Like i have said in all my comments so far. I agree with the soci-economic reasons and right of anyone to make a rule. But you seem to be reading half the original post (by Nic). There were "Exceptions" to the rules. My focus is on the exceptions. While you can say that single males will not spend as much as families, you can't say single males from x country will spend more than single males from y country. That my dear friend is when they cross the boundary into the domain of racism.
Get a broader perspective. Do you think that Rosa Parks in 1955 was wrong and the Montgomery bus company was right because Rosa Parks being of a different skin color was not considered to have enough disposable income??
NOT AT ALL. Are we going to repeat the mistakes that were committed fifty years ago?
Having said that, i repeat, "I agree with socio-economic objectives". And there are honorable ways to achieve those objectives than to bar people based on skin color and nationality. For example, make an entry pass. Even if the price is nominal, more than half the people who have no business to be at the place won't bother turning up. And give it publicity. It is simply wrong to humiliate any human being by turning him/her away at the gate while at the same time, right in front of his/her eyes, another human being in the same situation is allowed in.
You know what, i may even be willing to agree (conditionally) that a nationality specific rule is enforced given that the those who make the rules have the GUTS to announce it publicly that x nationality people are not welcome. Because after all, the person/authority having jurisdiction can do as they please. But sorry.... no right to humiliate a particular nationality or skin color.
------------------------------------------
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Like i have said in all my comments so far. I agree with the soci-economic reasons and right of anyone to make a rule. But you seem to be reading half the original post (by Nic). There were "Exceptions" to the rules. My focus is on the exceptions. While you can say that single males will not spend as much as families, you can't say single males from x country will spend more than single males from y country. That my dear friend is when they cross the boundary into the domain of racism.
Get a broader perspective. Do you think that Rosa Parks in 1955 was wrong and the Montgomery bus company was right because Rosa Parks being of a different skin color was not considered to have enough disposable income??
NOT AT ALL. Are we going to repeat the mistakes that were committed fifty years ago?
Having said that, i repeat, "I agree with socio-economic objectives". And there are honorable ways to achieve those objectives than to bar people based on skin color and nationality. For example, make an entry pass. Even if the price is nominal, more than half the people who have no business to be at the place won't bother turning up. And give it publicity. It is simply wrong to humiliate any human being by turning him/her away at the gate while at the same time, right in front of his/her eyes, another human being in the same situation is allowed in.
You know what, i may even be willing to agree (conditionally) that a nationality specific rule is enforced given that the those who make the rules have the GUTS to announce it publicly that x nationality people are not welcome. Because after all, the person/authority having jurisdiction can do as they please. But sorry.... no right to humiliate a particular nationality or skin color.
------------------------------------------
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.