Freedom means having the freedom to be stupid

I am a life long socialist and believer in freedom . For me freedom means being comfortable with other folks doing stuff I don't agree with or want to do or even things I think  stupid . So I think other folks religion , what they do with other consenting  folks in their bedrooms , even if they want to choose their own pronouns is cool with me as long as they don't make it compulsory for me or anyone else . So I defend those who want to wear outfits that go with their religion as long as everyone does not have to wear them , people who want to choose there own pronouns even those who want to be Jedi knights .
So what's your definition of freedom ?

David

My first thought was how far along we have come. Imagine having asked the definition 100 years ago. 200, 500, 5,000 years ago.

Or even twenty years :-(
Or today in certain places

David

I think the problem many people have with the freedom of others to be stupid is where their stupidity slops over onto our shoes.

Big ag is arguably already free to be stupid. I don't think I like it much.

-CK

Chris I would not say stupid this  I would call  selfishness that's a different kettle of fish and of course the  capitalist system :-) they are free to do this as we are free to vote against them when choosing polititians .
it's called democracy and sometimes it does not go our way , stupid wins :-)
David

For me where things get complicated in regards to the idea of freedom is when do you restrain individual freedom to stop an impact to the broader community. This gets more complicated when the action taken by one individual may have little to no impact but when a large number of individuals all chose to do the same action now collectively starts to have a large impact. For each individual the action may be the best for them and not letting them take that action could negatively impact them and reduce their freedom. But if enough people all make the same choice the result is an impact on the community which then has a negative impact on them and reduces their freedom.

An example could be tilling a farm field - this could result in erosion but for the one farmer it might result (at least in the short run) in higher crop yields. If the farm is not huge and only the one farmer does this the overall impact could be minimal to the surrounding/downstream community. But if the farm is huge or there are lots of farmers all doing the same and then you can get sediment washing into rivers and causing major issues downstream. So who's freedom is more important?

Do you take away the farmer's freedom to manage his/her farm in the way he/she sees as best? Or do you protect the freedom of those living downstream to not be flooded or have poor water quality? In this case one person's freedom to act directly impacts another person's (or group of people) freedom.

You might say that you need to protect the freedom of the larger group of people over the smaller number. But this has often resulted in minorities or other disadvantaged people having their freedom curtailed in favor of the majority. What about large population states versus small population states? The reason we have the senate and house is because the house favors larger states while the senate gives each state equal representation - which is more fair?

What about the natural world? Does it have any intrinsic freedoms that should be protected at the expense of human freedoms? Some countries / legal systems are starting to recognize rights of the natural world. In my area water rights are now applied to rivers as in the river as a water right to a minimum amount of water. This was done to protect water quality and salmon which also protects human rights including the treaty rights of native people's to fish in these rivers. But this has resulted in some people not being able to build a well on land they already purchased. Which freedom is more important? How do you decide?

Mainly bringing this up because of how complex it can get to not just define freedom but also to then protect those freedoms. I have my personal views on this but I'm trying to stay neutral and instead just point out how complex it can be.

I wouldn't blame capitalism as such again. We've had this discussion. The free market we have today relies largely on credit, not capital.

I would blame a limited economic focus. If you don't count environmental and social costs in your models, a free market system sucks for society and the environment.

As to the point behind the example, the freedom to be stupid results in people conducting themselves in unintelligent, unexamined, or downright dangerously stupid ways and causing damage to others, who have taken the time and care to conduct themselves in a manner that considers those around them.

Thinking in a thinking world is just common courtesy, or should be.

-CK

Freedom is doing what you want as long as what ever it is you're doing doesn't harm another person nor prevent them from exercising their vision of freedom.

