you accept the rules of society.

If you want to conduct business in the public sphere, then you just have to suck up the fact that you can't do so discriminantly. Either open your doors to all, or none. If you don't want to sell puppies to "bling bling guys" then don't sell puppies, period. It's not a one way street. You don't get to open your doors to the public and yet flaunt the rules the public put in place. If you want to discriminate in the privacy of your own home you are free to do so. But a business is not a private enclosed system, it is something you have made open to the public. You open the doors to the public, you take on the rules the society puts in place.

Are you saying that if someone ran a business from their home they can discriminate?

I know I wouldn't want to sell a dog to a dog fighter for example. Which is one of the reasons I will hopefully never work in a place that can possibly sell popular fighter type dogs. I don't want to deal with that bullshit on my conscience. But whether or not they've been convicted of it wouldn't matter to me.. all I'd have to know is that they practice it from either knowing of them .. or some hints along the way that that is their purpose for wanting the animal in the first place.

Why would someone link lesbians to transvestites? lol

Short answer?

They're stupid.

You may be right that this has largely, or completely, gone away. I wouldn't know since I don't go to bars and I no longer have any friends that do.


I obviously won't do that, since I believe that they have the (moral) right to do this. It also makes sense to charge women more since their hair will, on average, take longer to cut. The effect of this law was probably only that the price for men went up.

But, age limits at all? As I understand it, many bars aren't letting in everyone over 18, and instead set a higher age. Or did this change as well? Would it be illegal?


You are using logic here. Beware, that weapon doesn't combine well with his arguments.

Seconded.

Of course you would say that:rolleyes:


Neo Arts right btw guys, you cant open your business and then bitch about how you cant throw out "dem coloreds..."

No, it isn't. I haven't come across such gender discrimination since the application of the pertinent EU directive into Swedish law. If you have, I suggest you report it to the relevant authority and/or ombudsman.
You may be right that this has largely, or completely, gone away. I wouldn't know since I don't go to bars and I no longer have any friends that do.

Yes, and you should report it.
I obviously won't do that, since I believe that they have the (moral) right to do this. It also makes sense to charge women more since their hair will, on average, take longer to cut. The effect of this law was probably only that the price for men went up.

But, age limits at all? As I understand it, many bars aren't letting in everyone over 18, and instead set a higher age. Or did this change as well? Would it be illegal?

You are using logic here. Beware, that weapon doesn't combine well with his arguments.

I'm not really trying to argue here. I know I'll just get pwned, if nothing else so by my lacking English skills. I'm just interested in this, that's all, and that's why I ask questions.

Anyone should be able to offer their services or goods to whatever they think likable, no matter race, gender, or either sexual or religious orientation. Public services should be open to everyone, and private services up to the person owning it. If I own a store/kennel/ or something else, it is not public, and as such, it is not compulsory or mandatory to be opened to everyone.

It is public if it does business with the public. As soon as you open your doors to the public, your ability to discriminate on certain grounds that are enumerated in the law banning them is no more. I edited out the second part of that because it was silly in its nonsensical hyperbole and thus was not part of any worthwhile argument.

My main point is that indeed she humiliated the buyer telling her the reasons, and with that gave her a case. With just "changing my mind", I would like to see how anyone, including the buyer or the court, would have found out the motives behind the change of decision.

I clearly wrote that the burden of proof is reversed in these cases. If you go along with a sale and only "change your mind" in conjunction with finding out the buyer is homosexual, you're going to have to prove that the "change of mind" didn't have to do with the buyer's homosexuality. I would propose that that would be a hard task if the circumstance were as clear cut as here - the kennel owner had agreed to sell the puppies and "changed her mind" only when she found out that the buyer was homosexual. She'd have probably lost the case even if she hadn't gone on her additional display of stupidity.

So if I understand this right... the puppy selling person was trying to say that lesbians = transvestites (false), transvestites = animal porn producers (false) and thus, by transtition: lesbians = animal porn producers...

bizarre.

Basically, I support anti discrimination laws in business, but purely for utilitarian reasons, and not for any ideological reason. I generally don't like the government telling people who they can sell to, it's not really the governments business, and its a little overbearing. However, I think the governments priority is the well being of the people, and if that means that certain freedoms must be restricted, then so be it.

I obviously won't do that, since I believe that they have the (moral) right to do this.

Then you are as morally corrupt as they are.

It also makes sense to charge women more since their hair will, on average, take longer to cut. The effect of this law was probably only that the price for men went up.

So? I see no problem with that.

But, age limits at all? As I understand it, many bars aren't letting in everyone over 18, and instead set a higher age. Or did this change as well? Would it be illegal?

Nope, since neither the EU nor the Swedish government have involved ageism laws in such low age brackets. The Swedish government (and I believe the EU, but don't take my word for it) is contemplating ageism laws that would affect the elderly, not the young, as it is the elderly that bear most of the truly negative consequences of the ageism in our society.

