[Jaggu]

I guess all the BPO gals n boys having a ball at sylvie place, sad state of affairs i say.

[greenhorn]

the converse of the 'athidhi devo bhava' effect ?

[dhiman]

Ahem, just not Goa, I faced similar situation in Udaipur Rajasthan too.

[anurag_p80]

I know that this is not going to be a very popular point of view, but here goes- as an owner of any property, I am free to decide who to let in and who not. I do not let any salesmen enter my house, for example. It is not a "right" for anyone to enter any private property, including the salon quoted above. While most of us will not consider just nationality, or criteria like sex, looks, etc., it is neither against the law, nor against any ethical code. If any private institution wants to deny me entry, they are entitled to do just that-explicitly like the salon above, or more subtly through price discrimination etc. The tirumala temple (AFAIK) doesn't permit entry to women and yet has a great following. Discs allow only couples on some nights, and not too many protest-these are all some form of discrimination. Not wrong, just take your business elsewhere. Am sure not too many people will complain if the discrimination is in their favor.

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by anurag_p80

The tirumala temple (AFAIK) doesn't permit entry to women and yet has a great following.

Since when? Is this a new rule?

[SumitB]

Originally Posted by anurag_p80

Discs allow only couples on some nights, and not too many protest-these are all some form of discrimination.

Discos allowing only couples on some nights is a good thing as a lot of people have had bad experiences with young men getting down to rowdy behaviour and misbehaving with ladies and girls and even assaulting them at times.

[Mission_Safari]

Originally Posted by anurag_p80

The tirumala temple (AFAIK) doesn't permit entry to women and yet has a great following.

This is not true.

Originally Posted by anurag_p80

Am sure not too many people will complain if the discrimination is in their favor.

This is so true.

[condor]

anurag_p80 : I do not let any salesmen enter my house, for example. It is not a "right" for anyone to enter any private property, including the salon quoted above.

That salon is in a commercial premises that is open to the public. So unless a person is causing a problem there, or is not in prescribed attire (if such a rule exists), they *cannot* discriminate.

Your house is a private, residential property.

[Raja]

I felt I had a similar treatment last month in Goa.
No specific incident, but I could tell that I was definitely a second class citizen and foreigners were first class!
I won't be visiting that group of hotels again!

[eclectix 1st]

Originally Posted by anurag_p80

I know that this is not going to be a very popular point of view, but here goes- as an owner of any property, I am free to decide who to let in and who not. I do not let any salesmen enter my house, for example. It is not a "right" for anyone to enter any private property, including the salon quoted above. While most of us will not consider just nationality, or criteria like sex, looks, etc., it is neither against the law, nor against any ethical code. If any private institution wants to deny me entry, they are entitled to do just that-explicitly like the salon above, or more subtly through price discrimination etc. The tirumala temple (AFAIK) doesn't permit entry to women and yet has a great following. Discs allow only couples on some nights, and not too many protest-these are all some form of discrimination. Not wrong, just take your business elsewhere. Am sure not too many people will complain if the discrimination is in their favor.

I agree with you on that. As a person running that outfit, it is it's discretion, whose hair it cuts.

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

Since when? Is this a new rule?

I suppose he meant Sabarimalai

Originally Posted by condor

That salon is in a commercial premises that is open to the public. So unless a person is causing a problem there, or is not in prescribed attire (if such a rule exists), they *cannot* discriminate.

Your house is a private, residential property.

You said it. Its commercial not public. As owner of that commercial property, its it's choice to permit entry. As a mere public, you cant demand entry into that place, without the owner's consent. If you do, you can be booked for trespassing (If they desire so).

All these shops are leased to companies and individuals, who decide their clientèles.

cheers:

[anurag_p80]

Originally Posted by Mission_Safari

This is not true.




This is so true.

Sorry, my bad. Sabrimala, as corrected by ecclectix.

Am not too educated when it comes to temples, but they do make good examples of discrimination. That too when temples are not private, commercial enterprises, but in fact quasi public (trusts run them?). Been to a couple of temples where if don't have a gift for the gods ($$ or Re) you will be consigned to the back of the room and will have to jump to catch a glimpse of the deity (Nathdwara and Puri come to mind). Also, the pandas at these places will keep pushing people forward, so nobody gets a decent "darshan". Interestingly, never faced it in the numerous Goan churches, or any Buddhist temples. Maybe the sheer numbers of followers and the finite amount of time make this a necessity.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by anurag_p80

I know that this is not going to be a very popular point of view, but here goes- as an owner of any property, I am free to decide who to let in and who not. I do not let any salesmen enter my house, for example. It is not a "right" for anyone to enter any private property, including the salon quoted above. While most of us will not consider just nationality, or criteria like sex, looks, etc., it is neither against the law, nor against any ethical code. If any private institution wants to deny me entry, they are entitled to do just that-explicitly like the salon above, or more subtly through price discrimination etc. The tirumala temple (AFAIK) doesn't permit entry to women and yet has a great following. Discs allow only couples on some nights, and not too many protest-these are all some form of discrimination. Not wrong, just take your business elsewhere. Am sure not too many people will complain if the discrimination is in their favor.

