Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 August 7
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 6 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 8 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 7[edit]
ResolvedWho gets them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's registered as a not-for-profit organisation in Switzerland[1]. The party line is that what doesn't cover tournament and administration costs is redistributed to the various member associations[2]. Hack (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Bartenders not drinking alcohol[edit]
In the Lucky Luke album Le Pied-tendre, the main villain, Jack Ready, fakes his own death in order to frame Waldo Badminton and Lucky Luke as having killed him. When Waldo and Luke enter a bar and Waldo asks for a bottle of whisky, the bartender says "No one drinks from that bottle! It is Jack Ready's bottle!" Later, Lucky Luke finds out that the bottle is still becoming emptier. When confronted, the bartender claims he drinks from it himself. Luke replies "Like most bartenders, you never drink alcohol. That bottle of milk over there proves it." I have never heard of such a custom among bartenders. Does it happen in real life? On the contrary, I should think many bartenders drink alcohol themselves while off duty. Heck, I have even seen a bartender drink alcohol on duty in Munich. And how does a bottle of milk prove not drinking alcohol? What's stopping someone from drinking both milk and alcohol? JIP | Talk 18:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- It may be a regional thing, or rather a regional influence on preference. A tee-totaler bartender can strike me as competent as a vegan barbeque pit master (how do you know if it's good?), but I could understand a bartender not drinking much because it either cuts into their or their employer's profits, because they end up expecting better than they serve, or because they're constantly faced with some sorts of people they don't want to be like. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- See this US website, Bob Johnson's School of Bar Management, which has a page entitled "Drinking on the job — Don’t do it!". It used to be common in the UK for bar staff to be allowed to drink but it's generally forbidden now, especially by large chains like J D Wetherspoon. Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alan, it's not just forbidden. It's illegal. It's illegal to eat or drink in an area used for food preparation, which includes the bar where drinks are served. I was a bartender for 9 years on and off. We had to hide our drinks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 16:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose it's at least vaguely possible that regulations regarding this vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- In Ontario, you need "Smart Serve" certification to bartend or waitress. If either drinks on the job (even a sip), they can lose their card. Only if they get caught, of course. I knew a girl who was. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose it's at least vaguely possible that regulations regarding this vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alan, it's not just forbidden. It's illegal. It's illegal to eat or drink in an area used for food preparation, which includes the bar where drinks are served. I was a bartender for 9 years on and off. We had to hide our drinks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (Chin Wag) 16:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can understand that, but I understood from the Lucky Luke album that the bartender never drinks alcohol, not even off duty. So I was wondering if such a thing really is common. JIP | Talk 08:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've known a couple of alcoholic bartenders who never touch the stuff. The one I talked to about said something like it felt good to reassure himself each day he can go without drinking. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps truer to say "alcoholic bartenders who never touch the stuff anymore". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Never trust a thin chef" DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- One problem with a bartender drinking on the job is that there is a strong temptation to give yourself a drink or two "on the house" (ie to not pay for it). That adds up, and eats into the bar's profit margin... which can be considered a form of theft (see just about any episode of Bar Rescue) Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from hurting the bottom line and inhibiting drink mixing skills, that could also violate Section 20 of Ontario's Liquor Licence Act ("...the licence holder shall not offer for sale a serving of liquor for less than a total purchase price of two dollars..."). Whether letting staff pour themselves a free drink constitutes "offering a sale" is probably arguable. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- One problem with a bartender drinking on the job is that there is a strong temptation to give yourself a drink or two "on the house" (ie to not pay for it). That adds up, and eats into the bar's profit margin... which can be considered a form of theft (see just about any episode of Bar Rescue) Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've known a couple of alcoholic bartenders who never touch the stuff. The one I talked to about said something like it felt good to reassure himself each day he can go without drinking. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- See this US website, Bob Johnson's School of Bar Management, which has a page entitled "Drinking on the job — Don’t do it!". It used to be common in the UK for bar staff to be allowed to drink but it's generally forbidden now, especially by large chains like J D Wetherspoon. Alansplodge (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I’m surprised no one raised the (previously?) common practice of buying a drink, “and have one yourself, barkeep.” DOR (HK) (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if anyone mentioned the impact on sales if the bartender gets so drunk that he vomits. It is not inconceivable that this too could cut into profits. