independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 15th Aug 2018 4:50am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > How is this OK?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 05/23/17 6:11am

djThunderfunk

avatar

How is this OK?

After years of being told that it unacceptable to deny service due to religious beliefs, now we're being told that it is ok to deny service due to political beliefs? How does that work?

A gym has terminated Richard Spencer's membership. Yes, I know that Richard Spencer is a white supremacist piece of shit. That's not the point, fuck that guy.

The point is consistency. Is it or is it not ok to deny service based on BELIEFS?!?

https://www.washingtonpos...504c517e07

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 05/23/17 6:18am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

I am not sure. For one a private place seems to be able to discriminate based on political affiliation, as long as it goes for any form of such. So a place could ban someone for having a Hillary sticker on their car if they choose.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 05/23/17 6:28am

SuperFurryAnim
al

avatar

Legally they can. Just like Only mentioned if someone parked a car with a Hillary sticker in our driveway we can have the car towed for being illegally parked with a Clinton sticker on it and Trump can even own the towing company. Make Merica Great Again.

God has a plan. Trust the plan.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 05/23/17 6:33am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

and it is not that I am okay with it or approve or agree: I am mostly ambivalent. But the freedom lover in me... the Libertarian in me says... Whatever. As we choose to express a political or social ideology or advertise support for pretty much anything other than one of the very few protected classes/groups...it seems to me they should legally be allowed to.


And yes to some extent that would apply to being fired or not hired as well.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 05/23/17 6:34am

djThunderfunk

avatar

So, even though we supposedly have religious freedom, we can't refuse to make a cake if it goes against our beliefs, but, we can refuse to make a cake if they voted for someone we dislike?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the gym should have the right to refuse service to a white supremacist. I also believe a Christian baker should have the right to not make a cake for a gay wedding.

To believe one is ok and the other is not is blatant hypocrisy.



[Edited 5/23/17 14:33pm]

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 05/23/17 6:39am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

So, even though we supposedly have religious freedom, we can't refuse to make a cake if it goes against our beliefs, but, we can refuse to make a cake if they voted for someone we dislike?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the gym should have the right to refuse service to a white supremacist. I also believe a Christian baker should have the right to make a cake for a gay wedding.

To believe one is ok and the other is not is blatant hypocrisy.

For the cake makers: I think as long as there is no direct participation or on-site participation that a provider of a good should provide that good. The should not, however, be obligated to take any special requests that fall outside their comfort zone. So a cake baker ought to make the cake but ought not be required to provide a specific cake topper or even provide any guidance as to where to get one, and they ought not have to provide a cake cutting service or discount for an advertisement card. Same goes for planners or owners of any venues.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 05/23/17 6:50am

13cjk13

Richard Spencer is a repulsive, racist piece of shit, and EVERYTHING should be taken away from him, not just his ridiculous gym membership. He is the absolute scum of the earth.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 05/23/17 7:12am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I love your priorities DJ. I think you like him. We need to man this dude's Facebook. lol

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 05/23/17 7:18am

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

I love your priorities DJ. I think you like him. We need to man this dude's Facebook. lol


Bullshit. I clearly said he was a piece of shit. Learn to read better. Not defending the asshole. Asking about double standards and pointing out hypocrisy.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 05/23/17 7:18am

djThunderfunk

avatar

13cjk13 said:

Richard Spencer is a repulsive, racist piece of shit, and EVERYTHING should be taken away from him, not just his ridiculous gym membership. He is the absolute scum of the earth.


Agreed. Not the point...

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 05/23/17 7:22am

djThunderfunk

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

djThunderfunk said:

So, even though we supposedly have religious freedom, we can't refuse to make a cake if it goes against our beliefs, but, we can refuse to make a cake if they voted for someone we dislike?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the gym should have the right to refuse service to a white supremacist. I also believe a Christian baker should have the right to make a cake for a gay wedding.

To believe one is ok and the other is not is blatant hypocrisy.

For the cake makers: I think as long as there is no direct participation or on-site participation that a provider of a good should provide that good. The should not, however, be obligated to take any special requests that fall outside their comfort zone. So a cake baker ought to make the cake but ought not be required to provide a specific cake topper or even provide any guidance as to where to get one, and they ought not have to provide a cake cutting service or discount for an advertisement card. Same goes for planners or owners of any venues.


A Christian baker or a Muslim baker should be free to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding if it goes against his/her religion. It's not like there are not MANY bakers that would be happy to make the cake. In the case of the famous lawsuit, they had to call around looking for someone who would refuse, many agreed to make the cake before they finally found some sucker who chose to stand up for his beliefs.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 05/23/17 9:04am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Is this purely for his " political " beliefs ? What if the owners of the gym did want Spencer there for safety reasons? It's not like he is a run of the mill "conservative". The man is a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer. What if the gym has a diverse clientele, and the owners thought that allowing Spencer into their gym might lead to violent incidents? Why is THAT not a good reason to ban him from their establishment?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 05/23/17 9:15am

djThunderfunk

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

Is this purely for his " political " beliefs ? What if the owners of the gym did want Spencer there for safety reasons? It's not like he is a run of the mill "conservative". The man is a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer. What if the gym has a diverse clientele, and the owners thought that allowing Spencer into their gym might lead to violent incidents? Why is THAT not a good reason to ban him from their establishment?


