Another reason to hate Utopian ideals....

[BaiHu]

Jeremy Vine: What would you say to someone who is an adult, who wants to watch pornography and his spouse doesn't know, and he doesn't want her to know, or she doesn't want him to know?

David Cameron: If an adult wants to get rid of the filters on their computer, that is their decision. It is up to them.

JV: Well — tell the husband? Tell the wife?

DC: I'm not interfering in those conversations.

JV: But it's a shared household decision now isn't it? That's the thing.

DC: But that's if the parents choose it to be. They can, if they want, turn these filters off.

JV: But they're not always in sync. Let's take, for example, the bloke wants to watch pornography and his wife doesn't know. This policy means he's got to 'fess up.

DC: Yes it does. But what we're saying is that the protection of children is so important that these filters should be effectively pre-ticked as on. If the parents want to change that they've got to make a decision.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-camerons-awkward-porn-ban-2013-7#ixzz2Ztd0sgiX

[Tamara]

But what we're saying is that the protection of children is so important that these filters should be effectively pre-ticked as on. If the parents want to change that they've got to make a decision.

So, we're so worried that kids might stumble across some nookie on the internet that we're willing to risk sparking potentially divorce-triggering arguments to keep them from seeing any?

I'm filing this away for the next time some Limey tees off on puritanical 'Murrican attitudes towards sex. After all, "Victorian morals" doesn't refer to President Victoria...

[TCinVA]

I think most adults understand the potential problems caused by kids having access to porn.

I just don't think they want slimy weasels like David Cameron (or whatever interchangeable nitwit will replace him from Labour) screwing around with their network connections or computers to fight the specter of porn-themed youtube sites.

[BLR]

So, let me get this straight - the Limeys think one of the most pressing things facing their ass-backwards country is porn? Not the economy? Not defense? Not a joke of a health care system?

Porn. That is what their lawmakers busy themselves with...while in all likelyhood support the flesh trade quite enthusiastically.

ETA: I'm glad our Ruling Class doesn't engage in such Tom Foolery :rolleyes:

[cclaxton]

Internet filtering is not just for porn anymore. I have tried to connect to pistol-forum and other gun-related sites using Pizzeria Uno WiFi and other restaurant WiFi and they block access.

I don't care if filters are turned ON to protect the innocent, but there must be a way to turn them OFF when consenting adults are at the controls. I have no problem certifying that I am over 21 before I can get to adult-only content, but there has to be the option to get to the 1st Amendment protected content, no matter where we get it from.

CC

[Tamara]

ETA: I'm glad our Ruling Class doesn't engage in such Tom Foolery :rolleyes:

They're trying to disown their Weiner right now.

[JFK]

They're trying to disown their Weiner right now.

Internets winner!

[BLR]

Internet filtering is not just for porn anymore. I have tried to connect to pistol-forum and other gun-related sites using Pizzeria Uno WiFi and other restaurant WiFi and they block access.

I don't care if filters are turned ON to protect the innocent, but there must be a way to turn them OFF when consenting adults are at the controls. I have no problem certifying that I am over 21 before I can get to adult-only content, but there has to be the option to get to the 1st Amendment protected content, no matter where we get it from.

CC

Ah, well, I actually support Uno doing so. Their WiFi, their call.

Of course, if I was into massively calorie intensive pizza, I'd not patronize them for that. But I'd support them in blocking this site ;)

[Tamara]

(T)here has to be the option to get to the 1st Amendment protected content, no matter where we get it from.

No, the person who owns the network has the same rights you do. If Pizzeria Uno doesn't want you looking at pictures of guns over their WiFi, that's their First Amendment right. They are exercising political speech about what they see as violent content and Congress shall make no law preventing them from doing so.

The First Amendment protects you from Congress, not Pizzeria Uno.

Should a Mosque's WiFi have to let you browse the SI Swimsuit Issue?

[BLR]

They're trying to disown their Weiner right now.

Cutting off their Weiner to save face?

That's as "blue" as I'm getting online!

[cclaxton]

Ah, well, I actually support Uno doing so. Their WiFi, their call.

