Let ma ask you a question.

[Vater Araignee]

I know what you are about to read is not a but many questions, but to answer yes to one you must necessarily answer yes to all and vice versa or show that you are a double thinking hypocrite.

 

Does your telephone company have the right to deny service to you because of your political leanings?

Does your cable provider have the right to deny service to you because of your political leanings?

Does your power company have the right to deny service to you because of your political leanings?

Do gas stations?

Do grocery stores?

 

 

[TronRP]

The answer, from my point of view, is a resounding NO to all of the above.

As a "public service" they do not have the legal right to be "selective" about who they provide service to.  Now if they were a "private club" type service, then they can be as prejudice as they deem necessary.

[kat (1)]

My question as a follow up is why is a person's political leanings relevant anyway when it comes to product and services? I think political views should be protected under discrimination laws just like religion is. 

[Vater Araignee]

Kat,

Your daughters quote?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

When I get to my point I will be standing outside of my political standing as a Fascio-Libertarian Minarchist.

After that I'll step back in.

[kat (1)]

I'm actually glad you posted this question and think I have an idea where you were going with it.  I'm curious to see what your answer is. 

 

[Vater Araignee]

Wile I am waiting for more responses I'll ask another.

If you think it is wrong, are you willing to prove it with action?

[Nitewolf]

a public serve should not deny you service over ones political views

[Vater Araignee]

This question is as a Fascio-Libertarian Minarchist so is only kind of directly associated to the original set.

Do you know the difference between a public service and a private one? Hint: United States Postal Service vs. Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn or the United Parcel Service.

[Vater Araignee]

OK what I'm getting at is the intellectual assassination (I'm beating someone at chess, so they shoot me and win by default) through the depersoning of Alex Jones. I see so few people being offended by this. I thought that one of the principles of the left was suppose to be freedom of speech, but we know that cant possibly be true because anyone willing to stick a gun in my face to feed those they think worthy or build a library has no other principle other than might makes right. The thing I find hilarious about this is those same people who call me evil for being a libertarian are the same people using libertarian thought to defend what these "privately" owned businesses are doing. The problem with that is, out of the what, I think it is up to 35 companies now? The problem is, NONE OF THE BIGGEST ONES are private. They have all taken government seed money i.e. your taxes, this by default makes them, public and therefor subject to the constitution.

What the fucktards that are cheering this do not realize, This isn't happening to one person, when one persons rights are being violated, EVERYONE'S ARE. I hear the whiners now "But hate speech!" First off, this isn't suppose to be 1984 (though it really fucking looks like it is) so thought crimes aren't crimes, but look up the legal definition of "hate speech" and show me  just one, a singular sole lone solitary one and only instance of where Alex Jones is guilty of hate speech.

This is the same shit that left wing party called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or the National Socialist German Worker's Party, better know as Nazis did with the Juden in the beginning of their genocide. Side note: the Nazis based most of the original ways to treat the Jew of of the Democrat sponsored laws concerning blacks in America and the Democrat sponsored law know as the Gun Control Act of 1968 was a near word for word translation of the Nazi gun laws intended to restrict Jews. Oh and the original Nazis thought that the "one drop rule" was cruel.

Anyway, I'm an alarmist, I'm a conspiracy theorist, I'm a insert your own unrealistic pejorative. However I have been politically aware at least a decade longer than most people my age and I bucked my parents when I choose a political alignment that didn't meat up with their red and blue asses at the ripe old age of 14, so I am an outsider with a clearer view of what is going on and the view is atrocious.

[sekhmet2002]

I totally agree with others, there is absolutely no reason for all of this going on. The 'hate speech" is getting ridiculous and people are losing their minds over anything they can poke at and call it racism. It's just stupid. I wish people would stay informed.

[Shaun]

None of the services you listed provide a platform to spread information though.    Freedom of speech means  I recognize your right to say something.    Doesn’t  mean I have to allow it on my platform if I don’t agree with it or think it’s a problem.   I could find no information about Facebook taking government money at any point but even if they had that wouldn’t make them part of the government.    They can ban whoever they want,   I can think of a few people on the left that spread false info to.  

[Vater Araignee]

None? I think you had better re read the list and specifically look into the history of one of them because they got regulated because they provided a dissemination platform.

 

Most, if not all social media companies are provided special protection against things like libel and slander precisely because they are not publishers but expression platforms, that means they can only be held responsible if they allow specific types of content like direct calls to violence, child porn, displays of animal cruelty just to name a few. These things are specifically illegal, so removing them is not considered curation. However once you start curating, you are a publisher, and as such you should be held to the same level of responsibility as the local paper would be.

 

And now look at companies like Mastercard and PayPal deigning people their services because of politics. That in my opinion is exactly why there has been a push to get away from physical currency, control the flow of money and you control social behavior, control social behavior and you control political behavior.

 

[Scary Guy]

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they choose.  I know it's not a very popular opinion to have.

If some racist/sexist fuckhead wants deny people service that's great because word gets around and I wouldn't want to give that asshole any of my money.

I will say though that if there are no competing services around that does present a problem.  Also if I'm dying I don't want a nurse refusing to treat me just because I'm an Atheist.

I did have a waitress flip out on our Atheist group once at a bar.  We didn't want her to lose her job so she just didn't work on Tuesdays from then on, which we were fine with.

