HokieHam wrote:I'm going to apply the Nolan rule. There is no way the gym should be allowed to refuse service......
As long as you can cite which law they're breaking, go for it!
So you're only good for refusing service to certain people. Others.....it's of to your approved reeducation camps.
This will be a controversial opinion with The Usuals, but I'm okay if a business wants to deny service to a Neo-Nazi.
this is the issue Nolan, your damn hypocrisy, ok for a gym to refuse business to someone, not ok for a baker. I side with the gym in this as they are worried about their business and I said with the baker case a business has a right to refuse anyone's money, it means less revenue though so I think it is a bad business decision
It's a tough call for me. True, she started the confrontation with the Neo-Nazi, but once it's known that a Neo-Nazi belongs to your gym that's located in a diverse area, that makes things tough for your business. It's also possible that once the owner(s) of the gym found out that it was *that* Richard Spencer who belonged to their gym, they cut ties with him based on that, and businesses have a right to do that.
I'm going to apply the cwtcr rule here: bad things happen when you decide to be a Neo-Nazi.
I'm 100% sure you are also fine with Planet Fitness refusing service to radical muslims, black lives matter terrorists, and the douche from Berkeley that threatened to kill white people? I'm sure you can apply you rule.. "Don't be a radical muslim or left wing terrorist"- Simple. I know you will be consistent on this
Haha.
If it turns out at some point in the future that Spencer is gay...Nolan's head would explode.
Thank goodness it is "just" a gym and not a bakery, eh?
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
HokieHam wrote:I'm going to apply the Nolan rule. There is no way the gym should be allowed to refuse service......
As long as you can cite which law they're breaking, go for it!
So you're only good for refusing service to certain people. Others.....it's of to your approved reeducation camps.
This will be a controversial opinion with The Usuals, but I'm okay if a business wants to deny service to a Neo-Nazi.
Typical double standard from The Unusual. Some morally repugnant people are better than others.
If you want to defend Neo-Nazis when proprietors reject their business, go for it.
Stop trolling
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
awesome guy wrote:
You defend homos whose business is rejected. Same-e-same
Yes, I will defend people who have been illegally discriminated against.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except neo-nazis or Christian bakers, got it
When they're wrongfully and illegally discriminated against, I will defend them. Until then, TS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They are illegally discriminated against you dope.
Support your argument. You can't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I already did dope, the same public accommodation that you claim to infringe on the first amendment applies. Color my shocked that you're too stupid to see your double standard.
HokieHam wrote:
So you're only good for refusing service to certain people. Others.....it's of to your approved reeducation camps.
This will be a controversial opinion with The Usuals, but I'm okay if a business wants to deny service to a Neo-Nazi.
Typical double standard from The Unusual. Some morally repugnant people are better than others.
If you want to defend Neo-Nazis when proprietors reject their business, go for it.
Stop trolling
Not trolling. I expressed how both parties in the conflict acted like d-bags and how the gym was put in a tough spot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is where you being stupid makes you say stupid things. The Nazi did nothing wrong, he was minding his own business. It was only the professor causing a scene. You're lying about him causing an issue to create an illusion of moral equivalence and dismiss him when it was only the professor that was the problem. Only she should go as she was yelling at and cursing a customer, a violation of their policy. Oh well, I'm sure you'll continue derping the same bullshit that you already have.
nolanvt wrote:
Yes, I will defend people who have been illegally discriminated against.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except neo-nazis or Christian bakers, got it
When they're wrongfully and illegally discriminated against, I will defend them. Until then, TS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think everyone gets that. The problem with your shirty logic is your definition of "wrongfully".
Not shirty at all, unless you think a gay couple wanting a wedding cake is on par with a Neo-Nazi.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it possible for you to frame an argument without assigning irrelevant, emotional labels? I don't think you can.
The gym doesn't even meet the same standard of scrutiny that the bakers did, IMO.
He won't say it, but he really thinks he can discriminate against views he doesn't like while protecting ones he likes. It's as simple as that, an authoritarian making up rules to fit his wants in the current situation. Thankfully our laws strive to be more thoughtful and even handed than he has the ability to be.
awesome guy wrote:
Except neo-nazis or Christian bakers, got it
When they're wrongfully and illegally discriminated against, I will defend them. Until then, TS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think everyone gets that. The problem with your shirty logic is your definition of "wrongfully".
Not shirty at all, unless you think a gay couple wanting a wedding cake is on par with a Neo-Nazi.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it possible for you to frame an argument without assigning irrelevant, emotional labels? I don't think you can.
The gym doesn't even meet the same standard of scrutiny that the bakers did, IMO.
He won't say it, but he really thinks he can discriminate against views he doesn't like while protecting ones he likes. It's as simple as that, an authoritarian making up rules to fit his wants in the current situation. Thankfully our laws strive to be more thoughtful and even handed than he has the ability to be.
That's exactly what he's doing.
Attach a hateful moniker to a person...presto...its OK to discriminate or assault them.
Nazis did the same thing with Jews. Portray someone as evil subhumans and it's ok to harass them. This is how atrocities happen.