Another Unlawful PDB Ad - Page 4

JonRob please quit with the cesspool comments or you can go elsewhere.

Wonder how the conversation would go if this dog was sold to someone physically impaired and got seriously injured??

JonRob you are free to contact the advertiser with your concerns but again stop putting this site down.

"JonRob please quit with the cesspool comments or you can go elsewhere."

Your own administrator Western Rider calls this site a cesspool, just a better cesspool than it used to be (a lower case cesspool instead of an all caps cesspool):

"Really cesspool you join many years ago when it was a CESSPOOL it is so much better now."

I guess Western Rider can go elsewhere too?

"Wonder how the conversation would go if this dog was sold to someone physically impaired and got seriously injured??"

Wonder how the conversation would go if this dog was sold to someone who was not physically impaired and got seriously injured??

Bigotry means you assume that all or most members of a group of people are the same in some bad way. From the apparent PDB admin of point of view, all disabled people and most women are incompetent when it comes to handling tough dogs so it's ok to discriminate against them. Also the PDB admin apparently thinks that disabled people, unlike non-disabled people, are incompetent to make decisions about what they can handle and incapable of having a reasonable discussion about this with a dog seller--so the superior non-disabled people have to "protect" them from themselves by discriminating against them.

Bigotry is the greatest cause of evil on this earth. Racial bigotry is the reason African-Americans were enslaved, lynched, and so on. Religious bigotry motivated 9-11 and continues to motivate the endless terror attacks. Bigotry was the reason for the Holocaust. And on and on.

When you promote bigotry--as PBD does--you may not intend it to go that far. But sooner or later it always does when it's encouraged. You can't control it once you promote it.

It’s like the story about the two wolves. A grandfather tells his grandson that there are two wolves inside of us which are always fighting with each other. One is a good wolf that represents things like courage, moral decency, and kindness. The other is a bad wolf which represents things like bigotry, hatred, and cruelty. The grandson thinks about this and then asks, “But Grandfather, which wolf wins?” The grandfather replies: “The one you feed.”

Hundmutter, most of the pro-discrimination posters have identified themselves as female. None of the women I know consider "lady" to be a derogatory or MCP term. Is it considered derogatory/MCP in England? As for the legal stuff:

I don't give a crap whether PBD is liable for posting ads that violate US laws. It may be. Some folks headquartered in China learned the hard and expensive way that they cannot violate US labor laws in their treatment of their US employees. But all that is a side issue that depends on how much business PDB does in the US and the nature of that business. If PDB folks want to speculate about a complicated legal issue they know nothing about, have at it but it belongs in a new thread.

My point is that the Beetree School of Law view that posting something on PDB means that US laws no longer apply to the poster is just plain nuts.

Hundmutter, I get what you are thinking but at the heart of it, does there even exist an international authority that can actually enforce judgements against websites or even offer and protect them of rights to exist?

I would say no. That is why it makes sense for law dispute protocols to be clearly addressed in a disclaimer. It also follows that the site owner’s citizenship would be the logical court of jurisdiction.

In this case the wording of the ad might be objectionable but perhaps, not unlawful. If Jon Rob wants to sue the ad writer he best find and convince a US expert dog trainer capable, disabled woman to try to buy the dog and then be refused after proving her abilities to handle this particular dangerous dog.

That won’t happen that is why this thread contains a lot of indignant bellyaching by some bored looking for work discrimination solicitor bending the ear of Jon Rob.

"In this case the wording of the ad might be objectionable but perhaps, not unlawful. If Jon Rob wants to sue the ad writer he best find and convince a US expert dog trainer capable, disabled woman to try to buy the dog and then be refused after proving her abilities to handle this particular dangerous dog."

Wrong on all counts. The ad is all the evidence of unlawful discrimination that is needed. Tests like you describe are needed only when the business that discriminates does not admit (in this case, brag) that it discriminates. For example if a store posts a sign on its door saying "We do not sell our products to African-Americans" the discrimination is proven. The government does not need to send in an African-American to be refused service.

My lawyer friend has more business than he needs and has no interest in soliciting more.

Lol. You miss the whole concept of what International authority means! You can’t get past that. Even your Chinese labor law example MUST be limited to employees working in the US. I would love to see how your friend thinks he is going to address the Chinese government and compel them to address their record on human rights. The UN can’t do it, but Jon Rob’s lawyer friend can!

 

You are ascertaining motives that are not proved only speculated. Everyone except you and the tunnel vision lawyer understands the ad was written to weed out unsafe candidates based on the practicalities of the physical  and not a bigotry against the disabled or females.

Ok, Hundmutter, now we're curious so we did a little research.

Discrimination against women is unlawful in Iceland under the Act on the Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men. This Act states:

"All individuals shall have equal opportunities to benefit from their own enterprise and to develop their skills irrespective of gender."

Here's the link that has the Act:

https://www.wcwonline.org/pdf/lawcompilation/Iceland-genderequality.pdf

Disability discrimination is also unlawful in Iceland and can be punished by up to two years in prison. Unfortunately the disability discrimination laws are not yet enforced the way they should be. This from Wikipedia:

"While Icelandic law prohibits discrimination against disabled persons and requires that such persons “receive preference for government jobs,” advocates for the disabled complain that these laws are not fully enforced and that disabled people represent a majority of Iceland's poor. Icelandic law ensures “access to buildings, information, and communications” to disabled persons; yet while violations are supposed to be punished by up to two years in prison, advocates for the disabled complain that such punishments “rarely, if ever,” take place. The government body mainly responsible for disabled rights is the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security. The IHRC agrees that while the situation of the disabled in Iceland “has improved vastly” in recent years, “disabled persons in Iceland habitually suffer discrimination with respect to, for instance, the right to education, housing and participation in public life.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iceland

 

 

 

 

"You are ascertaining motives that are not proved only speculated. Everyone except you and the tunnel vision lawyer understands the ad was written to weed out unsafe candidates based on the practicalities of the physical and not a bigotry against the disabled or females."

Sure, just like the store with the "We don't sell our products to African-Americans" sign is following the law because everyone understands it was written to weed out shoplifters and robbers. Not!

The only view that counts is that of the law and the courts and you are dead bang wrong. Beetree, you have written some intelligent posts in the past and I have no idea why you insist on churning out dead bang wrong posts about legal matters that you know absolutely nothing about.

"Bigotry means that you assume that all or most members of a group of people are the same in some bad way."

Right back at ya JonRob, that's exactly what you have done since Page 1 of your thred, in asserting that anyone associated with PDB was bound to argue there was no discrimination in that advert.

We heard from half a dozen other people than Hexe and myself, all of whom are pointing out that its a bit ambiguous because he probably does think people would be wasting their time and maybe get hurt trying to work with this dog. Does not automatically mean they / we support discrimination.

His all embracing attitude was wrong, his assumptions are wrong, his way of wording his warning-off was certainly wrong; and yes maybe equality laws do apply and/or should be applied here ... but you are showing yourself no better by slinging insults @ PDB, its users and its administration.

And yes "ladies" when used in the sense you did would very much be taken derogatarily in the UK.

Oh and speaking of the UK we too have legislation that supposedly gives both women and those who have disabilities an "equal playing field" yet even so there is also much that is wrong with the detail of that legislation and both its application and operation in reality. I have yet to have heard of anyone who has successfully proven a case in international terms of anything posted on the Internet; I cannot wait for the day when some way is found to do so. Somehow I don't think chucking insults at websites or their readers will be what cracks that.