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- If he smokes, he'll likely smoke more when he drinks. Some people only smoke when they drink. Can't smoke in most bars now either, so he'll be taking more breaks. Piss breaks, too. Not good for business. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's right. And if the toilet gets stuffed up from too much urination, it could cost more if a plumber has to be called. These things all have to be taken into consideration. And think of increased insurance costs for smokers. The list goes on and on and on. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if the staff do smoke and drink they're likely to draw their pensions for a shorter period, and that's good for everyone! DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Bartenders have to do a lot of smiling and nodding to a lot of boring or obnoxious stories. After a few drinks, their real feelings might come out. You don't want to start a fight behind a bar, with all those fragile, expensive bottles. Even if doesn't go that far, insulted customers (generally) aren't in the giving mood. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's right. And if the toilet gets stuffed up from too much urination, it could cost more if a plumber has to be called. These things all have to be taken into consideration. And think of increased insurance costs for smokers. The list goes on and on and on. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- If he smokes, he'll likely smoke more when he drinks. Some people only smoke when they drink. Can't smoke in most bars now either, so he'll be taking more breaks. Piss breaks, too. Not good for business. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Colorado/Virginia same-sex marriage[edit]
Hi, are there any reliable sources that say that Colorado and Virginia legalized same-sex marriage..? Prcc★27 (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- See Same-sex marriage in Colorado and Same-sex marriage in Virginia. In both cases, the law of the State (explicitly) bans same-sex marriage, and both laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the appropriate federal court. So, the _States_ haven't legalized same-sex marriage, the _USA_ has obliged them to make it legal. Tevildo (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Striking down a constitutional ban does not imply legality of same-sex marriages, does it? It would still take a law from the state legislature to legalize it, just as in those states that never had a SSM ban in their constitutions. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- That depends on what a given judge has ruled. In some cases, they have struck down such a law but put the issuing of marriage licenses on hold. In other cases, they have ordered the issuance of marriage licenses. Either way, it's on the strength of the US Supreme Court's rejection of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the snowball seems to be getting bigger and faster. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Striking down a constitutional ban does not imply legality of same-sex marriages, does it? It would still take a law from the state legislature to legalize it, just as in those states that never had a SSM ban in their constitutions. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. If you read the links above, the true 'legality' of same-sex marriage in CO seems still unspecified. From a de facto perspective, licenses were indeed provided for a bit, but only in a few counties, and it seems as though they've now stopped until the lawyers and legislators figure out what to do. (post EC, I think what Bugs says might be possible, but not what has happened in CO, according to the link above.)SemanticMantis (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- To pile on what the above have said, there's a difference between "legal" "Illegal" and "legally ambiguous". In cases like this, where a court has declared a law like this unconstitutional, it generally doesn't cause "illegal" to become "legal" or visa-versa. Instead it causes the entire situation to become "legally ambiguous". Part of the issue with the constitutionality of these laws is that the U.S. Constitution requires that every state grants full faith and credit to contracts enacted in other states. While these courts haven't, in every case, decided that a state MUST grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, what they have often struck down is laws in which the state refuses to recognize the validity of marriage licenses issued from other states. This violates the equal protection clause as well, which is why courts are shooting them down left and right. It doesn't make same-sex marriages legal in such states in the sense that it forces states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but these court rulings do require that states recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states as valid, and thus afford the same benefits and rights to same-sex married couples as to opposite-sex married couples. Now, in some of these cases, courts have taken an even more strict ruling, stating that states cannot even refuse to grant marriage licenses, under the notion that marriage is a basic human right and that states cannot refuse to deny same-sex couples for that reason. Thus, it is currently a bit of an ambiguous situation; some rulings seem to imply that a rewrite of the laws in question could still allow states to discriminate against same-sex couples in some way; other rulings seem to say that is entirely verboten. Given the large number of these rulings, some of which are not always consistent with the others, this is sure to go to the Supreme Court in the not too distant future to iron it all out. --Jayron32 17:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which is one reason the Republicans are so desperate to get back the Republican monolith they enjoyed during the GW Bush administration - so that they can have a puppet Supreme