(June 27, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Shell B Wrote: That would very much depend on each case for me. I couldn't make a broad moral statement regarding refusal of service.

A member of a gang doesn't have to be in a group of gang members to be dangerous. I think it would be fine to reject them if they were with family, though I wouldn't recommend it.

I think the law is flawed because of the two-party system. On certain topics, it gets very twisted as it's dribbled back and forth between two opposing factions. This is one of those topics. All in all, I think people being unable to refuse people based on color, gender and sexual orientation is about as good as it's going to get, and that's good enough for me.

I think that these things are in place to protect those you don’t like, and may not see as needing it. Which is why I think that principles are better than a list.

By the way, sexual preference is not a protected class in the majority of the states. So if it is just a technicality, whether that discrimination is wrong, merely depends on where you are? I don’t think it becomes wrong just because you are on some list.

(June 27, 2018 at 2:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Shell B Wrote: That would very much depend on each case for me. I couldn't make a broad moral statement regarding refusal of service.

A member of a gang doesn't have to be in a group of gang members to be dangerous. I think it would be fine to reject them if they were with family, though I wouldn't recommend it.

I think the law is flawed because of the two-party system. On certain topics, it gets very twisted as it's dribbled back and forth between two opposing factions. This is one of those topics. All in all, I think people being unable to refuse people based on color, gender and sexual orientation is about as good as it's going to get, and that's good enough for me.

I think that these things are in place to protect those you don’t like, and may not see as needing it. Which is why I think that principles are better than a list.

By the way, sexual preference is not a protected class in the majority of the states.  So if it is just a technicality, whether that discrimination is wrong, merely depends on where you are?  I don’t think it becomes wrong just because you are on some list.

Sexual preference should be a protected class in all of the states. It's not something someone can control. I would say, go ahead and refuse anyone you want. It's not hard to find other services, but it's been shown that slippery slope leads to segregation. I'll pass.

(June 27, 2018 at 3:11 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 2:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that these things are in place to protect those you don’t like, and may not see as needing it. Which is why I think that principles are better than a list.

By the way, sexual preference is not a protected class in the majority of the states.  So if it is just a technicality, whether that discrimination is wrong, merely depends on where you are?  I don’t think it becomes wrong just because you are on some list.

Sexual preference should be a protected class in all of the states. It's not something someone can control. I would say, go ahead and refuse anyone you want. It's not hard to find other services, but it's been shown that slippery slope leads to segregation. I'll pass.

I think everyone should be on the list.... why be predjudice.

I agree. That's just not where it is. I have to be pragmatic.

(June 27, 2018 at 1:22 pm)Brian37 Wrote: For clarification, am I smelling the hint of "reverse racism"? I ask because I warn you, that won't wash as an argument with me.

The GOP and business owners in general defend the old line, "right to refuse service for any reason".

Am I willing per say, for example, if I owned a bar and a drunk black or Hispanic or Asian was disruptive? Yes. But that does not address what we are seeing now as far as political scapegoating. I think it is wrong to try to make that false equation.

The difference is I wouldn't be kicking them out based on race or religion or nationality or sexual orientation.


Yes, I will kick your ass out of that same bar, even if you are not drunk, if you come in with KKK symbols or Nazi symbols. Those vile icons only belong in history books and museums as a reminder of what not to do to your fellow human being.

So just for clarification then, you're saying you feel the same I do on the subject?

---

(June 27, 2018 at 3:18 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 3:11 pm)Shell B Wrote: Sexual preference should be a protected class in all of the states. It's not something someone can control. I would say, go ahead and refuse anyone you want. It's not hard to find other services, but it's been shown that slippery slope leads to segregation. I'll pass.

I think everyone should be on the list.... why be predjudice.

So let say I've got a restaurant. Let's also say I've got a wife. Let's say that one day while I was at work, a guy broke into my house and raped my wife and infected her with HIV. He was caught and arrested, and found guilty at trial. He appeals and his lawyer manages to find some small technicality that the prosecutor screwed up on so the verdict is over turned and he's a free man. 

Next day he walk into the restaurant and wants me to cook for him. Judge me all you want but no way am I serving that piece of shit anything.

Fair point, which is how you get around to the fact that life is more nuanced than black and white thinking can handle.

(June 27, 2018 at 4:32 pm)johan Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 3:18 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think everyone should be on the list.... why be predjudice.

So let say I've got a restaurant. Let's also say I've got a wife. Let's say that one day while I was at work, a guy broke into my house and raped my wife and infected her with HIV. He was caught and arrested, and found guilty at trial. He appeals and his lawyer manages to find some small technicality that the prosecutor screwed up on so the verdict is over turned and he's a free man. 

Next day he walk into the restaurant and wants me to cook for him. Judge me all you want but no way am I serving that piece of shit anything.

That is an interesting case.  And I would certainly have sympathy for the person in that instance (I don't know if  a restraining order would be possible).  Heck, if they skipped out on the bill last time, I would think that could be good reason to boot them out.   However, I don't think that principles should be founded on specialty cases.  And as we have seen,  it doesn't seem to be a matter of being on a list (as only those who have rights) either.  I don't think so any way.  I do think however; that screams of bigotry and rally cries of standing up to bigotry; seem a little more hollow now though, especially, even more so, when the word is so often used incorrectly.

I'm not founding any principles on specialty cases. I'm saying as business owner I should be able to say I don't like you for <reason*> and I'm not comfortable serving you so please leave. And you just agreed there can exist situations where you believe I should be able to do just that. So there you go, we agree. You might not like that we agree but we agree none the less.

*Obviously there are certain reasons which are unacceptable and I don't personally include in this such as I don't like you because of your race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, nation of origin etc. Also there are certain types of business' where I don't think should be allowed. Anything health care related for instance and any kind of government service for example. Also housing.

(June 27, 2018 at 5:49 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 4:32 pm)johan Wrote: So let say I've got a restaurant. Let's also say I've got a wife. Let's say that one day while I was at work, a guy broke into my house and raped my wife and infected her with HIV. He was caught and arrested, and found guilty at trial. He appeals and his lawyer manages to find some small technicality that the prosecutor screwed up on so the verdict is over turned and he's a free man. 

Next day he walk into the restaurant and wants me to cook for him. Judge me all you want but no way am I serving that piece of shit anything.

That is an interesting case.  And I would certainly have sympathy for the person in that instance (I don't know if  a restraining order would be possible).  Heck, if they skipped out on the bill last time, I would think that could be good reason to boot them out.   However, I don't think that principles should be founded on specialty cases.  And as we have seen,  it doesn't seem to be a matter of being on a list (as only those who have rights) either.  I don't think so any way.  I do think however; that screams of bigotry and rally cries of standing up to bigotry; seem a little more hollow now though, especially, even more so, when the word is so often used incorrectly.

That's reminiscient of the case in which a father caught a youth spying on his daughter as she was dressing. The father pursued the youth, caught him, and proceeded to assault him. The father was ultimately prosecuted, if I recall correctly, which just goes to show that two wrongs don't make a right.

(June 27, 2018 at 4:32 pm)johan Wrote: So let say I've got a restaurant. Let's also say I've got a wife. Let's say that one day while I was at work, a guy broke into my house and raped my wife and infected her with HIV. He was caught and arrested, and found guilty at trial. He appeals and his lawyer manages to find some small technicality that the prosecutor screwed up on so the verdict is over turned and he's a free man. 

Next day he walk into the restaurant and wants me to cook for him. Judge me all you want but no way am I serving that piece of shit anything.

Why didn't the prosecutor retry the case, or have you already knee capped him?