moniker Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 But many such people are hypocrites. I'll talk about my own community who are strictly vegetarian but own many convenience stores' date=' restaurants where they sell meat. It's stupid that you would sell a product for personal profit but then you will curse anyone or discriminate against someone who does consume it. On the surface, there's nothing illegal about it, but this is not a healthy mindset for anyone living in 21st century. All this does is keep pulling India back in the times of pre-British era.[/quote'] Cursing or avoiding someone based on what they eat is discriminatory, yes, but the point I'm raising about is how some might be uncomfortable of having non-veg consumed inside the house they own. One of my friends' family are nice and social with everybody, but place these kinds of conditions. They are religious to the point that they go only to those restaurants that serve pure veg, so it's no surprise that they'll rent out their house only to veggies. You can't hold this against them. Though of course, a fair share of them could be hypocrites as you've mentioned.
moniker Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 Actually I will think that is discriminatory. On the one hand as you say' date=' it is his house, but on the other he is earning from the house[/quote'] It's not a job, where discrimination happens when people belonging to certain community are preferred over others who deserve the job on merit. It's a private property that the individual decides to hand over to someone. Let's say he doesn't want pets in his house. Would you call that discriminatory too? I sell my old newspapers to a paperwala that has digital weights rather than one that uses manual weights. The latter might well be as accurate as the former, but I prefer it that way. Am I discriminatory?
CSK Fan Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 It's not a job, where discrimination happens when people belonging to certain community are preferred over others who deserve the job on merit. It's a private property that the individual decides to hand over to someone. Let's say he doesn't want pets in his house. Would you call that discriminatory too? I sell my old newspapers to a paperwala that has digital weights rather than one that uses manual weights. The latter might well be as accurate as the former, but I prefer it that way. Am I discriminatory? You are a consumer in the example of the paperwala you mentioned, not the businessman However, I understand your point too. Shops, restaurants can refuse services to people too However, I think discriminating on religion should be made illegal. There would be no way to prove this though
Detonator Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 Actually I will think that is discriminatory. On the one hand as you say' date=' it is his house, but on the other he is earning from the house[/quote'] lol no. It's upto the owner of the property. Don't confuse with paying the rent and paying salary. :giggle:
Detonator Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 You are a consumer in the example of the paperwala you mentioned, not the businessman However, I understand your point too. Shops, restaurants can refuse services to people too However, I think discriminating on religion should be made illegal. There would be no way to prove this though It's already illegal. It can't be proved, but the minority's words will be treated as absolute truth.
CSK Fan Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 It's already illegal. It can't be proved' date=' but the minority's words will be treated as absolute truth.[/quote'] Eh, who has been prosecuted for not giving an apartment to a minority?
Detonator Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 Eh' date=' who has been prosecuted for not giving an apartment to a minority?[/quote'] can be done with communal violence bill .
Crookbond Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 It's not a job, where discrimination happens when people belonging to certain community are preferred over others who deserve the job on merit. It's a private property that the individual decides to hand over to someone. Let's say he doesn't want pets in his house. Would you call that discriminatory too? I sell my old newspapers to a paperwala that has digital weights rather than one that uses manual weights. The latter might well be as accurate as the former, but I prefer it that way. Am I discriminatory? Personal property is fine but a co-op is by no means a "private property".
Precambrian Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 Now, my two cents. Don't think there is any sort of discrimination if the house owner is reasonably convinced of the tenant's background and income status. The higher earning and "upwardly mobile" the tenant appears, the easier it is for him to get tenancy. Happens everywhere. Doesn't matter what religion, caste etc he is from. Because in my time at Blore, I've seen quite a few mixed communities in very good locations and the common thing between them being affluence. Holds good for interviews and jobs as well. you got to an interview with a footlong beard and your trousers pulled upto chest high, chances are extremely minimal you are embraced with both arms. Same holds good for people who parades their religion openly and blatantly, with foreheads bathed in vibhuthi and hair dripping from oil. When you live in shared premises, apartments etc where there is a lot of people intermingling with others, you need to respect others thoughts and feelings as well. And stop parading your religion around. Don't cut goats and flood shared drains with blood, similarly don't put up blaring loudspeakers and destroy the calm of neighbourhood.