I do. If your concern is that long hair takes more time to cut and thus has a higher labor cost, charge for haircuts based on the length, not the gender.

Are you somehow thinking you're in disagreement with me? Because you're not. I am in support of the ban on different prices based on gender, and the latter part of your post makes it seem that you are as well.

Hey, you link issues together as LGBT, and sometimes things are inconvenient. This whole thing is pretty lame, but there we go.

Your point is a bullshit one.

Succinct, but so true. As is your habit. :fluffle:

Hey, you link issues together as LGBT

Transvestites are not covered in the umbrella term "LGBT" (or "HBT" as it's called in Swedish).

Quoted for mind-numbing stupidity.

That, too.

So if I understand this right... the puppy selling person was trying to say that lesbians = transvestites (false), transvestites = animal porn producers (false) and thus, by transtition: lesbians = animal porn producers...

bizarre.


Thats how I understand it as well.

So? I see no problem with that.

I do. If your concern is that long hair takes more time to cut and thus has a higher labor cost, charge for haircuts based on the length, not the gender.

Nope, since neither the EU nor the Swedish government have involved ageism laws in such low age brackets. The Swedish government (and I believe the EU, but don't take my word for it) is contemplating ageism laws that would affect the elderly, not the young, as it is the elderly that bear most of the truly negative consequences of the ageism in our society.

So what's the difference between refusing entrance of an 18-year-old to a bar, or charging different age groups differently for bus and plane tickets (you CAN'T say that this isn't going on on a large scale), and refusing to sell a dog to lesbians?

And if this is a moral issue to you, why talk about laws at all? Things aren't moral or immoral just because it's written in a book.

Quoted for mind-numbing stupidity.
Hurrah!

Your law, your thing. Thanks god I am ont there, in any case.

I'm not really against lesbians or travestites, but my point stands.

Your point is a bullshit one.

Barring a bona fide reason not to serve someone, when you open your business, your personal whims should not determine who gets to access your goods and services. We have various regulatory and legal schemes in place to ensure that certain goods and services are not provided to certain people. Individual citizens should not be allowed to randomly come up with their own criteria which not only may violate those regulations and laws, but augment them in a ridiculous and arbitrary fashion.

I clearly wrote that the burden of proof is reversed in these cases. If you go along with a sale and only "change your mind" in conjunction with finding out the buyer is homosexual, you're going to have to prove that the "change of mind" didn't have to do with the buyer's homosexuality. I would propose that that would be a hard task if the circumstance were as clear cut as here - the kennel owner had agreed to sell the puppies and "changed her mind" only when she found out that the buyer was homosexual. She'd have probably lost the case even if she hadn't gone on her additional display of stupidity.


As I also argued...Let's elaborate.

Same case, but myself, as the owner of the kennel, didn't sell puppies to students, and change my mind when I speak with the buyer face to face and realize how young she is. Fine, so I changed my mind and I do not want to sell it, and tell her exactly that. "I changed my mind, I do not want to sell it anymore", without further reasons. The woman, the buyer, get everything wrong, and sue me because I didn't sell her the dog because she is a lesbian.

I go to court, and tell that I just changed my mind. Way to go. I am found guilty, and pay a rather large fine, just because I am not able to proof that I wasn't discriminating her by her sexual orientation.

A hell of a justice system, you have there. That "reverse" burden of proof is crap. I could charge anyone who deny me anything of a hate crime and discrimination, as long as I belong to a certain minority, whatever it is, better if said minority has a lawyer office dedicated to said crap.

I should move there, ask everyone anything, and earn fortunes demanding the ones that do not give me exactly what I wanted, because I am venezuelan.

You've had sex recently. 0Can you smell that?

Reminds me of something I experienced this morning on a colleague.

Hey, you link issues together as LGBT, and sometimes things are inconvenient. This whole thing is pretty lame, but there we go.

Quoted for mind-numbing stupidity.

Are you somehow thinking you're in disagreement with me? Because you're not. I am in support of the ban on different prices based on gender, and the latter part of your post makes it seem that you are as well.

Sorry, you responded to:

It also makes sense to charge women more since their hair will, on average, take longer to cut. The effect of this law was probably only that the price for men went up.

with



So? I see no problem with that.

I read that as you had "no problem" with the first part "charging women more for haircuts" not the second part "prices for men went up"

So what's the difference between refusing entrance of an 18-year-old to a bar, or charging different age groups differently for bus and plane tickets (you CAN'T say that this isn't going on on a large scale), and refusing to sell a dog to lesbians?

In the former you are making a distinction as to age, while in the latter you are making a distinction as to sexual orientation. Really, was that supposed to be a difficult question? Jag hoppas verkligen att det var lika uppenbart för dig som för, tja, alla andra...

