(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.