The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

A bar owner has the right to refuse service to a customer if he thinks they've have had too much to drink. That is a personal opinion, is it not?

The fact that you think the two are equatable is hysterical.

"So you can get in trouble for openly refusing service to white people because they're white, but you can kick people out of your store for being naked and rubbing their cocks on your windows? Those r both opinions and why can't I just tell all the ***gots to leave when they make me uncomfortable."

Let's just keep chipping away at personal liberties until they're all gone.

They stripped us of the right to own slaves and have been spitting directly in the faces of every American ever since.

[OccultHawk]

Why should owners be allowed to own?

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Frownland

"So you can get in trouble for openly refusing service to white people because they're white, but you can kick people out of your store for being naked and rubbing their cocks on your windows? Those r both opinions and why can't I just tell all the ***gots to leave when they make me uncomfortable."

You SHOULDN'T get in trouble for refusing service to whiteys [NOTE: we need to bring that word back, I love it] based on their skin color. As an owner, that should be your prerogative. Same with the "cock rubbers" that you mentioned.

If it's my store, I'll do with it what I damn well please. If I have shitty business practices, I won't get sales and will be forced to close shop. It's not rocket science.

Originally Posted by Frownland

They stripped us of the right to own slaves and have been spitting directly in the faces of every American ever since.

Owning a fellow human being and refusing to bake a cake are not in the same ballpark homie. Not even the same fucking game.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Why should owners be allowed to own?

That, my friend, is a different conversation, but an important one. The "right" or power to "own" something and what that actually means. That would be a good thread to start.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

If it's my store, I'll do with it what I damn well please. If I have shitty business practices, I won't get sales and will be forced to close shop. It's not rocket science.

Your store is in a country with a law of the land (and of the pen) that certain business practices are not allowed. It's not rocket science. If you don't like it then you can git out!

Plus, discriminating against minorities is against the law because you can still get by on selling to the majority. The right to infringe on the rights of other is not a right that you or anyone else deserves.

Owning a fellow human being and refusing to bake a cake are not in the same ballpark homie. Not even the same fucking game.

It's my business and I do what I like. If that involves slaves and you don't like it then don't buy from me, bitch. Free market! Free market! Free market!

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Frownland

The right to infringe on the rights of other is not a right that you or anyone else deserves.

Denying service is not infringing on anyone's "rights." If I'm a store owner, you don't have a "right" to shop at my store, you have the PRIVILEGE. Know the difference.

Just like people saying that you have the RIGHT to free health care. No, you don't. You don't EVER have the RIGHT to someone else's labor, and you never will.

That should be easy enough for you to understand.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by [MERIT]

Denying service is not infringing on anyone's "rights." If I'm a store owner, you don't have a "right" to shop at my store, you have the PRIVILEGE. Know the difference.

Know what rights are in the legal sense (you're currently using it colloquially)

Originally Posted by 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Abridging (limiting or denying) privileges is the same as denying rights. Capiche?

[rubber soul]

Merit, You realize that with your logic, somebody has the right to run you over with a lawn mower because they feel like it, right?

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Originally Posted by 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen and their privately owned business is DIFFERENT than a state, Mr. Wordsmith, and they have different rights.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by rubber soul

Merit, You realize that with your logic, somebody has the right to run you over with a lawn mower because they feel like it, right?

That is physical harm. That violates the non-aggression principle. So no, they DON'T have that right by my logic. Refusing to bake someone a cake is not physical harm.