Detonator Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 Personal property is fine but a co-op is by no means a "private property". But co-op has to correlate with freedom of association. The owner of the property has rights to define the clauses for agreement right. It shouldn't be on religious or racial grounds, but it can say about owner's personal likes and dislike (my uncle has banned cricket inside his apartment complex :giggle:). The would be tenat can walk away if he doesn't like it. However, the owner rights is limited to enter to house like police, to see wheter the tenant is cooking non-veg or boozing. They can cook non-veg anywaz :winky:
Mariyam Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 It sets a dangerous precedent. Why do you say so? What if people wish to reside with others of the same region/religious persuation/occupation? Many a times it makes economic sense too.
Mariyam Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 can be done with communal violence bill . Can you cite some examples/links where people have been prosecuted for not giving an apartment to members of a minority community under this bill?
Crookbond Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 Why do you say so? What if people wish to reside with others of the same region/religious persuation/occupation? Many a times it makes economic sense too. If it is your private property, you can lend it to anyone whom you want. Any kind of organization (including a co-op), can't do so because it leads to a dangerous precedent. Tomorrow bakeries will only serve paav to some specific cult.
FischerTal Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 If it is your private property' date=' you can lend it to anyone whom you want. Any kind of organization (including a co-op), can't do so because it leads to a dangerous precedent. Tomorrow bakeries will only serve paav to some specific cult.[/quote'] Ever had pav bhaji from sardar restaurant in Mumbai? The amount of butter they put is unreal
FischerTal Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 Something similar from america, Racial Segregation in the St. Louis Metropolitan Region That's how most of America is :giggle:
Mariyam Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 If it is your private property' date=' you can lend it to anyone whom you want. Any kind of organization (including a co-op), can't do so because it leads to a dangerous precedent. Tomorrow bakeries will only serve paav to some specific cult.[/quote'] That isn't a very compelling analogy. A baker would only be restricting his base of clientele for a product which has limited shelf life and is a daily purchase. A house ( rented or purchased) isn't. A Co-op reserves the right to lease/sell who it wants to. Just the way a lounge/disc can bar (unintended pun) a guy in a dhoti or a girl in a burqa from entering. That is a reality. But my point wasn't about what falls under the ambit of the Co-operative Societies Act. All I'm saying is that people like staying with others of the same ilk. It doesn't mean they end up being more narrow minded. Call it a Maslowian tendency- the need to be a part of a group. In the larger process of self actualization, these things make a huge difference. And people, even unknowingly/subconsciously strive towards it. Lets not mix the two. Similar people wanting to stay together is not necessarily a bad thing. Being an exclusive club/ discrimination based on some parameter is an evil. For eg if a Society is Registered as the Catholic Co-Operative Society of Khar, and a non Catholic wants to purchase property there and he is denied permission it is (though morally wrong) understandable. However if a Sunflower Petal Society denies permission on the grounds of religion/region etc that would be discrimination. Take the case of the Islam Gymkhana, Parsi Gymkhana or the Hindu Gymkhana. Under some pressure, their membership was open to all and sundry. Not just to coreligionists. Over the course of decades, a look at the members list will show you that Islam Gymkhana has 90% Muslims, and the percentage of Hindus and Parsis in their respective Gymkahanas is pretty much the same. People instinctively tend to flock together. What do you have to say about places like Parsi Colony in Dadar? Do you see it as an example of religious exclusivity or as people exercising their right to assimilate? Where do you draw the line?