Of course, if I was into massively calorie intensive pizza, I'd not patronize them for that. But I'd support them in blocking this site ;)

I think the problem here is that this will start to waterfall everywhere and the net effect will be to infringe our 1st amendment rights in all places except the privacy of our bedroom.
CC

[BLR]

Uno is a private company. Why should they be required to provide internet freedom? Come to my office, and you will have unfettered access to the internets...only because half of the stuff we do literature searches on will send red flags to the ATF/FBI/DEA/NSA/DHS/Department of Education even if they weren't over reaching.

I'm totally against censuring Uno's internet policies.

[cclaxton]

Uno is a private company. Why should they be required to provide internet freedom? Come to my office, and you will have unfettered access to the internets...only because half of the stuff we do literature searches on will send red flags to the ATF/FBI/DEA/NSA/DHS/Department of Education even if they weren't over reaching.

I'm totally against censuring Uno's internet policies.

Because this is America and the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of corporations.
CC

[RoyGBiv]

Because this is America and the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of corporations.
CC

I read: Because this is America and the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of private businesses.

And I disagree.... In the context of what a private business may filter from their internets, a service they are providing to me free of charge, in the case of UNO.... completely.

[TGS]

You're quite the statist, CC. Just as long as the state is doing what you want!

Uno is not a government protected/provided service. It's a business. As such, they have the right to allow what they want on their property.

I don't like their no-guns internet policy. Not one bit. But it's their right, and civil rights are not negotiable: You don't get to pick and choose which ones you want to enforce simply because you agree/disagree. That is a pretty foul way to run America, and will result in FAR worse consequences than what you're fearing of the anti-gun exposure they present to customers.

[Tamara]

Because this is America and the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of corporations.
CC

You didn't answer my question about the mosque and the swimsuit edition.

[ToddG]

Internet filtering is not just for porn anymore. I have tried to connect to pistol-forum and other gun-related sites using Pizzeria Uno WiFi and other restaurant WiFi and they block access.

Same is true at Johns Hopkins. "Guns" and the like aren't even covered by their internet security policy but someone, somewhere made the decision that WEAPONS as a category should be banned. When I'm there, I skip wifi and use my cell as a hotspot. Verizon doesn't care what I look at online.


Should a Mosque's WiFi have to let you browse the SI Swimsuit Issue?

I don't know... a little Debbie Does Damascus might help some of those guys relieve a little tension...


Because this is America and the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of corporations.
CC

Assuming you're talking about the 1st Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights, yes it absolutely trumps the rights of corporations. However, no it doesn't require corporations to allow, support, or provide unfettered "free speech" to its employees, customers, visitors, etc. The 1A applies to government interference with free speech (and religion), not corporate interference. A company's content filter is no different than having an encrypted wifi connection that you can't access in the first place... and no different than you having an encrypted wifi connection at home.

Furthermore, even government entities regularly filter content accessible through their internet connections. Go to your local public library and see for yourself. That's perfectly legal, too. Your right to free speech is not a right to free access to unlimited, unfiltered information from anyone and everyone you meet.

[BLR]

Because this is America and the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of corporations.
CC

At the risk of derailing this thread...

Corporations. I own 2. Why should I, as the owner, provide anyone, employee or otherwise, unrestricted internet access? How is Uno providing you with free internet a right covered by the 1st? How do I owe anyone that?

It's their server, ect. Not yours.

No offense meant here, but this seems to be a central theme for Dems/Libs - I (read that as me personally, my business, or any other private business) owe you something. In reality, I do not. No benefits, not living wage, no healthcare, only that I will not pollute or consume public wealth. Why shouldn't I be allowed to run my business the way I choose? Why should your rights outweigh mine (because simply owning a business should not, IMO, forfeit any of my rights)? Don't like that I do XYZ in my business, cool. Don't buy from me/work for me.

Fact of the matter is this - none of my employees built my business. They weren't there when I wasn't paying myself. They aren't concerned about my health, wealth, or happiness. Only theirs. They didn't develop the technology. They don't work Sundays. They use me. And by the liberal mindset, I should, for some reason unbeknownst to me, feel bad for even thinking of using them.