Anyhow, the latter is illegal, the former is not. You're free to lobby the government to make the former illegal as well if you want, but be prepared to actually find that there are viable arguments in the case of low age, while there are none in the case of sexual orientation.

And if this is a moral issue to you, why talk about laws at all? Things aren't moral or immoral just because it's written in a book.

You brought up morals, not I.

Succinct, but so true. As is your habit. :fluffle:

You've had sex recently. That is the only explanation for the shocking fluffle.

You've had sex recently. That is the only explanation for the shocking fluffle.

Uhm, well... mind your own beeswax! (Well, today if you must know...)

Your point is a bullshit one.

Since when it is disagreement an opportunity for flame baiting?

Barring a bona fide reason not to serve someone, when you open your business, your personal whims should not determine who gets to access your goods and services. We have various regulatory and legal schemes in place to ensure that certain goods and services are not provided to certain people. Individual citizens should not be allowed to randomly come up with their own criteria which not only may violate those regulations and laws, but augment them in a ridiculous and arbitrary fashion.

In your legal system, that is. You can agree with it, and you may like it. I do not agree with it, neither like it. That shouldn't make my argument a bullshit.

I would advise a massage for that sore neck, before it spins out of control.

18 year olds can't enter bars, at least in the US for the most part.




I am against age discrimnatory pricing as wel, however for a short answer to your question, I suggest looking up footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products Company. A seemingly inconsequential footnote in an otherwise unremarkable case that went on to shape 70 years of judicial history.

That's nice, but this story is a story from Sweden, and both me and Fass are Swedish as well. I don't see how any of this applies.

And at the age of 18, you can legally buy alcohol. Why should a bar be able to tell you that you aren't welcome at that age? For that matter, what right do they have to prevent minors from being there, as long as they don't drink? What MORAL right, that is. Law is irrelevant.

So what's the difference between refusing entrance of an 18-year-old to a bar,

18 year olds can't enter bars, at least in the US for the most part.

or charging different age groups differently for bus and plane tickets (you CAN'T say that this isn't going on on a large scale), and refusing to sell a dog to lesbians?


I am against age discrimnatory pricing as wel, however for a short answer to your question, I suggest looking up footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products Company. A seemingly inconsequential footnote in an otherwise unremarkable case that went on to shape 70 years of judicial history.

Transvestites are not covered in the umbrella term "LGBT" (or "HBT" as it's called in Swedish).
Our LGBT officer on the Students' Union disagrees, and says that Trans- covers "estite" as well as "exual".

But then she might well be wrong, as she is wont to be.

Your idea of "proof" is not proper for the context of civil law. civil law is not like criminal law. You're not obligated to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you didn't illegally discriminate. All you have to do is prove, more likely than note. If you have a valid, legal reason to discriminate, and you can demonstrate that it was a valid reason, that's enough.

The point is that I have to prove something, when I shouldn't. According to myself.

I realize that under the rules you have stated, it was the natural decision the one the court took. Yeah, it is legal, in that jurisdiction and country. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

I am against age discrimnatory pricing as wel, however for a short answer to your question, I suggest looking up footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products Company. A seemingly inconsequential footnote in an otherwise unremarkable case that went on to shape 70 years of judicial history.

What is this, a Nancy Drew book?

As I also argued...Let's elaborate.

Same case, but myself, as the owner of the kennel, didn't sell puppies to students, and change my mind when I speak with the buyer face to face and realize how young she is.

Irrelevant, since this is not what happened in this case, and it is irrelevant since the kennel owner knew of the buyer being a student from the get-go and because "being a student" is not one of the protected classes. So, your red-herring flops around and air-drowns.

There is no 'reverse burden of proof'.

Actually, in Sweden in these cases there is.

All very well until:



The legal drinking age in most states in the US is 21. I could care less about your moral arguments right now.

The legal drinking age in SWEDEN is 18. Again: SWEDEN.

As I also argued...Let's elaborate.

Same case, but myself, as the owner of the kennel, didn't sell puppies to students, and change my mind when I speak with the buyer face to face and realize how young she is. Fine, so I changed my mind and I do not want to sell it, and tell her exactly that. "I changed my mind, I do not want to sell it anymore", without further reasons. The woman, the buyer, get everything wrong, and sue me because I didn't sell her the dog because she is a lesbian.

I go to court, and tell that I just changed my mind. Way to go. I am found guilty, and pay a rather large fine, just because I am not able to proof that I wasn't discriminating her by her sexual orientation.

A hell of a justice system, you have there. That "reverse" burden of proof is crap. I could charge anyone who deny me anything of a hate crime and discrimination, as long as I belong to a certain minority, whatever it is, better if said minority has a lawyer office dedicated to said crap.