David Livingston wrote:I am a life long socialist and believer in freedom . For me freedom means being comfortable with other folks doing stuff I don't agree with or want to do or even things I think  stupid . So I think other folks religion , what they do with other consenting  folks in their bedrooms , even if they want to choose their own pronouns is cool with me as long as they don't make it compulsory for me or anyone else . So I defend those who want to wear outfits that go with their religion as long as everyone does not have to wear them , people who want to choose there own pronouns even those who want to be Jedi knights .
So what's your definition of freedom ?

David

I agree with you in theory, but in the area of the pronoun thing specifically, it can't really be done in practice.  Suppose you decide that your pronoun is zub.  That's fine, you can be a zub, a train, a snail, or a chair for all I care.  But how does it work in practice?  Your use of a pronoun in practice means forcing me to use language that isn't valid.  There is no gender "Ze", and because words have meaning, and agreeing on those meanings allows communication, I am not going to use ze to refer to a person.  People that want to use an invented pronoun are making it compulsory for you, me, and everyone else, especially in places like universities.  Here is a quote from the NY Post:  "Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.  The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns."  So I rent you a house, and refuse to refer to you as ze, even if I'm not speaking to you, and I can be fined up to $250,000.  So is it my freedom that is being infringed upon, or hir freedom?

One of my favorite bumper stickers I've ever seen on a car says "Do as ye please, harm no one". That to me sounds like freedom.

James Freyr wrote:One of my favorite bumper stickers I've ever seen on a car says "Do as ye please, harm no one". That to me sounds like freedom.

I agree with you.  A problem comes in when people feel that they are being harmed simply because someone doesn't share their point of view.  If I feel that gay marriage is wrong (I don't) and I own a bakery and won't make a cake for the gay couple that wants one, then I can be forced to do so, or fined, or simply run out of business.  If I owned that business, I did no one any harm by choosing not to bake you a cake.  You can go anywhere you like for a cake, and I as a business owner should be allowed to serve, or not serve anyone I like.  The problem is that our society has become so afraid of being called out for being racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, that people of a conservative point of view can't even express their opinion.  Saying you thinks gay marriage is wrong is tantamount to killing puppies.  Young adults are being "micro-aggressed" against if you state a different point of view than theirs.  College age people need "safe spaces" for whatever their minority is.  I would like freedom from people that claim victim-hood every time someone disagrees with them.

The last eight words comprising the last line of the Wiccan Rede are:

"...'An it harm none, do what ye will."

If you really consider the consequences of individual actions, if we are consciously respectful of others' freedom, we will find ourselves less free than we'd imagine.

-CK

I tend to take a more anarchistic point of view. I really like the satanist, 'do what you will shall be the whole of the law'. The implications are disturbing, for sure, but I do think that in reality that is the world we already live in. We are free. Period. The thing is that some of the baddys are a lot better at convincing others that they aren't free to stop said baddies. The scariest thing about that satanist sentiment is that it means that if we really want to protect ourselves we have to band together. If we really want to keep glyphosate and dycamba and etc.. out of our waterways we have to work on banning them with our neighbors even if we disagree about religion, taxes, sports, or pronouns. The truth that I see is that we are all free, and we are all responsible for the state of our world. You don't have to follow laws, and you are free to choose whether to try to change them, circumvent them, or just ignore them. There's a lot more responsibility in freedom than we all like to admit most of the time. But freedom is there if you are willing to exercise it.

In France it is being suggested that conventional farmers should pay an extra tax because it costs the state money to clean up the water supply and this amounts as a hidden subsidy to big ag . That should be interesting in a discussion of freedom  locally  .
As for the fine for not putting the "correct" pronoun thats a sledge hammer to brake an egg and seems disproprtanate . I  dont know any transgender folks so my opinion on this is vaugue I accept but I suspect most just want a quiet life and dont want to offer any oppertunity for being descriminated against and would rather put Mr if they look like a man etc  rather than stand out . But I would be fine with folks putting zub or whatever ; The obvious solution is to let folks choose what they write on the application rather dictate what folks have to put which seems like the opposite of freedom dont you think?
As for gay cakes  you have the right to think what you want but if you offer a public service in a public place then you dont have the right to discriminate against other folks doing their lawful buisness . I dont agree that being free to discriminate is really part of freedom . Does your freedom come at the restiction of anothers freedom ? Then I would suggest some thinking required you are not letting others be "stupid ".  