Crookbond Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 That isn't a very compelling analogy. A baker would only be restricting his base of clientele for a product which has limited shelf life and is a daily purchase. A house ( rented or purchased) isn't. A Co-op reserves the right to lease/sell who it wants to. Just the way a lounge/disc can bar (unintended pun) a guy in a dhoti or a girl in a burqa from entering. That is a reality. But my point wasn't about what falls under the ambit of the Co-operative Societies Act. All I'm saying is that people like staying with others of the same ilk. It doesn't mean they end up being more narrow minded. Call it a Maslowian tendency- the need to be a part of a group. In the larger process of self actualization, these things make a huge difference. And people, even unknowingly/subconsciously strive towards it. Lets not mix the two. Similar people wanting to stay together is not necessarily a bad thing. Being an exclusive club/ discrimination based on some parameter is an evil. For eg if a Society is Registered as the Catholic Co-Operative Society of Khar, and a non Catholic wants to purchase property there and he is denied permission it is (though morally wrong) understandable. However if a Sunflower Petal Society denies permission on the grounds of religion/region etc that would be discrimination. Take the case of the Islam Gymkhana, Parsi Gymkhana or the Hindu Gymkhana? Under some pressure, their membership iwas open to all and sundry. Over the course of decades, a look at the members list will show you that Islam Gymkhana has 90% Muslims, and the percentage of Hindus and Parsis in their respective Gymkahanas is pretty much the same. People instinctively tend to flock together. What do you have to say about places like Parsi Colony in Dadar? Do you see it as an example of religious exclusivity or as people exercising their right to assimilate? Where do you draw the line? I'm sorry Mariyam but I'd have to disagree with you on this. The shelf life of a product has got nothing to do with discrimination. You can replace baker by any other professional out there. Lounge/Disc bar is a very bad analogy. The lounge/disc bar is NOT banning only dhotis/lungis - they are banning anyone who don't adhere to their dress code and the dress code in the lounge was very specific. Irrespective of whether people tend to flock together or not - denying apartments based on religion sets a dangerous precedent. There is ample evidence and studies on Housing Discrimination which I'm studying right now for a project on computational discrimination - discrimination by algorithms based on traits. I'd like to state one thing though - when it comes to discrimination, the more you used verbiage to describe "What is" and "What is NOT" the more you're trying to obfuscate the obvious. Discrimination is something which is very clear to the human eye/mind. Any system which is designed to intentionally keep one particular section OUT is discrimination. OTOH, a system where there are rules and people who don't follow those rules would be out - isn't discrimination. I expect to use your judgment in good faith that these rules themselves aren't discriminatory which is again clearly visible. It is very clear that discrimination by race (by organizations) sets a dangerous precedent and should be struck down upon. Most societies frown upon it and it would be wise to keep that so.
Mariyam Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 I'm sorry Mariyam but I'd have to disagree with you on this. The shelf life of a product has got nothing to do with discrimination. You can replace baker by any other professional out there. Lounge/Disc bar is a very bad analogy. The lounge/disc bar is NOT banning only dhotis/lungis - they are banning anyone who don't adhere to their dress code and the dress code in the lounge was very specific. How is this different from a housing society, which leases/sells to only those who adhere by a certain stated way of life? Why the dichotomy? Irrespective of whether people tend to flock together or not - denying apartments based on religion sets a dangerous precedent. There is ample evidence and studies on Housing Discrimination which I'm studying right now for a project on computational discrimination - discrimination by algorithms based on traits. Can you elaborate further on this evidence. I didn't quite get your point here. I'd like to state one thing though - when it comes to discrimination' date=' the more you used verbiage to describe "What is" and "What is NOT" the more you're trying to obfuscate the obvious. Discrimination is something which is very clear to the human eye/mind.[b'] Any system which is designed to intentionally keep one particular section OUT is discrimination. OTOH, a system where there are rules and people who don't follow those rules would be out - isn't discrimination. I expect to use your judgment in good faith that these rules themselves aren't discriminatory which is again clearly visible. This part I agree with. Which is why having community only housing isn't really discriminatory, or setting a bad precedent.
Crookbond Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 How is this different from a housing society, which leases/sells to only those who adhere by a certain stated way of life? Why the dichotomy? The part is about drawing the line. It is widely accepted that you draw lines when organizations intentionally discriminate. While this isn't a fool proof method, it at least shows Can you elaborate further on this evidence. I didn't quite get your point here. I meant there's a difference between tendency and intentional allowance. If despite diversity, we see tendency to flock together - than fine. But, lets be vigilant and repeat the message that segregation is something we should reiterate. Also, I must add another point - the lines between societies are being continuously blurred in India. We still have a divide but it will continue to get more & more blurred. In that respect, I think we should encourage a diverse society. This part I agree with. Which is why having community only housing isn't really discriminatory, or setting a bad precedent. It is tricky when it comes to housing. For me, it sets a dangerous precedent - not necessarily bad.
Recommended Posts