I clearly said above that they should have the right to ban him, in fact so far no one in this thread has stated otherwise, so, I don't know what you're on about. If it's a "safety" issue fine. You're saying his beliefs cause safety issues.

My issue is that one can be denied service because of political beliefs but not because of religious beliefs. Both are beliefs. We should be consistent.



[Edited 5/23/17 9:23am]

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 05/23/17 9:20am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

No shirt, no shoes no racism. No service.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 05/23/17 11:05am

jjhunsecker

avatar

djThunderfunk said:



jjhunsecker said:


Is this purely for his " political " beliefs ? What if the owners of the gym did want Spencer there for safety reasons? It's not like he is a run of the mill "conservative". The man is a white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer. What if the gym has a diverse clientele, and the owners thought that allowing Spencer into their gym might lead to violent incidents? Why is THAT not a good reason to ban him from their establishment?


I clearly said above that they should have the right to ban him, in fact so far no one in this thread has stated otherwise, so, I don't know what you're on about. If it's a "safety" issue fine. You're saying his beliefs cause safety issues.

My issue is that one can be denied service because of political beliefs but not because of religious beliefs. Both are beliefs. We should be consistent.





[Edited 5/23/17 9:23am]



Why do we have to be consistent? In fact, it takes more intelligence and more reason to examine issues on a case by case basis , and to act accordingly, than to always apply a "one size fits all" concept of consistency.

And if you agreed that is OK for the owner to ban this scumbag, then what was the point of even starting this thread ? YOU mentioned "beliefs" - my argument is that "beliefs" may have had nothing to do with this
[Edited 5/23/17 11:08am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 05/23/17 11:10am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:


Why do we have to be consistent? In fact, it takes more intelligence and more reason to examine issues on a case by case basis , and to act accordingly, than to always apply a "one size fits all" concept of consistency.

Yup...there is often more to a situation that meets the eye. And sometimes people see things differently.


And if you agreed that is OK for the owner to ban this scumbag, then what was the point of even starting this thread ?


hold on you just said that we need to take things case by case and apply reason: that seems to be what DJ is doing. DJ is saying I agree with it being legal I just do not like to see it in practice. It is the old just because we are allowed do something doesn't mean we should.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 05/23/17 11:15am

Pokeno4Money

avatar

This is a tough one, but ultimately political beliefs doesn't fall under the same protected category as religious beliefs. Could be the gym revoked his membership not because of his views, but because of the disruption and negative impact his presence posed to other members. It's like if I owned a gym and Casey Anthony wanted to be a member, I'd tell her no even though she wasn't even found guilty of killing her child. Just her presence alone would hurt business.

"As a team, we have chosen to stand and interlock arms in unity. We honor those who have fought for the freedom we cherish. And we stand to ensure the riches and freedom and the security of justice for all people." --- Doug Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 05/23/17 11:17am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



jjhunsecker said:



Why do we have to be consistent? In fact, it takes more intelligence and more reason to examine issues on a case by case basis , and to act accordingly, than to always apply a "one size fits all" concept of consistency.

Yup...there is often more to a situation that meets the eye. And sometimes people see things differently.


And if you agreed that is OK for the owner to ban this scumbag, then what was the point of even starting this thread ?


hold on you just said that we need to take things case by case and apply reason: that seems to be what DJ is doing. DJ is saying I agree with it being legal I just do not like to see it in practice. It is the old just because we are allowed do something doesn't mean we should.



My point, which DJ and you seemed to have missed, is how in this specific case can we assume that Spencer was banned entirely because of his beliefs. It may strictly be a case of the owners wishing to avoid conflict or even violence in his or her establishment. I don't necessarily think that this was the best example for whatever point DJ was trying to make
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 05/23/17 11:19am

KoolEaze

avatar

Depends on whether you look at it from a legal standpoint or houserules of the owner of the gym. If it´s legally ok for the owner and it´s his gym and his rules, then there´s not much that Richard Spencer can do about it.

But if the law says that you can´t just kick out gym members that you dislike because it´s discrimination and the owner has no legal right to terminate the contract that Mr.Spencer signed, then of course he should be able to visit the gym.

As a teenager it was almost impossible for me to join a gym in my hometown due to my Turkish ethnic background. Was it legal? Was it just? I don´t know. But all the gyms had this unwritten rule back then. Same with clubs . It was always up to the bouncers whether they would let me in but that´s probably a whole different issue because the club owners or bouncers can decide who gets in and who doesn´t.