David

Does your freedom come at the restiction of anothers freedom ? Then I would suggest some thinking required you are not letting others be "stupid ".  

....early morning coffee thoughts

Our freedoms always come at the 'restriction of anothers freedom'...we are one.

Letting others be 'stupid' is a judgement call isn't it?  I think we probably all have a different view of 'stupid'.

Just the word 'letting' has some implied control...'letting' someone be 'stupid'? as though we have some 'control' over them???

Hi Judith
I think we all make judgement calls all the time , should I have tea or coffee ?for instance .although being English it does have to be tea of course :-) I don't have an issue with that as all these calls are in your head I try not to act on mine :-) that's the trick . I accept other folks as different .

I don't understand your comment that all our freedoms come at the expense of others freedom . I don't accept that the right to discriminate is a right .my view is that it's a wrong :-)
Yes we all have a different view of stupid that's the joy of this idea as it fits everyone :-) it asks us to accept other folks even if we disagree with them .
As for letting it means not trying to stop folks as in the pronoun stuff for instance. Not that I have any super power to stop them


David

David Livingston wrote:I don't understand your comment that all our freedoms come at the expense of others freedom . I don't accept that the right to discriminate is a right .my view is that it's a wrong
Yes we all have a different view of stupid that's the joy of this idea as it fits everyone it asks us to accept other folks even if we disagree with them .


David

I have a very simplistic view...just the fact that we take up space on this planet I feel we are restricting anothers freedoms....unintentionally for the most part and not necessarily anyone in the immediate area...but I think just by our existence we affect the freedoms of others.  

...and of course our political views or apolitical views as that may be...our spiritual views, etc. have their own repercussions....then there is land ownership, vehicles......no matter how 'good' we try to be.

I think we can try to step lightly with respect and tolerance and still have an effect on anothers 'freedoms'.

Maybe I'm not understanding the word 'freedom' in the same way?

We're all squished up together on this planet and I think there is always a ripple effect in motion...we might not always know the results but I think it's happening.

...more coffee before my cup of tea

To be discriminating used to mean to have an ability to choose between high quality or desirability and low quality. I discriminate on a regular basis. I do so on the bases of quality and merit, especially where it comes to people.

I don't find it helpful to surround myself with people whose idea of freedom entitles them to push their ideas and beliefs upon me. Who among us willingly surrounds themselves with people they find infuriating, demotivating, or frustrating, except where those people are the recipients of our efforts?

This site is highly discriminating, in the best way possible. The publishing standards discriminate harshly against not-niceness, even to the extent of not tolerating hyperbole overmuch.

As to others' freedom impinging upon our own, that's how society works.

I am not free to shit on my neighbours' lawns. I can't even let my dog do so without picking up after her. I can't just tear up people's lawns and plant pollinator habitat and food, even though I think lawns are a waste of space. I am not free to requisition (take) anything I want from anyone I want because that would impinge upon their freedom to not have their stuff taken.

These are some crude, basic examples, but they illustrate the point. We limit our own freedoms just to get along with others. We follow rules as opposed to doing what we want so, for instance, driving without killing onesself or others is possible.

Personally, I am on a quest for freedom from stupidity. I don't see stupidity as a thing to be lauded.

-CK

David Livingston wrote:...
As for gay cakes  you have the right to think what you want but if you offer a public service in a public place then you dont have the right to discriminate against other folks doing their lawful buisness . I dont agree that being free to discriminate is really part of freedom . Does your freedom come at the restiction of anothers freedom ? Then I would suggest some thinking required you are not letting others be "stupid ".  
David

That is an interesting take on the situation, but if I own a business, it is not a public service in a public place.  It is a private service in a privately owned business on my personal property that I bought and paid for.  If a person comes to my business and acts like an asshole, should I be forced to accommodate them?  If I choose not to, is that an example of me discriminating against assholes, or am I free to serve the customers I want to serve?  If you force me, under threat of fine, to serve customers in my private business that I don't want to serve, whose freedom is being infringed upon?

