Not just religious oppression but Maoist "reeducation"

[pErvinalia]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

[FBM]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently.

There are quite a number of laws prohibiting refusal of provision of goods or services on several grounds. That's why blacks are no longer required to vacate their seat on a bus when a whitey tells them to do so, for instance. Also, the gun-toting people were not ordered off the fast food joints. They were requested to leave, which to their credit they did without creating any further disturbance to the other customers.

There are lots of headlines saying "kicked out."

https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/05/29/g ... od-chains/

And the worker said, "I'm not gonna serve y'all."

http://eater.com/archives/2014/05/27/te ... -sonic.php

[JimC]

Refusing service can occur, but in many places is constrained by anti-discrimination laws. If you refuse to serve someone who is being obnoxious, or (somewhat weirdly) refuse service to people picked totally at random, you should be OK. But if it can be proved (to the standard of what a reasonable observer would conclude) that you have refused service based on race, gender or sexual orientation, you will have committed an offence in many jurisdictions.

[FBM]

Huh. I thought it only applied to gummit facilities and services. I guess I was wrong.

[Hermit]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently.

There are quite a number of laws prohibiting refusal of provision of goods or services on several grounds. That's why blacks are no longer required to vacate their seat on a bus when a whitey tells them to do so, for instance. Also, the gun-toting people were not ordered off the fast food joints. They were requested to leave, which to their credit they did without creating any further disturbance to the other customers.

There are lots of headlines saying "kicked out."

https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/05/29/g ... od-chains/

And the worker said, "I'm not gonna serve y'all."

http://eater.com/archives/2014/05/27/te ... -sonic.php

The gun nuts have been asked to leave, yes. They have not been refused service. I watched the first video clip, the link of which you provided. The food retailer's employee made it explicit that he would fill their order if they stayed outside the shop. The twats decided to cancel their order. There was no indication whatsoever that there was a refusal to provide goods or services to people because they were rabid, right wing enforcers of their interpretation of the second amendment. The objection to their presence on the premises was confined to them carrying assault rifles when they entered. I suppose the alarm and outrage this might raise could be difficult for some citizens of the USA to understand. In the more civilised first world democracies that reaction is more readily forthcoming. I am not all that surprised by either.

As for your thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason, I guess that in your opinion any bus operator could kick, say, African Americans off just because. Am I right?

[mistermack]

I wonder how this would apply to known paedophiles?
If they have done their time, and are legally clean, can people refuse them services?

It seems to be the same principle.

[FBM]

...I suppose the alarm and outrage this might raise could be difficult for some citizens of the USA to understand. In the more civilised first world democracies that reaction is more readily forthcoming. I am not all that surprised by either.

Well-placed alarm and outrage, IMO.

As for your thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason, I guess that in your opinion any bus operator could kick, say, African Americans off just because. Am I right?

I'm afraid I've long assumed that city buses were owned or at least contracted by local gummits. I realize now that this may not be the case, but I don't know for sure. In any event, I haven't stated that I agreed or disagreed with anything; I was just stating my (mis)understanding of the law.

[FBM]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

This has the potential to spiral downward into a philosophical discussion of free will, and I don't think either of us wants to see that.

[Hermit]

I basically took issue with this:

I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason.

If you addressed that thought any further it must have been too subtly for my puny mind to detect.

[FBM]

I basically took issue with this:

I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason.

If you addressed that thought any further it must have been too subtly for my puny mind to detect.

The key, if I understand you correctly (questionable), is in the phrase "I thought that," which means that that was my understanding, not that I was asserting that as a fact. I'm pretty sure that I have been corrected and accepted that correction.

[Hermit]

I basically took issue with this:

I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason.

If you addressed that thought any further it must have been too subtly for my puny mind to detect.

The key, if I understand you correctly (questionable), is in the phrase "I thought that," which means that that was my understanding, not that I was asserting that as a fact. I'm pretty sure that I have been corrected and accepted that correction.

A subsequent post of yours seems to imply that you think that a privately owned business can deny the provision of services or goods to whomever it chooses, for any reason or none at all.

[mistermack]

I think the key is, if you are supplying a service to the public, you can't discriminate on the grounds of sex or ethnicity or other similar stuff.

If I ask a black girl out, she's perfectly entitled to say that she doesn't fancy white men. (or old gits).

But what about a prostitute? Can she say, ''I don't do black guys'' or ''I don't do disabled people'' ?

That's a murky grey area. There must be loads more like that.

[piscator]

Again it's against the law for a public business in Colorado to discriminate based on sexual orientation, even if the business is owned by Christians.
What's more, the decision to discriminate is not as solidly based in Christian canon as a decision to "Love thy neighbor", "Render unto Caesar", 'go the extra mile', and generally not be a dick. Phillips just chose to be a petty tyrant when he could have just STFU and donated the proceeds of this sale.
He didn't have to do anything but look at these people and take their $$, or at least come up with a more creative reason why he couldn't.

[pErvinalia]

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

This has the potential to spiral downward into a philosophical discussion of free will, and I don't think either of us wants to see that.

True, but even that isn't a cogent defence. Coercing or punishing people even though they technically might have no free will serves a valid purpose in changing the environment for both them and future potential gun wankers. Lacking free will doesn't mean that all our futures are set.

[FBM]

I basically took issue with this:

I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason.

If you addressed that thought any further it must have been too subtly for my puny mind to detect.

The key, if I understand you correctly (questionable), is in the phrase "I thought that," which means that that was my understanding, not that I was asserting that as a fact. I'm pretty sure that I have been corrected and accepted that correction.

A subsequent post of yours seems to imply that you think that a privately owned business can deny the provision of services or goods to whomever it chooses, for any reason or none at all.

Yes, that was my previous (mis)understanding of the law.

Wait a minute. I thought that if you owned a business, you could refuse service to anybody with or without stating a reason. For example, those fast food restaurants that kicked out those gun-toting people recently. If it were a gov't service being denied, sure, they would be in the wrong. But a privately-owned business?

Refusing people because of their identity is bigotry. Black people can't help being black, same as gay people can't help being gay. Gun wankers can choose to not be gun wankers.

This has the potential to spiral downward into a philosophical discussion of free will, and I don't think either of us wants to see that.

True, but even that isn't a cogent defence. Coercing or punishing people even though they technically might have no free will serves a valid purpose in changing the environment for both them and future potential gun wankers. Lacking free will doesn't mean that all our futures are set.

The lack of free will would make moral outrage and self-righteous indignation inappropriate responses to such situations, however. Life would go a lot more smoothly, I think, if we just approached it with a problem-solution attitude, rather than a moral one.