Page 2 of 2

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:02 pm
by Sariputra
akaxo wrote:
Sariputra wrote:Why?
xSUSPECTx wrote:its kittenslayer
Image

While thoughts of violence are not helpful. This sentiment against this kittenslayer character totally makes sense.

What is the meaning of being a kittenslayer? It's a poster who:

- Gets angry when their views are attacked
- Purposely look for negative things to complain about to fit their own negative world views
- Jealous of others who seems to be happy or superior, hence attacking their views
- Extremist in ideals that does not allow other point of view
- Constantly seeks to seem superior to others to save one's own ego
- Vents their own fraustration by attacking others
- Greed for attention and fame

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:04 pm
by FC
I thought it was a dude who got kicked out of his flat for being a greasy cunt.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:21 pm
by xSUSPECTx
its kind of cute that he thinks he can pretend its not him and we wont catch on.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:24 pm
by akaxo
dunno the story about him getting kicked out of a flat but he always came across as the kind of greasy wee chronic masturbator who you'd catch with one hand holding a glass against a wall with the other one on his tiny little cock so not surprised

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:32 pm
by FC
He got kicked out of his flat for being a sleazy cunt to another flatmates gf, or so the story goes.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:17 pm
by xSUSPECTx
the ironing is delicious

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:48 pm
by Livestock
FC wrote:
Livestock wrote:
buckton wrote:no one can really deny you service unless of course you're covered in faecies or something though.

Yeah, they can. If you wanna buy something from any store, the owner can just say no, for no reason at all.


Pretty sure that's not true, otherwise you wouldnt get big news stories about people kicking up a stink because they wouldnt let a guy wear a hat inside.

Yeah I'm pretty sure it is.. When you walk to the counter, you are legally making an offer, the store owner can agree, thus entering a contract, or disagree.

People would have a whinge, but legally the owner can. This is in my head from 6th form legal studies mind you.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:30 pm
by Ouch
Im not sure if this is related, but i seen a sign at the airport in ak that rekkin cabbies cant deny a fare. For a public store it would seem a bit ludicrous that the sale is at the discretion of the owner, consumer rights and all. Then you'd just get uppity cunts playing racial/sexist/age-ist cards all over the shit. Uninformed guess, just exercising what little logic i barely posses.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:23 am
by xsfat
Generally, livestock is correct. Stock on shelves are generally regarded as an 'invitation to treat' only, not an offer to sell capable of acceptance.
It is generally the buyer that offers to buy and the shopkeeper that accepts the offer.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:06 pm
by Livestock
SHAME AIDAN I WAS RIGHT AND YOU'VE GOT A PHD, I GUESS THAT MAKES ME SMARTER THAN YOU EH. IF YOU WANT ANY ADVICE ON CHEMISTRY, LET ME KNOW BUB.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:29 pm
by xSUSPECTx
hahaha

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:53 pm
by shenglu
My friend's wife's teammate at work there, she was told the owners, to prevent her friends go there, because tattoos are not the kind of customer they want.

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:57 pm
by FC
Ouch wrote:Im not sure if this is related, but i seen a sign at the airport in ak that rekkin cabbies cant deny a fare. For a public store it would seem a bit ludicrous that the sale is at the discretion of the owner, consumer rights and all. Then you'd just get uppity cunts playing racial/sexist/age-ist cards all over the shit. Uninformed guess, just exercising what little logic i barely posses.


I guess Jeff was right, but this is probably about the airport saying that any cabbies that want to pick up rides at the airport do so under the rule that they can't refuse a fare. It's less about protecting people from discrimination, and more about cabbies saying "sorry I don't want to drive you five minutes up the road, I want to wait for a really expensive fare, so please fuck off".

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:05 pm
by FC
Trying to look up information about this, I keep coming across websites saying "you can't be refused service because of a moko" "you can't be refused service because of your race" "you can't be refused service because you have hepatitis" and relating it back to the human rights act of 1993. Is that true? Can you refuse entry based on anything, or not? You could say that your tattoos have cultural significance to you, cultural significance is potentially quite a wide ranging thing. What about that dude that was refused entry to a bar based on his moko, I didn't really see anyone saying that the bar owner had broken the law. What's the dealio?