There's also a non sequitur in the title, and the premise. It casts judgement right out of the gate.

I would contend that stupidity is personally and socially dangerous, which is why children are educated, and why we have basic education. If this were not so, all signs would have to be pictographic, as not everyone would be able to read.

The actions of the stupid can destroy the efforts of those who seek to educate themselves. What of the uneducated neighbour up the hill that builds a pond and earth dam so badly that it comes to visit me at the bottom, flooding my house and burying my crops? There needn't even be any rancour involved, and yet my hypothetical house and terraces are flood damaged and all silted up.

When, exactly, did it become endearing to be stupid? We see it in people in positions of political power all the time, when they joke about being weak in the maths or sciences. This isn't "Bones" McCoy putting on the "...'ol country doctor..." routine. This is individuals making decisions for many millions of people that don't understand the fucking water cycle.

I think I'll pass, thanks.

-CK

I avoid the topic because I absolutely detest jordan peterson but he's correct about pronouns being mandated. At the same time, I'm dumbstruck how he insists this is a 'leftist' form of control.

pusang halaw wrote:I avoid the topic because I absolutely detest jordan peterson but he's correct about pronouns being mandated. At the same time, I'm dumbstruck how he insists this is a 'leftist' form of control.

What is your disagreement with his statement that it is a leftist form of control?  I send a constant deluge of leftist media talking about equal rights for everyone, until a conservative like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson tries to give a talk at a college.  Then you see lines of people trying to stop those people from even coming on the campus, and if they can get onto the stage, you have people in the audience chanting, blowing air horns, cranking white noise generators, and basically anything else you can think of to keep a conservative from even being able to express their views.  The left seems to want everyone to have a voice, except people they disagree with.  Then it isn't enough to simply not go listen to the person speak, you have to make sure no one else can hear them speak either.  

Todd Parr wrote:What is your disagreement with his statement that it is a leftist form of control?

No leftist would impose such draconian laws on the populace. A Fascist on the other hand... Still, we're free to disagree on the matter. I'd much rather talk hugelpots and making the perfect coleslaw than discuss politics.

Let's take a look at the left versus right thing.

To be progressive literally means to be in favour of progress, to be a proponent of initiatives that enable individuals to realise a greater array of options, and to give more of what some have a lot of to those who have little. What does it say about conservatives that they are against it?

What is being conserved? Some on the right would suggest that conservative and preservative share a meaning, like society is decaying, and that to cling to decades-outdated norms is somehow a virtue.

Conservatism, in my opinion, is the political equivalent of conventional agriculture; it seeks to control, without care for social or environmental costs.

I see the progressive left as transferring freedom from the tiny priviledged group who held it under the previous paradigm to the rest of us.

I think the reason you see a lot of push-back and resistance to rightist or conservative sentiment at universities and colleges, to the point where many speakers aren't allowed by the audience to speak, is due to logical disagreement with stances on issues and agendas being pushed.

If someone is being invited to a school by a segment of that school's population, they will obviously have a body of material documenting their opinions and credentials. Those will likely inform potential audience members about said speaker. It is highly unlikely that anything truely new will be advanced in such a setting, especially with the current political climate. The protesting students are simply exercising their collective right to freedom of speech.

As to pronoun use, I am not fond of making up new words. That was my first reaction. But that is not the issue. The issue is the right of an individual to self-identify. We have the legal right to change our names. Why wouldn't we have the legal right to choose our pronouns? It's not about the person using the pronoun, it's about its subject.

When Dr. Pulaski mispronounced Data's name in the second season, he corrected her, and she responded with, "What's the difference?"

