Sure, like the baker, the florist and now a website designer who the SCOTUS sided with. Race and sex are not the only reasons for refusing service as I listed above. Sorry that you don't like it but there isn't much that don't hurt you snowflakes' feelings. BTW, I ran upon a tire shop in CA that was run by a person of Mexican descent. When I asked for service--he sent me to quote, "the gringo shop down the street." OK by me, I spent my money down there. Was I entitled to bring a civil rights suit against him? After all, he used a racial pejorative to refuse me service based on my race. See how that works.
Try it and see what happens.
Someone needs to tell you that your comment was idiotic. Whites were not discriminated against by AA. And in this case a white racist used Asians withhout one Asian testifying that they were discriminated against. This was a decision made by 5 racists and one Uncle Tom.
That's just it. There isn't a single mother f****r out there willing to destroy their own business, reputation or risk their own safety by discriminating against people based on superficial things like race.
What happened to your stance (on Twitter) that they are a private company and they can have rules that fit their agenda to censor posters? This is no different. Kind of like going to a restaurant. If establishment X sells Chinese, you don't expect to get Italian. If a web designer has moral objections to your content, you go to an establishment that doesn't have those objections. Easy. Especially since you don't have to leave the comfort of your living room to contract with a web designer.
Twitter cannot discriminate by refusing to provide an account for someone because of race, gender, religion etc. That is different than setting rules for the content unless the rules are different or applied unequally based on the above.
In my view, it doesn't even go in the right direction. Roberts is actually re-affirming the premise of all the protected-classes, public-accommodations nonsense. The Court hasn't declared AA, and the laws that require it, to be unconstitutional. Weirdly, instead, the decision claimed that Harvard violated the 14th amendment. This may, or may not, have the effect of eliminating AA programs. But it doesn't strike down the laws that drive all this insanity. It bolsters them.
After lamenting the end of race-based admissions, liberal justices fret new ruling will legalize LGBT discrimination
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices have claimed that the court’s conservative decisions on race-based admissions in higher education and free expression will legalize discrimination in America. In […]www.bizpacreview.com
I found this ruling to be relief from some of the regressive tyranny we have faced in the modern era, but it doesn't go far enough.
Exactly. And, of course, anyone who stands up for this principle is labeled a racist (and sadly, many of them are), but that does take away from the importance of the argument. The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally. The rest of us are under no such obligation.
"Should" (and "should not") is not the same as "should have the right to". It sure seems like we used to remember that as a nation. But now we've forgotten. Today, people seem to think that "legal" means "wholesome, healthy and endorsed by government", and, further, that anything not wholesome and healthy should be illegal.
Whats funny is, those moonbats are justifying the govt discriminating.After lamenting the end of race-based admissions, liberal justices fret new ruling will legalize LGBT discrimination
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices have claimed that the court’s conservative decisions on race-based admissions in higher education and free expression will legalize discrimination in America. In […]
I found this ruling to be relief from some of the regressive tyranny we have faced in the modern era, but it doesn't go far enough. As an individual you should have an absolute right to avoid any contact with any sort of person you choose to keep away from you. You damn sure should not be forced to trade goods/services, provide employment, allow someone on your property or even communicate with them if you don't want to.
I don't care why either. It could be just because you're a racist jackass and don't want to do business with most people in the country who would be just as eager to not give you money or even be associated with you because of the embarrassment. The government has absolutely no authority to demand how you run a business. As long as you are not otherwise doing anyone else harm, then government can **** off. Discriminating against potential clients harms the business owner more than the person who has to seek their service elsewhere, and if NO ONE will provide it, maybe you need to live in a region where you're more accepted.
I doubt that. I'd be happy to see it go, however.
If you are offering products or services (that are identical for everyone i.e. snow removal) then yes.
