France is Burning

Most of these "immigrants" are Algerians that cited with France in Algerian Colonial War. Where should they have gone?

Real issue is police/military not breaking up protests and media defending that behavior. France had similar issues in late 18th Century without immigration and it was only stopped by Napoleon and his whip of grape shot.

I saw major typo, it should be sided and not cited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
If they didn't bar me I probably wouldn't know.
exactly. ignorance doesn't mean you aren't financially supporting them.

My only condition on any type of discriminations/segregation/selective service would be it has to be posted clearly on/near the front door. Do that and its legal. Kinda like posting ingredients, you have to post your discriminations so that the general public is generally informed about their commercial purchases.
 
exactly. ignorance doesn't mean you aren't financially supporting them.

My only condition on any type of discriminations/segregation/selective service would be it has to be posted clearly on/near the front door. Do that and its legal. Kinda like posting ingredients, you have to post your discriminations so that the general public is generally informed about their commercial purchases.
What about necessary goods and services (e.g. food, gas, lodging) being denied on racial, religious, etc. grounds?
 
What about necessary goods and services (e.g. food, gas, lodging) being denied on racial, religious, etc. grounds?
Stupid people have the freedom to exercise their stupidity. I am in favor of a business owner denying service to someone for any reason because I believe in individual freedom. The only place where it would be problematic in a real world scenario is way out in rural America where there is only one option for goods and services.

But, I also believe the vast majority of my brothers and sisters are better people that what we think.
 
Stupid people have the freedom to exercise their stupidity. I am in favor of a business owner denying service to someone for any reason because I believe in individual freedom. The only place where it would be problematic in a real world scenario is way out in rural America where there is only one option for goods and services.

But, I also believe the vast majority of my brothers and sisters are better people that what we think.
Rural America was my example. Most folks are good. Enough aren't though to cause problems for the rest of us.
 
Rural America was my example. Most folks are good. Enough aren't though to cause problems for the rest of us.
Non perishables can be ordered via amazon.
Gasoline, perishable food, medical goods and services could all pose a problem.

But I don't think Americans should force other Americans to engage in trade with people against their will.
 
What about necessary goods and services (e.g. food, gas, lodging) being denied on racial, religious, etc. grounds?
what about it? you don't have a right to buy whatever you want or need from whomever you want.

we accept plenty of cases of businesses setting terms on sales on far lesser things than race/religion/etc. Shirt/shoes/dress code is very common. Businesses can also choose to operate as a wholesaler rather than a retailer. Businesses are also allowed to set their own times of operation, which would easily deny people who work late shifts/etc. You can also be denied for smell/general disturbances while not doing anything illegal or dangerous.
 
Non perishables can be ordered via amazon.
Gasoline, perishable food, medical goods and services could all pose a problem.

But I don't think Americans should force other Americans to engage in trade with people against their will.
That's (free will) the only justification I can think of to allow discrimination based on demographics, and it's an important one. There are strong reasons to not allow it too; I suppose that's how we got the Civil Rights Act of 64.
On balance I'd choose not being legally able to deny service solely because of race, religion, etc. except for bona fide religious reasons, like the recent SC decision.
 
That's (free will) the only justification I can think of to allow discrimination based on demographics, and it's an important one. There are strong reasons to not allow it too; I suppose that's how we got the Civil Rights Act of 64.
On balance I'd choose not being legally able to deny service solely because of race, religion, etc. except for bona fide religious reasons, like the recent SC decision.
If I don't want a biker gang frequenting my coffee shop, I should have the inherent right to deny service.
 
what about it? you don't have a right to buy whatever you want or need from whomever you want.

we accept plenty of cases of businesses setting terms on sales on far lesser things than race/religion/etc. Shirt/shoes/dress code is very common. Businesses can also choose to operate as a wholesaler rather than a retailer. Businesses are also allowed to set their own times of operation, which would easily deny people who work late shifts/etc. You can also be denied for smell/general disturbances while not doing anything illegal or dangerous.
You're mixing behavior with demographics. I for one fully support business owners who deny service to obnoxious stinky bogans, wholesale or retail.
 
So, you already know how this discussion goes...we get to a point where race, or religion, or gender is the reason. You'll have a hard stop at some point. And I will ask what is different about your hard stop and some of the other scenarios.

It's a crappy thing to deny someone for irrational reasons, but as long as the denier isn't violating the rights of the denied, I think they should have the right in our country to do crappy things.
 
So, you already know how this discussion goes...we get to a point where race, or religion, or gender is the reason. You'll have a hard stop at some point. And I will ask what is different about your hard stop and some of the other scenarios.

It's a crappy thing to deny someone for irrational reasons, but as long as the denier isn't violating the rights of the denied, I think they should have the right in our country to do crappy things.
I see your point. My hard stop would be demographic: race, religion, etc. Denying service for real behavioral reasons is in my view fine.
 
I see your point. My hard stop would be demographic: race, religion, etc. Denying service for real behavioral reasons is in my view fine.
The lady at my donut shop is the child of a man who died in the WTC tower on 9/11. She denies service to the radicalized Muslim men from the Mosque down the street. Approve or disapprove?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
You're mixing behavior with demographics. I for one fully support business owners who deny service to obnoxious stinky bogans, wholesale or retail.
I see it as the same. If we are able to deny some, we should be able to deny all. Anything else is picking winners and losers which never works from a centralized direction.

The recent SC case points this out. Affirmative Action became the thing it was meant to destroy. It limited a minorities acceptance because they were the wrong minority. Even if it was only the majority being denied that is just as bad from a moral or ethical standpoint, but worse because its justified by the government's blessing. And it becomes a tool of the self righteous to be racist against the acceptable group.

It's either all allowed, or not allowed at all.
 

VN Store



Back
Top