I should move there, ask everyone anything, and earn fortunes demanding the ones that do not give me exactly what I wanted, because I am venezuelan.

Your idea of "proof" is not proper for the context of civil law. civil law is not like criminal law. You're not obligated to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you didn't illegally discriminate. All you have to do is prove, more likely than note. If you have a valid, legal reason to discriminate, and you can demonstrate that it was a valid reason, that's enough.

Our LGBT officer on the Students' Union disagrees, and says that Trans- covers "estite" as well as "exual".

But then she might well be wrong, as she is wont to be.

She is wrong. The "T" stands for transgendered/transsexual.

As I also argued...Let's elaborate.

Same case, but myself, as the owner of the kennel, didn't sell puppies to students, and change my mind when I speak with the buyer face to face and realize how young she is. Fine, so I changed my mind and I do not want to sell it, and tell her exactly that. "I changed my mind, I do not want to sell it anymore", without further reasons. The woman, the buyer, get everything wrong, and sue me because I didn't sell her the dog because she is a lesbian.

I go to court, and tell that I just changed my mind. Way to go. I am found guilty, and pay a rather large fine, just because I am not able to proof that I wasn't discriminating her by her sexual orientation.

A hell of a justice system, you have there. That "reverse" burden of proof is crap. I could charge anyone who deny me anything of a hate crime and discrimination, as long as I belong to a certain minority, whatever it is, better if said minority has a lawyer office dedicated to said crap.

I should move there, ask everyone anything, and earn fortunes demanding the ones that do not give me exactly what I wanted, because I am venezuelan.

There is no 'reverse burden of proof'. The person alleging the discrimination needs to prove, on a balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that the discrimination took place. The burden of proof is on them. Once they've established it, it is now up to you to raise your defences...the burden of proof has now shifted to you to defend your actions as justified.

This is all assuming that the jurisdiction in question is a common-law one (which it isn't in the OP, but I think you're bitching more about the US) and that there is legislation in place which deals with discrimination. Hate crimes, by the way, are generally CRIMINAL (hence the word 'crime' in their description), and once again, no reverse burden of proof.

So what is it you are complaining about exactly?

I read that as you had "no problem" with the first part "charging women more for haircuts" not the second part "prices for men went up"

Oh. I was responding to the second part and ignoring the first as it was such unadulterated BS.

There is no 'reverse burden of proof'. The person alleging the discrimination needs to prove, on a balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that the discrimination took place. The burden of proof is on them. Once they've established it, it is now up to you to raise your defences...the burden of proof has now shifted to you to defend your actions as justified.

Then I suggest to clarify that to the first person that explained that proccess to me. The first part of it wasn't never ever stated. The whole part before "Once they've established it". And I was complaining exactly about the lacking of that part.

This is all assuming that the jurisdiction in question is a common-law one (which it isn't in the OP, but I think you're bitching more about the US) and that there is legislation in place which deals with discrimination. Hate crimes, by the way, are generally CRIMINAL (hence the word 'crime' in their description), and once again, no reverse burden of proof.

So what is it you are complaining about exactly?

You are thinking wrong, I wasn't bitching against the US, but against the country that has that set of laws, wherever it is.

I do apologize for my confusion about terms as "hate crimes", due to my lack of familiarity with english legal terms. In spanish, and I think you are familiar with that language, the terminology is "Civil", or "Común", and "Penal". Criminal is hardly used. Then again, thanks for clarifying that specific part.

What is this, a Nancy Drew book?

Footnote Four was Justice Harlan Stone's...hypothetical musing that due to patterns of historical discrimination and disenfranchisement some classes of people might be more deserving of protection than others.

It was a complete and total aside, random dicta that turned into the most important footnote in ocnstitutional law.

That's nice, but this story is a story from Sweden, and both me and Fass are Swedish as well. I don't see how any of this applies. All very well until:


And at the age of 18, you can legally buy alcohol. Why should a bar be able to tell you that you aren't welcome at that age?

The legal drinking age in most states in the US is 21. I could care less about your moral arguments right now.

And at the age of 18, you can legally buy alcohol.

In the United States?

No...no you can't.

The point is that I have to prove something, when I shouldn't. According to myself.

I realize that under the rules you have stated, it was the natural decision the one the court took. Yeah, it is legal, in that jurisdiction and country. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Yeah no...you still don't understand what you're talking about.

.night all!

I have to go sleep also. Damned early mornings, they are the devil!

I think the other guy had a case. The kennel guy, that is.

I should, and he/she should retain the right to sell whatever I have to whoever I think is proper.

The kennel guy/woman made a mistake, although. He/she explained the reasons.

It would had been easier to say, "Well, I changed my mind", and that's it.

If I don't like to sell puppies to bling bling guys, well, that's it, I should had that prerrogative.

