There are a couple of different questions here. First, yes it is discrimination. If I go and buy roses for my wife, I just discriminated against tulips. All it really means is that someone made a decision. The real questions are is it illegal or immoral discrimination. Illegal? I don?t know. Immoral? No. They probably won’t let guys dance on the tables either.
What she should really do is sue the bungee jumping company for making her jump with more cords attached to her than her friends, and then proceed to fall to her death.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are a couple of different questions here. First, yes it is discrimination. If I go and buy roses for my wife, I just discriminated against tulips.
[/quote]
No, that’s not discrimination.
But I get what you’re saying… there are certain forms of discrimination that are acceptable, such as price discrimination.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are a couple of different questions here. First, yes it is discrimination. If I go and buy roses for my wife, I just discriminated against tulips.
[/quote]
No, that’s not discrimination.
But I get what you’re saying… there are certain forms of discrimination that are acceptable, such as price discrimination.[/quote]
Yes it is. I choose roses because I have discriminating taste.
C’mon that girl is pretty fucking big…I don’t see any problem with a bouncer telling her she can’t dance on stage/tables.
I mean look at the fucking girl, if I walked into a bar and saw her and her friends (guessing some to most of them are probably the same size…birds of a feather flock together) danciing on tables I’d turn right around and walk out.
The Obama adminstration made being fat, with or without an underlying medical reason, a protected condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Under Bush, you had to have a medical reason for being fat, not just lack will power.)
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Weight discrimination isn’t illegal because you can do something about being fat. Instead of fighting ‘fat oppression’, she should use this as motivation to lose weight.
I don’t think any form of discrimination should be illegal for a private business. It’s your business, you should have the right to say ‘no members of the Hut clan allowed’. [/quote]
I thought most businesses reserved the right to refuse service? Or are there limitations on that?[/quote]
You have the right to refuse service, but your reasons for refusing service might get you sued, which is why you see bullshit reasons like “you’re clearly pregnant” instead of “fuck off fatty”.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
The Obama adminstration made being fat, with or without an underlying medical reason, a protected condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Under Bush, you had to have a medical reason for being fat, not just lack will power.)
Also, with regards her weight being an issue, ALL of the dancing ‘platforms’ I’ve ever seen have been of a very solid construction…sooo…unless she actually wanted to get up on a rather flimsy table to dance, her weight shouldn’t be an issue
The real question here fellas is whether she should continue her bulk or start her cut?
Personally I think cut but someone is sure to disagree…
Maybe underneath all that adipose tissue she is gaining unquantifiable amounts of muscle tissue, all in the right places of course, which will add aesthetically to her female frame? Those bouncers dont have a clue!
“Discrimination” is such a demonized word but there are times when it is perfectly acceptable. I private business can hire and pass on anyone they want. And they should NEVER have to give reasons why.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
The Obama adminstration made being fat, with or without an underlying medical reason, a protected condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Under Bush, you had to have a medical reason for being fat, not just lack will power.)[/quote]
That’s stupid. How can you compare a veteran who has lost a limb with someone who needs to lose weight. The fat person can diet and exercise, but a truly disabled person can ‘rarely’ fix their disability, even if they can make it less of a disability.
Hard to believe Bush had something right when socks confused him everyday (hand, foot or head?). Proves that he overcame his disability (being a dimwit) on one occasion.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I find it hilarious that she is fighting for the right to be sexually objectified. Basically she went up there as unpaid entertainment, the men there weren’t fans so she was told to get off.
[/quote]
Objectified?
What if she(like most strippers) is an exhibitionist? stripping is give and take with the dancers getting hot as much as the customers. At least any good stripper gets off on performing anyway.
Sexually objectified? Not possible unless participant is unwilling
[/quote]
I don’t know if you understand the term sexually objectified.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Aside from the discrimination issue…
What if the fat girl had a gorgeous face, sexy clothes, and really hot moves?
What if the skinny girls were really ugly, dressed badly, and danced poorly?
[/quote]
That’s right, it is a hell of a lot easier to lose weight than to fix a fugly face. Who doesn’t know that girl who goes from curvy to chubby and back again repeatedly?
Not only that but some guys like bigger girls, how many times have you seen a rail thin guy with a big girl. I could see if the stage had a load restriction, but just a subjective you’re to heavy for my taste doesn’t seem right.