.

As much as I dislike Richard Spencer and his views, I do not find this ok. He should be able to train at any gym he likes and the political views of a person should not decide whether he´s allowed to enter a gym or not. And besides, I know many racists and skinheads and racists that work out with minorities every now and then. Sports and hobbies can unite people.

But, like I said above, IF the gym owner legally has the right to kick him out, then that´s up to him.

Makes you wonder why he didn´t think of kicking him out much earlier. I guess even IF he´s already made a contract with Richard Spencer the gym owner could probably blame it on too much tension due to the sheer presence of Mr.Spencer, with other gym members feeling uncomfortable and whatnot.

But, in a nutshell, I don´t agree with this.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 05/23/17 11:19am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

My point, which DJ and you seemed to have missed, is how in this specific case can we assume that Spencer was banned entirely because of his beliefs. It may strictly be a case of the owners wishing to avoid conflict or even violence in his or her establishment. I don't necessarily think that this was the best example for whatever point DJ was trying to make

I did not assume anything. and i heard about this a few days ago...i think there was already a topic....but anyway.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 05/23/17 11:23am

KoolEaze

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

So, even though we supposedly have religious freedom, we can't refuse to make a cake if it goes against our beliefs, but, we can refuse to make a cake if they voted for someone we dislike?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the gym should have the right to refuse service to a white supremacist. I also believe a Christian baker should have the right to make a cake for a gay wedding.

To believe one is ok and the other is not is blatant hypocrisy.

I don´t get the part about the Christian baker having the right to make a cake for a gay wedding. Isn´t it the other way around? Namely that Christian bakers have refused to bake a cake when they found out it was for a gay couple?

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"




http://kooleasehvac.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 05/23/17 11:35am

Pokeno4Money

avatar

KoolEaze said:

djThunderfunk said:

I also believe a Christian baker should have the right to make a cake for a gay wedding.

I don´t get the part about the Christian baker having the right to make a cake for a gay wedding. Isn´t it the other way around? Namely that Christian bakers have refused to bake a cake when they found out it was for a gay couple?


Pretty sure that's what he meant. lol

"As a team, we have chosen to stand and interlock arms in unity. We honor those who have fought for the freedom we cherish. And we stand to ensure the riches and freedom and the security of justice for all people." --- Doug Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 05/23/17 2:32pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

KoolEaze said:

djThunderfunk said:

So, even though we supposedly have religious freedom, we can't refuse to make a cake if it goes against our beliefs, but, we can refuse to make a cake if they voted for someone we dislike?

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the gym should have the right to refuse service to a white supremacist. I also believe a Christian baker should have the right to NOT make a cake for a gay wedding.

To believe one is ok and the other is not is blatant hypocrisy.

I don´t get the part about the Christian baker having the right to make a cake for a gay wedding. Isn´t it the other way around? Namely that Christian bakers have refused to bake a cake when they found out it was for a gay couple?


D'oh! Typo... fixed, thanks. doh!

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 05/23/17 2:43pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

Why do we have to be consistent? In fact, it takes more intelligence and more reason to examine issues on a case by case basis , and to act accordingly, than to always apply a "one size fits all" concept of consistency. And if you agreed that is OK for the owner to ban this scumbag, then what was the point of even starting this thread ? YOU mentioned "beliefs" - my argument is that "beliefs" may have had nothing to do with this


And my argument is that they do. This is the point of the thread.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 05/23/17 4:21pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

jjhunsecker said:

Why do we have to be consistent? In fact, it takes more intelligence and more reason to examine issues on a case by case basis , and to act accordingly, than to always apply a "one size fits all" concept of consistency. And if you agreed that is OK for the owner to ban this scumbag, then what was the point of even starting this thread ? YOU mentioned "beliefs" - my argument is that "beliefs" may have had nothing to do with this


And my argument is that they do. This is the point of the thread.


Exactly!

"As a team, we have chosen to stand and interlock arms in unity. We honor those who have fought for the freedom we cherish. And we stand to ensure the riches and freedom and the security of justice for all people." --- Doug Baldwin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 05/23/17 4:40pm

Horsefeathers

avatar

I doubt it's his beliefs causing grief as much as his behavior. You shouldn't be able to expect to behave like an asshole and then cry persecution over your beliefs. And I will absolutely argue that even exercising one's first amendment right to free speech does not negate possible negative consequences. People lose privileges and jobs all the time over exercising their right to free speech. I think it's pretty snowflakey and entitled to expect to be able to behave in any way one wants and get to hide behind a cloak of "personal beliefs!" as a defense against accountability.

So to use the example given, if specific gay people are acting like assholes, I'm all for businesses refusing to serve them.
Murica: at least it's not Sudan.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > How is this OK?