I would suggest next time he/she should explain something alongside the line of..."I changed mi mind because you are...brunette"...Brunettes doesn't have a special lawyer office dedicated to sue you for anything you do against them.


I find it hard to see the logic in your reasoning.

Irrelevant, since this is not what happened in this case, and it is irrelevant since the kennel owner knew of the buyer being a student from the get-go and because "being a student" is not one of the protected classes. So, your red-herring flops around and air-drowns.

Why is there "protected" classes, and ones not protected?

Don't get me wrong, since the beginning, I am not approving of the bias towards lesbians, wrong or not, that the kennel owner may have, yet I am seeing many holes in this legislation and would like to know how that behaves in hypothetical situations.

Since when it is disagreement an opportunity for flame baiting? I said your point is bullshit. Try not to take it too personally.



In your legal system, that is. You can agree with it, and you may like it. I do not agree with it, neither like it. That shouldn't make my argument a bullshit. It's not my legal system actually. Funny thing is, Venezuela is a civil law juridiction, much like the juridiction in question. It has more in common with Sweden than with the US or Canada. Are you sure you understand how your system works? Because generally, people like to claim they do without really understanding squat about how it actually works.

I would advise a massage for that sore neck, before it spins out of control.Bah, I did actually...it was agony and didn't help a bit. Time to smoke some weed...night all!

The legal drinking age in most states in the US is 21. I could care less about your moral arguments right now.

Not most. It is illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy, or to be sold, alchohol in every single state in the country.

That's nice, but this story is a story from Sweden, and both me and Fass are Swedish as well. I don't see how any of this applies.

And at the age of 18, you can legally buy alcohol. Why should a bar be able to tell you that you aren't welcome at that age? For that matter, what right do they have to prevent minors from being there, as long as they don't drink? What MORAL right, that is. Law is irrelevant.

Hell I was in bars when I was little. I don't know if that was legal or not.. but no one cared either way. Cops drank at the bars too. All of us kids there would just play on the bar stools, go outside and play or pretend to play pool.

Yeah no...you still don't understand what you're talking about.

It seems that you don't understand, neither.

I said your point is bullshit. Try not to take it too personally.

Try to use terms like "Your point is wrong", those are more adequate, to avoid people taking such statements personal.

If the term "homosexual" is more proper than "faggot", I would say that "wrong" is more proper than "bullshit", using the same way of thinking.

Footnote Four was Justice Harlan Stone's...hypothetical musing that due to patterns of historical discrimination and disenfranchisement some classes of people might be more deserving of protection than others.

It was a complete and total aside, random dicta that turned into the most important footnote in ocnstitutional law.


Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carolene_Products_Co.)

But of course in order to understand it really.. you'd have to follow link to link to link an so forth. But I did look at the jest of it. Never even heard of it until today.

Why is there "protected" classes, and ones not protected?

Because the legislator has recognised that certain characteristics are targeted by people who discriminate and has seen fit to set punitive consequences to discrimination based upon those characteristics. Why those characteristics? Because the legislator has deemed them to be of sufficient importance and especially unacceptable in a democratic society.

/Bed. Now!

I have to go sleep also. Damned early mornings, they are the devil!

Night Fass and Neesika

And I'll shut up now.

No, it isn't. I haven't come across such gender discrimination since the application of the pertinent EU directive into Swedish law. If you have, I suggest you report it to the relevant authority and/or ombudsman.

Hmm, I've never seen different prices for drinks or something like that, but free entry for women in bars seems to be pretty common... and I don't think anyone would want to complain about that.

Second part has already been dealt with in this thread

As dumb and thickheaded as that is, I fully support the right of the kennel owner to discriminate her customers.

Same case, but myself, as the owner of the kennel, didn't sell puppies to students
If you want to talk morals, rather than law, you have no freaking right to say "I don't sell to students". If you open your doors to the public, you are open to the public. You are entitled to make money on your business; you are not entitled to be the boss of everyone else's life.

As dumb and thickheaded as that is, I fully support the right of the kennel owner to discriminate her customers.

Just don't be stupid and tell the (former?) customer that its because you're a bigot?

The thing is that she would still have changed her mind about the sale in conjunction with finding out that the buyer was homosexual. The anti-discrimination law deals with culpability in a reverse fashion - it is up to the person offering the good/service to prove they did not discriminate. That would be mighty hard to do in such a circumstance with such a stupid excuse as the "brunette" one you came up with.

Well, after learning out about the buyer's sexual orientation, she could have gone:

"Do you have a flag? No flag no puppy. It's the rules... that I just made up."

:p

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=741743

*snip*

What a bitch.

My old boss wouldn't employ any one male, lesbian, black, indian, asian or anyone with dreads.

As dumb and thickheaded as that is, I fully support the right of the kennel owner to discriminate her customers.

Why?

Should McDonalds not serve fries to lesbians either?

Why?