[NocteSpiritus]

4 hours ago, Scary Guy said:

Companies should be able to deny service to whomever they choose.  I know it's not a very popular opinion to have.

If some racist/sexist fuckhead wants deny people service that's great because word gets around and I wouldn't want to give that asshole any of my money.

I will say though that if there are no competing services around that does present a problem.  Also if I'm dying I don't want a nurse refusing to treat me just because I'm an Atheist.

I did have a waitress flip out on our Atheist group once at a bar.  We didn't want her to lose her job so she just didn't work on Tuesdays from then on, which we were fine with.

The aforementioned places Vater listed, to me, have no reason to refuse services based on one's political/religious/etc leanings. Because, like stated before, they're providing a SERVICE. I'm paying comcast/dte/whatever grocery store, gas station I go to for a service. There's no reason my leanings would come up at any point during my time at any of these locations for said workers to refuse said service. 

 

Now, if something happens like the waitress flipping out over any sort of group they don't agree with (ie the Atheist group), that would be different ... based on how the situation happened. If it was just the waitress who had the issue and the group was being respectful and being (mildly) quiet. Then yeah, the waitress shouldn't work on your meet up night. But if the group was loud against the waitress, then I can see the manager/owner asking the group to leave/not come back. 

 

I guess there's a difference between essential places (dte, gas stations, grocery stores, cable?) having the right/ability to deny service and other places like dine in restaurants/similar places having that same right/ability. 

[Scary Guy]

I mean if I'm free to boycott companies I don't like then why aren't companies free to boycott me?

I admit my money is green and spends just as good as anyone else's.

Lets say I run a business that provides a product/service and I find out somone is a Nazi or in "the Klan".  They're being respectful and aren't causing any trouble.  They aren't all -out- about it and look like everyone else.  I still want to be able to deny them service if I so choose.  I shouldn't be forced to interact with anyone that so deeply offends me.

I suppose telling them they're wrong and that they're fuckheads is a small consolation for having to deal with them though.  But then getting sued for abuse is something no one likes, even if the person deserved it.

[NocteSpiritus]

Then we run into the, what I'm now calling the "Chick-fil-A" business model. Because the owners allow their personal beliefs bleed into their business practice/policy, it drives away certain groups of people. 

 

Being a business means you're providing something for money; whether it be food, a service (cable, energy/gas, water/sewer, etc). To me, if you're to run a business, you keep your personal beliefs, practices, etc completely separate from your business beliefs, practices, etc. 

 

You wanna tell the white supremacist off? It's your right to do so; but bare in mind that you would be opening yourself up to attacks from all the different white supremacist groups out there. It's the same thing as the "Chick-fil-A'' policy of alienating the LGBT community. Sure their food might be good, but I won't patronize it because of their anti-LGBT policy.

[Stu]

As a long-time entrepreneur, I'll just say that discriminating among your customers is a bad business practice.  Unless your business IS political, then stick to what you do.  The irony, of course, is if a Klansman becomes a regular customer, and YOU, as a savvy business owner, make donations to the NAACP or the United Negro College Fund, then you force THEM to fund YOUR causes.  In short, leave religion and politics OUT of business.

Now, these days it has become fashionable for companies to "stand for something" and that something might alienate some of their clientele.  This is a calculated risk; it can backfire in a big way, to the point where you're shut down, OR it can bolster your crappy ass business because ideologues will see your business as the be all and end all.  This is what bigots have done for Chik-Fil-A; they saw their revenues increase as a result of gay bashing.  Sad, but true.  Further, they got advertisement that they could never have possibly afforded simply by the MEDIA constantly YAPPING about it.  They played right into their hands.

I took a gamble with my DJ business.  My issue is gun rights, so I offered discounts for anyone with an NRA or GOA membership, and an even bigger discount for those with a CPL.  It worked far better than I could've hoped!  Of course, given my circles of friends and clients, that wasn't completely unexpected, but I was surprised by the overwhelming response.  (I'm still running that promotion, by the way.)

Otherwise, however, I have ZERO mixture between business and politics/religion.  My CPL courses at one time were filled with Muslims.  When I asked some of them why they chose my class, they said, "nobody else would take us."  Considering how "popular" they are these days, it stands to reason that Muslims might feel the need for self-protection?  (And LGBTQ, and just about anyone "of color," etc.)  My only requirement for students is that they're good people.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but the bottom line is that there is GOOD REASON to not mix politics and religion with your business.  Dale Carnegie, Zig Ziglar, Tim Ferriss, Ramon Ray, Jeffrey Gitomer.... ALL of the experts from past to present say the same thing.  For good reason. 

[Scary Guy]

Another great example is the Field & Stream that got bought out by Sportsman's Warehouse.  F&S stopped selling the AR-15 and similar semi-auto rifles which turned off many customers including myself.  Trying to take what they thought to be the "moral high-ground" when most of the customers are gun lovin' good-ol-boys was not a wise move.

I mean ideally yes, you want business and politics to be separate.  However some things are worth pissing of a good portion of your client base (like if they're NeoNazis, homophobics, religious nuts.)

Then again, there's a reason I don't own a business...  Okay there are a few reasons I don't own a business.