Court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough, however, many of the judges which have been striking down these marriage ban laws have been Republican nominees. So, even in that case, it may not be likely... --Jayron32 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Kudos to them for following precedent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough, however, many of the judges which have been striking down these marriage ban laws have been Republican nominees. So, even in that case, it may not be likely... --Jayron32 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which is one reason the Republicans are so desperate to get back the Republican monolith they enjoyed during the GW Bush administration - so that they can have a puppet Supreme Court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- To pile on what the above have said, there's a difference between "legal" "Illegal" and "legally ambiguous". In cases like this, where a court has declared a law like this unconstitutional, it generally doesn't cause "illegal" to become "legal" or visa-versa. Instead it causes the entire situation to become "legally ambiguous". Part of the issue with the constitutionality of these laws is that the U.S. Constitution requires that every state grants full faith and credit to contracts enacted in other states. While these courts haven't, in every case, decided that a state MUST grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, what they have often struck down is laws in which the state refuses to recognize the validity of marriage licenses issued from other states. This violates the equal protection clause as well, which is why courts are shooting them down left and right. It doesn't make same-sex marriages legal in such states in the sense that it forces states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but these court rulings do require that states recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states as valid, and thus afford the same benefits and rights to same-sex married couples as to opposite-sex married couples. Now, in some of these cases, courts have taken an even more strict ruling, stating that states cannot even refuse to grant marriage licenses, under the notion that marriage is a basic human right and that states cannot refuse to deny same-sex couples for that reason. Thus, it is currently a bit of an ambiguous situation; some rulings seem to imply that a rewrite of the laws in question could still allow states to discriminate against same-sex couples in some way; other rulings seem to say that is entirely verboten. Given the large number of these rulings, some of which are not always consistent with the others, this is sure to go to the Supreme Court in the not too distant future to iron it all out. --Jayron32 17:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. If you read the links above, the true 'legality' of same-sex marriage in CO seems still unspecified. From a de facto perspective, licenses were indeed provided for a bit, but only in a few counties, and it seems as though they've now stopped until the lawyers and legislators figure out what to do. (post EC, I think what Bugs says might be possible, but not what has happened in CO, according to the link above.)SemanticMantis (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Related question[edit]
I know that the legal age for marriage is different from state to state... this could set up the situation where a couple gets married legally in one state, but where the husband and/or wife is under marrying age in another state. How do the States deal with that? For to take an extreme example... I note from our Age of marriage in United States of America that in Massachusetts, a boy can marry at 14 and a girl at 12 (as long as they have both parental and judicial consent). So what if a 14 year old boy marries a 12 year old girl in Massachusetts, and then moves to another state? Do (on average) the other states recognize the marriage? What about statutory rape laws? Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is a draft of a paper which discusses the issue of portability of marriages from one state to another. Relevant to the discussion at hand "Applied to specific marriages, the general rule and its exceptions meant that states often accorded recognition to marriages that they would not themselves permit, including, sometimes, to marriages that were evasive or even obviously abhorrent to the state’s own policies. Non-evasive interracial marriages, for example, were routinely recognized in states that banned miscegenation; underage marriages were recognized for a variety of ad hoc reasons whether they were evasive or not; and disfavored marriages of all kinds were often recognized for limited purposes, particularly if cohabitation within the prohibiting state was not contemplated or possible. " Furthermore, this page state "Although the legal requirements vary state to state, all legal marriages between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by all other states." This page states " if the marriage is valid in the state where performed, a couple who later move to another state still have a valid marriage." it notes a few exceptions, none of which expressly deal with underage marriages. Hope these help answer your questions. --Jayron32 03:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The defense of marriage act was intended to be one of the exceptions to that basic principle. When the high court threw it out, it effectively extended same-sex marriage to all the states, some way or another. Ironically, kind of the same thing as the Dred Scott decision, except that extended slavery to all the states, while nullifying the DOMA extended civil rights to all the states. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Dred Scott decision didn't go as far as to extend slavery to all the states (though many people, including Abraham Lincoln, thought that it was written so as to carefully prepare the way for another Supreme Court decision which would do so). AnonMoos (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)