His answer applies. "One is my name. The other is not."

It's about respecting others, Todd, and thinking about them before our own concerns in situations that primarily concern them.

-CK

Chris Kott wrote:Let's take a look at the left versus right thing... I think the reason you see a lot of push-back and resistance to rightist or conservative sentiment at universities and colleges, to the point where many speakers aren't allowed by the audience to speak, is due to logical disagreement with stances on issues and agendas being pushed.

Both political sides are guilty of suppressing freedoms both claim to promote. Big-ag, big-pharma, the military industrial complex, wall street, media, IT, the list goes on... have their stooges on both sides of the aisle and they suppress all dissent. And I won't mention the biggest lobby of all in the US - I'm not opening that can of worms here.

Chris Kott wrote:
I think the reason you see a lot of push-back and resistance to rightist or conservative sentiment at universities and colleges, to the point where many speakers aren't allowed by the audience to speak, is due to logical disagreement with stances on issues and agendas being pushed.

If someone is being invited to a school by a segment of that school's population, they will obviously have a body of material documenting their opinions and credentials. Those will likely inform potential audience members about said speaker. It is highly unlikely that anything truely new will be advanced in such a setting, especially with the current political climate. The protesting students are simply exercising their collective right to freedom of speech.

As to pronoun use, I am not fond of making up new words. That was my first reaction. But that is not the issue. The issue is the right of an individual to self-identify. We have the legal right to change our names. Why wouldn't we have the legal right to choose our pronouns? It's not about the person using the pronoun, it's about its subject.

When Dr. Pulaski mispronounced Data's name in the second season, he corrected her, and she responded with, "What's the difference?"

His answer applies. "One is my name. The other is not."

It's about respecting others, Toadd, and thinking about them before our own concerns in situations that primarily concern them.

-CK

I'm always surprised when someone I know to be intelligent looks at the exact situation I am looking at, and sees something completely different.  

If a conservative gives a speech at a college, and college students blow air horns throughout the talk (which is held outside of normal class times and participation is purely voluntary), they are expressing their right to free speech, rather than destroying the conservative speakers' right to free speech.  On the other hand, if a group of conservatives were to blow air horns at a LGBT rally, they are homophobes that are trying to keep a group of people from having equal rights.  In my mind, if I go to a talk given by someone with views that are very different than mine for the sole purpose of blowing an air horn or chanting loudly enough to drown out the speaker, I am the one that is infringing on someone's right to free speech, not expressing my own.  The people blowing the air horns are the ones being disrespectful to other people's points of view.  Personally, I would never classify myself as a conservative and I have some very major disagreements with some of their points of view, but when I look at situations like that, I see hypocrisy, and it disturbs me.

As far as the pronoun thing, I agree you that people have the right to self-identify.  If I have a male friend that wishes to present himself as female and wants to be called he or him, or she or her, it's fine with me.  If I am supposed to refer to my friend as qwehowefj or okpeen, well, my contention is that that is not a valid pronoun and you can pass any law you like, and I'm not playing along.

I wrote:
When Dr. Pulaski mispronounced Data's name in the second season, he corrected her, and she responded with, "What's the difference?"

His answer applies. "One is my name. The other is not."

It's about respecting others, Toadd, and thinking about them before our own concerns in situations that primarily concern them.  

I apologise for the ironic typo. It has been corrected.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I think everyone should be concerned about the behaviour of the reactionary left, because they should know better than to bring themselves down to the level of the extreme right they unknowingly emulate. Radicals and reactionaries on either end of the spectrum tend to end up resembling eachother, semantics aside.

There is a saying in French, "J'ai le fil a retorder." It is used to describe a situation where, as in bending wire, a thing needs to be bent past the desired end position for it to end up resting there. I think society is a lot like this. To overcome the inertia of conservative social norms, elements of the progressive movement feel they need to push as hard as the conservative reactionary groups they see in direct opposition to their goals.