/rant off/

[John Ralston]

Furthermore, even government entities regularly filter content accessible through their internet connections. Go to your local public library and see for yourself. That's perfectly legal, too. Your right to free speech is not a right to free access to unlimited, unfiltered information from anyone and everyone you meet.

Not sure about your libraries, but out here in the wild west you CAN access porn at the library...

[Tamara]

Corporations. I own 2.

He meant the bad kind of corporations, like the ones the Koch brothers use to destroy democracy. ;)

[ToddG]

Fact of the matter is this - none of my employees built my business. They weren't there when I wasn't paying myself. They aren't concerned about my health, wealth, or happiness. Only theirs. They didn't develop the technology. They don't work Sundays. They use me. And by the liberal mindset, I should, for some reason unbeknownst to me, feel bad for even thinking of using them.

That motivational speech is probably a real hit at the annual Christmas party. :cool:

But you are absolutely right.

Cody, let me ask you this:

Do you think Pizzeria Uno is obligated to provide internet access to people in the first place? I mean Constitutionally required to provide internet access to customers? How about to passerby?

If the answer is no, then seeing as it's not obligated to provide the service at all, surely you can understand that it's allowed to provide any level of limited service. Any service, even restricted or filtered service, is something beyond what they're required to provide.

[LittleLebowski]

I think the problem here is that this will start to waterfall everywhere and the net effect will be to infringe our 1st amendment rights in all places except the privacy of our bedroom.
CC

Aren't you the guy that thinks we need restrictions upon our 2nd Amendment rights for "public safety?" Are you fine with corporations enforcing gun free workplaces?

[Chuck Haggard]

Ironically at work we had to fight to get the child safety filters adjusted. We couldn't look at this site, or the NTOA, IALEFI, etc.

I carry a gun or three at work daily, but God forbid that cops look at sites with, you know, guns and violence.

[Jason F]

At the risk of derailing this thread...

Corporations. I own 2. Why should I, as the owner, provide anyone, employee or otherwise, unrestricted internet access? How is Uno providing you with free internet a right covered by the 1st? How do I owe anyone that?

....

Fact of the matter is this - none of my employees built my business. They weren't there when I wasn't paying myself. They aren't concerned about my health, wealth, or happiness. Only theirs. They didn't develop the technology. They don't work Sundays. They use me. And by the liberal mindset, I should, for some reason unbeknownst to me, feel bad for even thinking of using them.

/rant off/

PREACH it brother! I thought you might be channeling your inner Hank Rearden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_Shrugged_characters#Henry_.22Hank.22 _Rearden) for a minute. :cool:

[Tamara]

Still waiting on whether the mosque's porn filter is stealing the freeze peach of its users because First Amendment.

[David Armstrong]

Because this is America and the 1st Amendment trumps the rights of corporations.
CC
True. But filtering the internet by a private corporation is not a 1st Amendment issue. You have the right and the ability to go someplace else and do what you want. It is no different than the local theater deciding they don't want to show "Debbie Does Dallas" as the afternoon matinee. you might be disappointed but there is no 1st Amendment issue.

[BLR]

PREACH it brother! I thought you might be channeling your inner Hank Rearden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_Shrugged_characters#Henry_.22Hank.22 _Rearden) for a minute. :cool:

Because of Harise, I know what that is :cool:

In my not so humble opinion, the use of the term "corporations" is a way for liberals to feel better about what they are doing. Fact of the matter is this: attacks on "corporations" are really attacks on the shareholders. Who, are people. The liberal machine, for the time being, just want to not feel as guilty as they do when then go after success to give to failure. If my business fails, who is going to bail me out? No one. If it succeeds, I'll be paying more than my fair share when compare to Obama Phone Lady. She doesn't pay for roads. I do. She doesn't pay for hospitals. I do. She doesn't pay for defense. I do. She takes more than she gives.

And I will tell you, as a business owner, I am utterly sick of hearing I'm not pulling my own weight. All so liberals can feel better about stealing from me.

