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 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 :-)
Jarret Hynd wrote:
The only time I end up suggesting stocks or mutual funds is when people have no self-control over their money - it's a way to lock it up in an investment and become untouchable for them.
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.