This natural tendency is amplified by the media, spun in whichever way their politics lean (purposely or due to laziness or even just inadequate feedback), and we see what we have today.

I think, though, that we should also remember the Republican politicking during the Obama administration. These weren't college students acting like spoiled children, refusing to do their jobs in many cases, dragging their heels and trying to get as little done as possible. I think we got to where we are right now because the "adults" in the conversation set the tone.

-CK

My favourite professor used to say "everyone here has the right to try and fail.  This isn't pre-school.  I'm not going to hold your hand.  You're adults now.  I'm here to show you how to succeed in this class.  It's up to you to do the work or to ask for help."

I like that.  He was one of the most helpful teachers we had.  Most of the profs had 2 hours of office hours a week.  This guy had 4 hours a day and was always ready to help outside of office hours.  If we didn't understand something, he would spend as many hours as it would take until we did.  If it went late and he was hungry, he would take the group of students to the restaurant and buy us a meal while he answered our questions.  His subjects weren't easy, but if you put the effort in and asked questions, it was easy to pass.  

And yet, he had the highest failure rate of any prof.  I don't understand why people thought it was his fault.  As he said at least once per class, we all had the right to try and fail.  That's what it means to be adults.

Hi Todd

you said "but if I own a business, it is not a public service in a public place.  It is a private service in a privately owned business on my personal property that I bought and paid for."  
You own a buisness that operates in the public domain because you invite the public in  . Your idea to me  sounds like I can do anything I want and ignore the law because I own this place .Logically to me  then this includes all laws like murder .  I think all  the laws apply everywhere I dont think cherry picking is allowed other wise what is the point of having laws  . If you want to descriminate against customers then vote for changing the laws :-) or moving somewhere where you can refuse to bake such cakes . Uganda maybe :-)

David

Hi Chris

You Said
I think the reason you see a lot of push-back and resistance to rightist or conservative sentiment at universities and colleges, to the point where many speakers aren't allowed by the audience to speak, is due to logical disagreement with stances on issues and agendas being pushed.

If someone is being invited to a school by a segment of that school's population, they will obviously have a body of material documenting their opinions and credentials. Those will likely inform potential audience members about said speaker. It is highly unlikely that anything truely new will be advanced in such a setting, especially with the current political climate. The protesting students are simply exercising their collective right to freedom of speech.

Totally agree . I suggest everyone has a look at the professors views on race and the marxist secret govt that trys to control the world . I think the whole thing was a complete set up .
oh how I wish there was a marxist govt anywhere as outlined in Marxs own books . Its never going to happen as Marx  suggested . The world has moved on .

David

David Livingston wrote:Hi Todd

you said "but if I own a business, it is not a public service in a public place.  It is a private service in a privately owned business on my personal property that I bought and paid for."  
You own a buisness that operates in the public domain because you invite the public in  . Your idea to me  sounds like I can do anything I want and ignore the law because I own this place .Logically to me  then this includes all laws like murder .  I think all  the laws apply everywhere I dont think cherry picking is allowed other wise what is the point of having laws  . If you want to descriminate against customers then vote for changing the laws :-) or moving somewhere where you can refuse to bake such cakes . Uganda maybe :-)

David

As far as I know, there is no law that says I have to serve everyone that comes thru my door. Almost every bar has a sign that reads "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." When I owned a computer business, if someone was a rude asshole,  I asked them to leave and wouldn't serve them. When I worked as a bouncer, most of my job was making people leave a business if they didn't want to leave, and i would physically drag them out if they refused. Not illegal.  