/done ranting today/

[JFK]

I am getting sick of the mindset that once you start to make money off your labor, or facilitate a value proposition it suddenly becomes open to the rule of mob.

I can buy a gun. That is protected. It is my property. It is my right to own and use, transfer that property under the law as I see fit.

I can buy a car. That is my property. You can't take it, vandalize it or steal it without the threat of action. It is my property and it is protected, because private property is a foundation of freedom.

I can buy a house. This is my domicile. Inside these walls I am free to do what I wish, baring it does not interfere with the rights of others. It is my property and my security, and identifier that separates serf's from citizens.

All of these things are representative of the labor I traded without provocation, intimidation, or coercion.

So why when I trade my labor, sell my cars, my guns, leverage my home and risk my lively hood to start a business is that property suddenly void in the eyes of the collective? Where does the right come from for you to dictate the private use of my property (read labor) once you put Inc., LLC. or P.C. behind it?

[Tamara]

/done ranting today/

Dude, you're dealing with a mindset that thinks the Koch brothers are evil scumbags because they're rich guys trying to subvert the democratic process with their evil money, but George Soros is a selfless hero because he's a rich guy trying to strengthen the democratic process with his own money.

[BaiHu]

Amen to Bill, JFK and Tam...PM sent to Bill.


ETA: Some fuel to the fire from Twitter (emphasis mine):

The White House ‏@whitehouse 7m
Obama: "I care about 1 thing...how to use every min. of the 1,276 days remaining in my term to make this country work for working Americans"

[JAD]

make this country work for working Americans"

And, after all, arbeit macht frei.

[RoyGBiv]

And, after all, arbeit macht frei.

Godwin, izzat you? :D

[JAD]

Godwin, izzat you? :D

It's a fair cop. Society is to blame.

[Josh Runkle]

Uno is a private company. Why should they be required to provide internet freedom? Come to my office, and you will have unfettered access to the internets...only because half of the stuff we do literature searches on will send red flags to the ATF/FBI/DEA/NSA/DHS/Department of Education even if they weren't over reaching.

I'm totally against censuring Uno's internet policies.

If UNO didn't allow someone to read the Bible in their restaurant, they'd quietly lose customers. If they didn't allow people to read the Koran in their restaurant there would be protests in front of every restaurant. They don't provide the details of the Internet, only access to it. If they blocked the ability to read about Islam because they didn't support Islam, it would be a hate crime. If they block the ability to read about guns because they don't support guns they're...?

While I don't think they should be forced to provide any Internet or even uncensored Internet, I can't in good conscience support censorship in any forms. When public perception ok'd censorship in "some" forms, it accepts that censorship may be necessary for the good of the whole. Eventually, governments swoop in, and seize power that the populace is willing to give up. I'm sure you read about Pelosi wanting to shred up the [constitution] (2nd Ammendment) for the good of the constitution. Eventually someone will swoop in and say that they need to censor Rush Limbaugh to protect the first Ammendment or something similar.

There is nothing "reasonable" about any limitation on the 2nd Ammendment. If you admit that no one "needs" a machine gun, then they ban it, call it an assault rifle, call something that looks the same an assault rifle, ban certain features of that "thing that looks like an assault rifle so we'll just call it an assault rifle", then because you banned so many features, and then a 10/22 is illegal. Same with the first Ammendment. We give in and say: well, kids really don't need to type in "giant elephant" on google and it pulls up "giant elephant kittens" so, some censorship might be necessary and then one day they say, one person read that part in the [insert religious or political text] where it says xyz and then they killed someone, so we're censoring that part of the [whatever] to prevent someone murdering someone. When you object to gun control they claim it's for the good of the children. When you object to censorship they claim it's for the good of the children. Sound familiar?

UNO has every right to censor whatever they want in their business. People have every right to ban guns from entering on their property. I'm just saying that as a nation we really need to make sure we don't get comfortable with the idea of censorship. I for one respect their right, and don't want them to change, but knowing that, would also never choose to spend my money at their business.

[Tamara]

UNO has every right to censor whatever they want in their business. People have every right to ban guns from entering on their property. I'm just saying that as a nation we really need to make sure we don't get comfortable with the idea of censorship.