Should McDonalds not serve fries to lesbians either?

Well, you never know, they might make deviant potato porn :rolleyes:

Why?

Should McDonalds not serve fries to lesbians either?

I support a business owner's right to discriminate. Of course realistically, if McDonald's were to refuse service to lesbians, it would hurt their companies image to the point that a lot of people would probably boycott them. McDonald's really has no reason to refuse lesbian customers and neither does this kennel owner, but if you have built a business from the ground up then you have every right to deny customers imo. Forcing business owners to do things they don't want to do is just going to discourage entrepreneurs and hurt the economy. The only exception I would make to that rule is if a certain minority group couldn't get basic things like water or electricity or something but I doubt that will ever happen.

I support a business owner's right to discriminate.


So corperations get a right to be bigots?

So corperations get a right to be bigots?

I asked a couple of questions a page or two back in the thread, related to this and that have gone unanswered.

Let me as you this: if they don't have the right to be bigots, how come they are? I mean, there is no law against a kid seeing a movie that's rated higher than his age, the rating is voluntary. So what RIGHT does a movie theater have to prevent the kid from doing business with them?

What RIGHT do my (municipality owned no less) bus company have for charging the young and old one price and the rest a price that's higher?

Do they have the right or not? What is the difference? Or is the difference merely in scale, and not in nature? Where do you draw the line?

Oh for the good old days, when all a store owner had to do was put a sign in their window to keep the wrong sort of people out of their store. Too bad about those damn laws now that force us to do business with *their* sort. To think, we could have kept them in their place so much longer...

I hope you see where I'm going with this.

I support a business owner's right to discriminate. ... The only exception I would make to that rule is if a certain minority group couldn't get basic things like water or electricity or something but I doubt that will ever happen.

No... that could never happen...

I asked a couple of questions a page or two back in the thread, related to this and that have gone unanswered.

Let me as you this: if they don't have the right to be bigots, how come they are? I mean, there is no law against a kid seeing a movie that's rated higher than his age, the rating is voluntary. So what RIGHT does a movie theater have to prevent the kid from doing business with them?

What RIGHT do my (municipality owned no less) bus company have for charging the young and old one price and the rest a price that's higher?

Do they have the right or not? What is the difference? Or is the difference merely in scale, and not in nature? Where do you draw the line?

Because we as a society have determined, based on evidence, some legit some not, that children should not be exposed to certian images and substances because their bodies or minds are adverselly effected by it.

So there is a reason fo this that is grounded in some degree of fact. There is no reason to deny services to minorities aside from finding them "yucky".


ps- Anyone can get into any movie they wish, sometimes they just need an adult accompanying them, to make sure they are only seeing certain content with their parents approval.

So corperations get a right to be bigots?

Just like individuals, you mean?

Just like individuals, you mean?


The difference the most a person can deny you is their time. A corperation can deny you the rights to their goods and services.

What a bitch.

My old boss wouldn't employ any one male, lesbian, black, indian, asian or anyone with dreads.

so just straight white women? lol

Do they have the right or not? What is the difference?

Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is arbitrary. Discriminating on the basis of age is not (always).

As a society, we restrict the rights of minors. Would it be equally legitimate to restrict the rights of gays?

The difference the most a person can deny you is their time. A corperation can deny you the rights to their goods and services.

Individuals can't provide services? :confused:

I support a business owner's right to discriminate. Of course realistically, if McDonald's were to refuse service to lesbians, it would hurt their companies image to the point that a lot of people would probably boycott them. McDonald's really has no reason to refuse lesbian customers and neither does this kennel owner, but if you have built a business from the ground up then you have every right to deny customers imo. Forcing business owners to do things they don't want to do is just going to discourage entrepreneurs and hurt the economy. The only exception I would make to that rule is if a certain minority group couldn't get basic things like water or electricity or something but I doubt that will ever happen.

A part of me agrees with you that a business owner should be able to decide who they sell to.. because ultimately they will be the ones to suffer .. (of course barring holding back necessities to life.. as you stated). As long as there are competing providers with near price within distance.

I bet there are loop holes now though. Like the establishments in no smoking areas that allow smoking. Labeled as private or whatever.. members pay dues.. and get to smoke while drinking .. in a bar or restaurant.

As a society, we restrict the rights of minors. Would it be equally legitimate to restrict the rights of gays?

The law doesn't restrict the rights against minors, at least not in the case of seeing movies intended for an older audience. Ratings are voluntary, and the owners of a movie theater won't be punished for letting minors in. This is the case in Sweden at least, and I'm pretty sure it's the same in the USA.

Why wouldn't it be just as legitimate? Why should I pay 20% more to ride the bus than a friend that's 2 years younger? What moral right do they have to charge different prices for us?

I happen to think that they do have that right, or rather, that I don't have any right to prevent them. I don't think I have any right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own property, as long as it's not directly harming me.