Hi Todd
I am not suggesting that you don't have a right not serve folks who cause trouble , it's when you have a policy of refusing service to a particular group because folks belong to that group. Bit like the old colour bar .Did your night club automatically refuse to let people in based on their ethnic origin ? I hope not :-)  If you look on you tube there is a wonderful film from WWII for Afrrican American soldiers about to be  stationed in Britain explaining that the UK did not have a colour bar etc it's a hoot I think it's by Giles Meradith . Am on my old phone so cannot link to it.u
Every group has it's trouble makers .even on the left :-)

David

David Livingston wrote:Hi Todd
I am not suggesting that you don't have a right not serve folks who cause trouble , it's when you have a policy of refusing service to a particular group because folks belong to that group. Bit like the old colour bar .Did your night club automatically refuse to let people in based on their ethnic origin ? I hope not :-)  If you look on you tube there is a wonderful film from WWII for Afrrican American soldiers about to be  stationed in Britain explaining that the UK did not have a colour bar etc it's a hoot I think it's by Giles Meradith . Am on my old phone so cannot link to it.u
Every group has it's trouble makers .even on the left :-)

David

This will unfortunately take us down a path that has been thoroughly beaten down, but I guess in this instance, much hinges on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Our club did refuse to serve certain groups. Any bikers wearing their colors, for instance were not allowed in. Is that discrimination? In a culture of victimhood, I would say it is, so I suppose we discriminated. We didn't refuse to serve them because they did anything wrong. I don't see it the same way I see denying someone because of skin color.

I am not suggesting that you don't have a right not to serve folks who cause trouble , it's when you have a policy of refusing service to a particular group because folks belong to that group. .

Thinking seriously on this, I'm fairly certain that I would refuse service to a KKK member (if I knew) and also to this current person sitting as president in the USA.  I think I would do that and take the consequences.  I'm not sure what that says about me or anyone else who might choose to do the same for others who's political or moral stance seriously offends them?  

...and for some this might be seen as an opportunity to have a meaningful one on one discussion about world views.

It's easy for us to say 'live and let live' ...much more difficult and messy in practice.  

I think it's just not as cut and dried and simplistic as you would like David

...and, yes, I would bake the cake and dance at their wedding

Hi Todd
Maybe thats why the KKK is a secret organisation :-) I'm not even keen on the masons or them funny greek letter organisations if their membership is secret . To quote Marx ( Groucho not Karl ) I would not belong to a club that would have me as a member. To  me  secrecy hides corruption or other wrong doing . Does "goodness" need to hide ?
The other point is that maybe its ok to refuse service to an organisation outside of the Law , such criminal enterprises are unlikely to avail themselves of the laws protection . Although watching them try could be good fun .  Who is going to admit being a triad member :-)
Refusing to serve Trump would not be an issue as its down to his behavior as an indevidual not as a group . Would you ban all Presidents :-)

I think it's very dangerous to start excluding people on the basis of their group.  We've seen what this does in history.  I don't want to live in a place that does it again.

However, banning an individual for behaviour that is dangerous, insulting, or harmful is something I'm okay with.  We are all individual humans who have the choice to behave how we want.  I have the choice to kick you out of my shop if I don't like it.  

So I guess we all agree that discrimination is fine, it's just better if you discriminate against people that it is popular to discriminate against? Much of America would stand and cheer and applaud you if you discriminate against the 1%, but you would be run out of business if you discriminate against, say, transgender people.

R, that wasn't directed at you, we were posting at the same time.

No, Todd. That's not what I see here.

I see discriminate as the wrong word.

If you are being discriminating, you are discerning between high and low quality.

If you are dismissing people based on skin tone, gender identity (including non-binary and trans designations), religious affiliation or lack thereof, or anything other than how they comport themselves, that's bigotry, in my opinion.

Let's call a spade a spade.

-CK

Todd said -"So I guess we all agree that discrimination is fine, it's just better if you discriminate against people that it is popular to discriminate against? Much of America would stand and cheer and applaud you if you discriminate against the 1%, but you would be run out of business if you discriminate against, say, transgender people."

Nope thats not what I said :-)
I said it may be wrong to discriminate on the basis of a law abiding group .
Bankers are not popular but I never suggested disciminating against them . After all income tax rules apply to everyone :-) Thats not descrimination to me its plain economic sence .

David