Actually found this

Code: Select all

Prohibited grounds of discrimination
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—
(a) sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:
(b) marital status, which means being—
(i) single; or
(ii) married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship; or
(iii) the surviving spouse of a marriage or the surviving partner of a civil union or de facto relationship; or
(iv) separated from a spouse or civil union partner; or
(v) a party to a marriage or civil union that is now dissolved, or to a de facto relationship that is now ended:
(c) religious belief:
(d) ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions:
(e) colour:
(f) race:
(g) ethnic or national origins, which includes nationality or citizenship:
(h) disability, which means—
(i) physical disability or impairment:
(ii) physical illness:
(iii) psychiatric illness:
(iv) intellectual or psychological disability or impairment:
(v) any other loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function:
(vi) reliance on a guide dog, wheelchair, or other remedial means:
(vii) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing illness:
(i) age, which means,—
(i) for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs in the period beginning with 1 February 1994 and ending with the close of 31 January 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years and ending with the date on which persons of the age of the person whose age is in issue qualify for national superannuation under section 7 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (irrespective of whether or not the particular person qualifies for national superannuation at that age or any other age):
(ii) for the purposes of sections 22 to 41 and section 70 and in relation to any different treatment based on age that occurs on or after 1 February 1999, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:
(iii) for the purposes of any other provision of Part 2, any age commencing with the age of 16 years:
(j) political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion:
(k) employment status, which means—
(i) being unemployed; or
(ii) being a recipient of a benefit under the Social Security Act 1964 or an entitlement under the Accident Compensation Act 2001:
(l) family status, which means—
(i) having the responsibility for part-time care or full-time care of children or other dependants; or
(ii) having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants; or
(iii) being married to, or being in a civil union or de facto relationship with, a particular person; or
(iv) being a relative of a particular person:
(m) sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.
(2) Each of the grounds specified in subsection (1) is a prohibited ground of discrimination, for the purposes of this Act, if—
(a) it pertains to a person or to a relative or associate of a person; and
(b) it either—
(i) currently exists or has in the past existed; or
(ii) is suspected or assumed or believed to exist or to have existed by the person alleged to have discriminated.
Section 21(1)(b): substituted, on 26 April 2005, by section 7 of the Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005 (2005 No 3).
Section 21(1)(i)(i): amended, on 21 April 2005, by section 9(1) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 42).
Section 21(1)(i)(i): amended, on 12 October 2001, by section 77 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act 2001 (2001 No 84).
Section 21(1)(k)(ii): substituted, on 1 July 1999, by section 415(1) of the Accident Insurance Act 1998 (1998 No 114).
Section 21(1)(k)(ii): amended, on 3 March 2010, pursuant to section 5(1)(b) of the Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010 (2010 No 1).
Section 21(1)(l)(iii): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 7 of the Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005 (2005 No 3).


Makes it seem like you can discriminate against someone with a facial tattoo, regardless of why they have it, but not against someone who is sick with something, as it comes under the same section as a physical disability. You can however discriminate on pretty much anything that isn't a belief system (I'm sure you could argue this) or something you have no control over (gender, sexual preferences, relationship status - which isn't necessarily something you have no control over i guess, ethnicity, physical disability).

Re: On Tour-The best Vegan eatieries across NZ???

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:05 am
by xsfat
Taxi have an exception. There are set rules in order for them to get their taxi license.
Taxi or shuttle drivers can refuse passengers if, on reasonable grounds, they consider:

their personal safety would be threatened or endangered
the intending passenger is under the influence of drink or drugs
the intending passenger is in a filthy condition
the intending passenger is consuming food or drink
the intending passenger is noisy, violent or is disturbing the public peace
the intending passenger is accompanied by an animal, unless that person's sight is impaired and the animal is a guide dog
the intending passenger owes the driver for a previous fare and refuses to pay what is owed
the intending passenger doesn't have enough money for the journey (the driver can ask for payment in advance)
there are more passengers wishing to travel than the number stated on the vehicle's loading certificate.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/21/21.html
Also exceptions for lawyers (known as the cab rank rule).
Otherwise, business have a right not to serve people, provided there's no law that says otherwise (e.g Human Rights Act prohibit differential treatment by reason of certain discriminatory grounds).