It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: UKTruth
Personally, I think they are within their rights to ban him, just as I think it SHOULD be within another business owners right to refuse service to someone who breaks their rules of service - like a cake shop owner refusing a gay couple on religious grounds.
The ONLY difference right now is the law, but if the law changes, then I think that is a good thing.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: UKTruth
Personally, I think they are within their rights to ban him, just as I think it SHOULD be within another business owners right to refuse service to someone who breaks their rules of service - like a cake shop owner refusing a gay couple on religious grounds.
The ONLY difference right now is the law, but if the law changes, then I think that is a good thing.
Terms of service is one thing. restaurants can refuse service to any individual..acting up, wearing crap clothes, etc...
That isn't the same as them not approving of who you sleep with at home, or if your brain chemistry favors a gender opposite of your sex, etc.
This is a complex argument of sorts, but it boils down to just that..terms of service. if you break their rules, then sure, no service, but how can a business tell you how to live your life outside of their business?
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: UKTruth
That's a horrible analogy. Twitter isn't a public accommodation — it's more of a private club — but I digress, for the sake of argument, let's treat it as one.
In that case, Twitter would be acting like a restaurant booting an unruly patron. They didn't close Milo's account because he is a man, gay, white, Catholic, half-Jewish, in an interracial relationship, a Trump supporter or even an asshole — they didn't even close it for voicing his political opinions — they closed it because he was attacking other Twitter users with a gaggle of trolls.
That will get anyone banned from Twitter or ATS or any number of virtual or brick and mortar establishments.
Let me flip this back around on you since you're the one suggesting some sort of equivalence here and you seem upset about Milo having his Twitter account closed. If you're upset about Milo getting banned from Twitter for attacking other users, you must be absolutely beside yourself at the prospect of Milo being banned from Twitter, employment, schools, government contracts — even health care — because he's a man, white, gay or a self-identifying Christian? Right?
This is a no brainer.
It shouldn't even be a right/left political issue in this day and age. It's overtly wrong to deny people access to public accomodations. In the US we ended segregation 53 years ago. That's recent enough that it should be fresh on the public's mind but still distant enough that any rational person should readily and without hesitation, acknowledge the heinous wrong of segregation. And let's not kid ourselves, a segregation of sorts is the goal. You think the Christian Right would be supporting this garbage if Christians weren't the overwhelming majority group? Let's not bull# ourselves about what this really is.
My view is as I stated before - people should be free to choose their customers and live with the economic consequences. That includes racial, sexual, political, whatever discrimination. If society rejects such practices those businesses will die or never have any influence or growth.
originally posted by: Konduit
At least it's a step in the opposite direction of what Canada is doing by giving Islam a special privilege above every other religion and criminalizing any criticism of it. The PC movement is becoming pretty #in' draconian.
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: UKTruth
My view is as I stated before - people should be free to choose their customers and live with the economic consequences. That includes racial, sexual, political, whatever discrimination. If society rejects such practices those businesses will die or never have any influence or growth.
Should people be able to stand on a public sidewalk and call people POS retards for patronizing a discriminating business?
Freedom of speech and all that....
originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
a reply to: SaturnFX
Then you take your money and go to the next place. Problem?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
When is it fair to say give this one person the right to do what they want, even if the majority doesn't want them to do so?
As long as what that person wants isn't harming anyone else, then their right to do what they want trumps the majority's opinion every time.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
originally posted by: UKTruth
Personally, I think they are within their rights to ban him, just as I think it SHOULD be within another business owners right to refuse service to someone who breaks their rules of service - like a cake shop owner refusing a gay couple on religious grounds.
The ONLY difference right now is the law, but if the law changes, then I think that is a good thing.
Terms of service is one thing. restaurants can refuse service to any individual..acting up, wearing crap clothes, etc...
That isn't the same as them not approving of who you sleep with at home, or if your brain chemistry favors a gender opposite of your sex, etc.
This is a complex argument of sorts, but it boils down to just that..terms of service. if you break their rules, then sure, no service, but how can a business tell you how to live your life outside of their business?
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: UKTruth
My view is as I stated before - people should be free to choose their customers and live with the economic consequences. That includes racial, sexual, political, whatever discrimination. If society rejects such practices those businesses will die or never have any influence or growth.
Should people be able to stand on a public sidewalk and call people POS retards for patronizing a discriminating business?
Freedom of speech and all that....
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not harming anyone by walking into a pre-school, grabbing a chair and sitting down...am I? How about entering someone's house and taking a seat in the bathroom while the "woman of the house is showering"? Am I allowed to walk through the gate of a military establishment and wonder around?
There are things you are allowed to do and things you are not allowed to do. A room with a sign that says "Ladies Room" for example, means the room is for women to use only. Males are not permitted and the only determining factor for a woman or a man is their biological sex. That can't be changed by a disguise...no matter how complete.
“religious freedom”
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Change is only good if it's pissing on historical traditions and customs and labeling everyone an intolerant racist as they go.
That's why this 'draft to change sh!t' will not be accepted by radical lib extremists - Jesus looks good.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not harming anyone by walking into a pre-school, grabbing a chair and sitting down...am I? How about entering someone's house and taking a seat in the bathroom while the "woman of the house is showering"? Am I allowed to walk through the gate of a military establishment and wonder around?
Harm is more than just physical. Invading someone's privacy or trespassing is still harm.
There are things you are allowed to do and things you are not allowed to do. A room with a sign that says "Ladies Room" for example, means the room is for women to use only. Males are not permitted and the only determining factor for a woman or a man is their biological sex. That can't be changed by a disguise...no matter how complete.
So signs on bathroom walls dictate science then?
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Answering your two questions. So invading someone's privacy doesn't include a male using the women's room? That sure sounds unfair...doesn't it?
Yes...bathroom signs indicate your born sex. That is the whole point isn't it? It has nothing to do with how you dress or what cosmetic surgery you have...it is what you are.
You're not really that stupid are you?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Answering your two questions. So invading someone's privacy doesn't include a male using the women's room? That sure sounds unfair...doesn't it?
I don't know about the bathrooms you frequent, but the ones I go into have stalls in them that allow you to do whatever you want in complete privacy even IF others are standing in the bathroom.
Yes...bathroom signs indicate your born sex. That is the whole point isn't it? It has nothing to do with how you dress or what cosmetic surgery you have...it is what you are.
You're not really that stupid are you?
You misunderstood my question. But in any case, you are still wrong you aren't the ultimate authority on what gender is. Science is still up in arms about it. So pretending like signs on a wall are gospel is stupid.