1. I don't know what the temple does or not, but hitler also had a great following, that did not make what he did is right
2. The Salon does not have a board outside "Only foreign citizens allowed". They claim to be a business open to public. This is pure discrimination
3. Disc's etc., have a set of rules that is pre known. For example you cannot say men not being allowed to enter ladies toilet discrimination. But if a dark skinned lady is not allowed in and a light skinned lady is, that is discrimination.
4. Last but not the least, please brush up on your law. According to the law it is a penal offence to bias on the basis of religion/race/caste etc., Go check with a lawyer.
5. What the salon manager did(it was a she) is not against the law, but its in bad taste. Racism or casteism never has to be direct. For example Fair and Lovely advertisements are racist, and yet a silly Axe advert is banned. This is because racism(indirectly) is a very accepted and socially encouraged part of the indian culture and the govt policy.

Originally Posted by anurag_p80

Sorry, my bad. Sabrimala, as corrected by ecclectix.

Am not too educated when it comes to temples, but they do make good examples of discrimination. That too when temples are not private, commercial enterprises, but in fact quasi public (trusts run them?). Been to a couple of temples where if don't have a gift for the gods ($$ or Re) you will be consigned to the back of the room and will have to jump to catch a glimpse of the deity (Nathdwara and Puri come to mind). Also, the pandas at these places will keep pushing people forward, so nobody gets a decent "darshan". Interestingly, never faced it in the numerous Goan churches, or any Buddhist temples. Maybe the sheer numbers of followers and the finite amount of time make this a necessity.

We are not talking about temples here. This has nothing to do with religion.Moreover the Salon had many indians and many foreigners sitting. So apparently they don't have a policy "Amercians only". They just give preference, and they are not upfront.
Again I request you to keep religion out of this discussion. Lets not compare hair cutting to the largest war mongring device on this planet.

[SUV]

Note from the Team-BHP Support Staff : Abusive language – whether used directly or indirectly - is not appropriate for use on Team-BHP. We request you to adhere to a decent communication protocol and avoid the use of abusive words/photographs in posts/avatars/signatures/topics. Our varied audience appreciates a "clean" community.

Thanks!

[anurag_p80]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

1. I don't know what the temple does or not, but hitler also had a great following, that did not make what he did is right
2. The Salon does not have a board outside "Only foreign citizens allowed". They claim to be a business open to public. This is pure discrimination
3. Disc's etc., have a set of rules that is pre known. For example you cannot say men not being allowed to enter ladies toilet discrimination. But if a dark skinned lady is not allowed in and a light skinned lady is, that is discrimination.
4. Last but not the least, please brush up on your law. According to the law it is a penal offence to bias on the basis of religion/race/caste etc., Go check with a lawyer.

We are not talking about temples here. This has nothing to do with religion.Moreover the Salon had many indians and many foreigners sitting. So apparently they don't have a policy "Amercians only". They just give preference, and they are not upfront.
Again I request you to keep religion out of this discussion. Lets not compare hair cutting to the largest war mongring device on this planet.

A very nicely reasoned post, tsk. If it seemed like I was trying to bring religion into the picture, it was not my intention. I just used the example to highlight discrimination, which is the real issue here. My opinion is that discrimination is a fact of life, and there is no escaping it. What we can address is the bases of discrimination. I would even stick my neck out and say that discrimination can be positive if used correctly.

As far as the "board outside" point goes, guess there is always some language at all such places. It goes like *Entry is solely at the discretion of the management* or something. What I am driving at is that as a business owner, I am free to choose who I serve and who I don't. What basis I choose to discriminate can be right or wrong, but I am wholly within my rights to do so.

PS: I see a lot of people have faced problems in Goa. I lived there for two years, and neither me nor any of my friends faced any problems anywhere- be it beaches, parties et al. Perplexing to say the least.

PPS: Cannot resist this- I would love to argue Hitler and his policies. Not to say that he was a nice guy, but that he basically did what every other colonial power has done-yet he is singled out for praise by all discriminating human beings. Maybe on another thread.

[aah78]

Originally Posted by V-16

In the next few hours she just called to find out if there was any cancellation and was shocked to be asked as to how we would be paying, in $s or "Local currency" when my wife i jest said $s they would be able to give an appointment immediately, if in local currency, you would have to wait till the next day.

Similar thing happened to a friend of mine while booking a room in a prominent hotel chain in Mumbai - a few months ago.
They weren't ready to accept a reservation in INR but more than willing if you wanted to pay in USD.
I haven't put up the name of the hotel because I can't remember what chain it was - I'll put it up once I hear from him.

Edit: Happened at the Leela & also at the Hyatt.