But I'm interested in why you people think that it's sometimes OK to discriminate, and sometimes not. Sometimes it's OK based on gender (let women into a bar for free, charge the men), based on age (as you said it was), based on race (attempts to balance the scales with affirmative action). And sometimes it's not OK, just because you think something is "icky". Not illegal, but unpleasant.

I guess I'm just looking for the argument that explains the moral validity in all of this, because I don't see it.

That's nice, but this story is a story from Sweden, and both me and Fass are Swedish as well. I don't see how any of this applies.

And at the age of 18, you can legally buy alcohol. Why should a bar be able to tell you that you aren't welcome at that age?

They shouldn't.

For that matter, what right do they have to prevent minors from being there, as long as they don't drink? What MORAL right, that is. Law is irrelevant.

In this case it is the right to cover thine ass. If someone underage were to consume alcohol the owner or bar tender could be blamed.

The law doesn't restrict the rights against minors, at least not in the case of seeing movies intended for an older audience.

Yes, I know. I was drawing a comparison.

If legal discrimination against minors is routine and legitimate, it makes no sense to prohibit private discrimination against them in a context like movie ratings.

I don't think I have any right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own property, as long as it's not directly harming me.

That's nice. But as a society we decided a long time ago that the fact that we grant people ownership of property doesn't mean we're giving them unrestricted power. They have duties to the public, instituted to protect the public good--and at least some places have finally decided that "the public" means everyone, gay and straight.

But I'm interested in why you people think that it's sometimes OK to discriminate, and sometimes not.

Some bases are arbitrary, and others are not. If you can give a good reason to make a distinction (the literal meaning of "discriminate"), then there's nothing wrong with it.

Sometimes it's OK based on gender (let women into a bar for free, charge the men),

This is done for legitimate business reasons, not out of sexism.

based on age (as you said it was),

Are you really going to claim that there are no relevant differences between minors and adults (generally speaking) when it comes to things like movie ratings and voting rights?

based on race (attempts to balance the scales with affirmative action).

We do this for a legitimate reason: to promote a society that is truly equal and diverse, instead of one that perpetuates structures of historical disadvantage and segregation.

And sometimes it's not OK, just because you think something is "icky".

No, that's just your straw man.

we grant people ownership of property
That's just a nice way of saying that no one owns anything, that everything belogs to society and they're nice enough to let us use it, as long as we use it right. I don't think I can agree with this point of view at all.

No, that's just your straw man.
I really didn't intend for it to be that. I'm not actually trying to win an argument, believe it or not.

It's perfectly legal to be a racist or homophobe, and you said that you are allowed to discriminate as long as it's for a "valid reason". In practice, this would make it OK as long as it's not an invalid one. The invalid ones are not so much illegal as undesirable. How is this a straw man?

But of course, if you don't believe in property as anything but a temporary and revocable grant from the government, I'm not sure any of this has a point, as it would mean that it could take from you or change the terms for the use of anything at any time for any reason. It's theirs and not yours, after all.

That's just a nice way of saying that no one owns anything,

No, people obviously own things.

that everything belogs to society

Certainly not. But we as a society have the right to have control over our own public sphere, of which most kinds of economic activity are a part.

and they're nice enough to let us use it, as long as we use it right.

When it comes to an institution that has a necessarily public character, like a business--an institution that deals with other people as workers and as consumers, that plays a role in the economic system that affects everyone's lives--to state that the owner should have absolute power is to give up on our sovereignty over our own lives.

Any "private ownership" in a case like that is something that can only be justifiably instituted on the basis of social benefit: say, it increases economic efficiency. And for that reason, we have the right to restrict the power of that ownership in line with our concern for social benefit.

It's perfectly legal to be a racist or homophobe,

Right. People have the right to be as prejudiced as they like. What we restrict is certain manifestations of that prejudice.

The invalid ones are not so much illegal as undesirable.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Are there cases of invalid discrimination that are legal? Definitely, but since we're discussing a case of legal prohibition, where this sort of discrimination is illegal, I don't see the relevance. In any case, the standard for "invalidity" is not undesirability at all. I may find certain kinds of arbitrary discrimination to be desirable--I may, for instance, be prejudiced and not want gays to be hired for a certain job--but if I am rational I will recognize that I do not have a good reason for such discrimination despite my desire.

But of course, if you don't believe in property as anything but a temporary and revocable grant from the government, I'm not sure any of this has a point, as it would mean that it could take from you or change the terms for the use of anything at any time for any reason.

I have denied that property is founded in any "natural" individual right independent of societal recognition, but it does not follow that I am against any standard of legitimacy for government policy.

Some people really are very stupid.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.Neither am I now that I read what I wrote a second time.
Are there cases of invalid discrimination that are legal? Definitely, but since we're discussing a case of legal prohibition, where this sort of discrimination is illegal, I don't see the relevance. In any case, the standard for "invalidity" is not undesirability at all. I may find certain kinds of arbitrary discrimination to be desirable--I may, for instance, be prejudiced and not want gays to be hired for a certain job--but if I am rational I will recognize that I do not have a good reason for such discrimination despite my desire

It gets really difficult to talk about what should or shouldn't be done based on morality and legality at the same time, when you're not even recognizing the law as moral. And really confusing. It does seem to me like you decide what's legal or not (or should be legal or not) only based on what you feel is morally acceptable, and not what is actually protecting someone from direct harm. It's easy to say that murder should be illegal, but it gets very difficult to talk about any kind of morality when the law concerns the use of bicycle helmets or the size of buildings you can put up on your own property.

But you're right that what's illegal certainly is illegal. What I'm not sure of is why a lesbian is worthy of more legal protection than person that is refused to buy alcohol because the bartender thinks that he's had enough. There is obviously a difference in scale, but in nature?

I support a business owner's right to discriminate. Of course realistically, if McDonald's were to refuse service to lesbians, it would hurt their companies image to the point that a lot of people would probably boycott them. McDonald's really has no reason to refuse lesbian customers and neither does this kennel owner, but if you have built a business from the ground up then you have every right to deny customers imo. Forcing business owners to do things they don't want to do is just going to discourage entrepreneurs and hurt the economy. The only exception I would make to that rule is if a certain minority group couldn't get basic things like water or electricity or something but I doubt that will ever happen.

I don't think they do have a right. My mother's a designer, and she doesn't discriminate against clients. She has some that can only afford $800 dollars on a new door for one cabinet, and some that can afford $40000 for a whole renovation. She has couples who fight, gay doctors who have very visual pornography calandars on their fridges and people who can't speak a word of English. Does any of that matter? No, because she's offering a service, and that service is open to every body. If you don't want to offer your service to everybody, don't have a business.

so just straight white women? lol

Yep.
And when she found out my mother was Hungarian, she was like "oh...".

That's just a nice way of saying that no one owns anything, that everything belogs to society and they're nice enough to let us use it, as long as we use it right. I don't think I can agree with this point of view at all.
Without society, there is no "property", only "possession", for as long as you are physically able to hold on. If you pay guards, in an anarchic society they have no reason to accept just what you pay them, rather than seizing everything from you. "Property" is entirely a creation of "government". You might prefer a form of government in which property-owners have greater rights, as in medieval societies where the property-owners rule everyone totally, but the modern tendency is against you.

It gets really difficult to talk about what should or shouldn't be done based on morality and legality at the same time, when you're not even recognizing the law as moral.

I'm talking about morality, morality in the political context.

It does seem to me like you decide what's legal or not (or should be legal or not) only based on what you feel is morally acceptable, and not what is actually protecting someone from direct harm.

There are morally unacceptable things I think should be legal, but you're right that my standard is not "direct harm"... not narrowly interpreted, anyway.

It's easy to say that murder should be illegal, but it gets very difficult to talk about any kind of morality when the law concerns the use of bicycle helmets

That's a matter of victimless crimes. The case here is clearly different: there was a victim. Someone was disadvantaged by the discrimination.

or the size of buildings you can put up on your own property.

There are all kinds of public consequences involved in constructing buildings, even if they're on your own property. There's no reason the community can't regulate this.

What I'm not sure of is why a lesbian is worthy of more legal protection than person that is refused to buy alcohol because the bartender thinks that he's had enough. There is obviously a difference in scale, but in nature?

Absolutely. The reasons are very different. Homophobia is arbitrary prejudice; discrimination based upon it is obviously illegitimate. The bartender in this case might have any number of reasons whose legitimacy is more disputable. For instance, he or she may be considering the consequences of having excessively drunk people in the place; certainly there are legitimate concerns there.

Yep.
And when she found out my mother was Hungarian, she was like "oh...".
Hungarians aren't white? :eek:

And I agree completely with the verdict. She's a silly person who deserves the slap on the wrist she got from her bigoted ways.

I also agree with the law. It's not a simple thing to win, even with the reversed burden of proof - but this was a blatant and clear-cut case.

How did this get the green light?

...wait a minute.. DAMN IT. Wrong website. That article and heading had me thinking of another website.




*Heads over to Fark.com*

So corperations get a right to be bigots?

absolutely!

absolutely!

Corporations have full rights to harbor whatever bigoted thoughts they please. They just can't use them as a basis to discriminate against people.

The fact that corporations lack the cognitive capacity to think anything at all is not our fault.

You're a bigot.

Hungarians aren't white? :eek:

They are, but they're still "foreign" to her... Anyway, I don't work there any more.

They are, but they're still "foreign" to her... Anyway, I don't work there any more.

Good choice :)