Can UNO control what you may say in their store?

[BLR]

If UNO didn't allow someone to read the Bible in their restaurant, they'd quietly lose customers. If they didn't allow people to read the Koran in their restaurant there would be protests in front of every restaurant. They don't provide the details of the Internet, only access to it. If they blocked the ability to read about Islam because they didn't support Islam, it would be a hate crime. If they block the ability to read about guns because they don't support guns they're...?

While I don't think they should be forced to provide any Internet or even uncensored Internet, I can't in good conscience support censorship in any forms. When public perception ok'd censorship in "some" forms, it accepts that censorship may be necessary for the good of the whole. Eventually, governments swoop in, and seize power that the populace is willing to give up. I'm sure you read about Pelosi wanting to shred up the [constitution] (2nd Ammendment) for the good of the constitution. Eventually someone will swoop in and say that they need to censor Rush Limbaugh to protect the first Ammendment or something similar.

There is nothing "reasonable" about any limitation on the 2nd Ammendment. If you admit that no one "needs" a machine gun, then they ban it, call it an assault rifle, call something that looks the same an assault rifle, ban certain features of that "thing that looks like an assault rifle so we'll just call it an assault rifle", then because you banned so many features, and then a 10/22 is illegal. Same with the first Ammendment. We give in and say: well, kids really don't need to type in "giant elephant" on google and it pulls up "giant elephant kittens" so, some censorship might be necessary and then one day they say, one person read that part in the [insert religious or political text] where it says xyz and then they killed someone, so we're censoring that part of the [whatever] to prevent someone murdering someone. When you object to gun control they claim it's for the good of the children. When you object to censorship they claim it's for the good of the children. Sound familiar?

UNO has every right to censor whatever they want in their business. People have every right to ban guns from entering on their property. I'm just saying that as a nation we really need to make sure we don't get comfortable with the idea of censorship. I for one respect their right, and don't want them to change, but knowing that, would also never choose to spend my money at their business.

I think you are confusing UNO with the government. Though, I should say, UNO does a better job than our current criminals...err, I mean politicians.

Government can censure. Private persons/businesses/organizations/churches/etc cannot.

If I went to uno's and they limited my internet access, I'd call the manager over, tell him why I thought he was a fool, pay my bill, and never return. Then I'd tell everyone I know that would listen why not to go.

But I would stand right beside them legally to allow them to make that call. That is a price of freedom.

[cclaxton]

You're quite the statist, CC. Just as long as the state is doing what you want!

Uno is not a government protected/provided service. It's a business. As such, they have the right to allow what they want on their property.

I don't like their no-guns internet policy. Not one bit. But it's their right, and civil rights are not negotiable: You don't get to pick and choose which ones you want to enforce simply because you agree/disagree. That is a pretty foul way to run America, and will result in FAR worse consequences than what you're fearing of the anti-gun exposure they present to customers.

Businesses who serve the public are under a whole host of requirements, from health department requiring them to keep their kitchens and serving areas clean, to safe working conditions, alcohol regulations, handicapped parking spaces, construction standards, fire prevention, minimum wages, minimum working age, and a whole host of other requirements. They may not refuse service because of a person's color or ethnicity or religion, by law. I agree with most of them, and the vast majority of Americans support them. They work to make it a fair and safe and quality marketplace to provide food services.

And, yet, you would argue that somehow the 1st Amendment deserves less...and for that matter the 2nd Amendment, too?

If we let companies discriminate on the basis of color because "it is their right", then we would still have segregated restaurants in most of the South.

The point here is that sometimes the government(s) have to set the standard when companies don't. On the other hand, governments have to be restrained from regulating rights out of existence, such as they tried to do with alcohol sales (Constitutional Amendments) and adult bookstores and porn sites. (1st Amendment, too)

Corporations are not free and clear to do whatever they want, and shouldn't be.

With all due respect, labels mean nothing. What matters is the integrity of our behavior and our governments.

CC

[RoyGBiv]

Businesses who serve the public are under a whole host of requirements, from health department requiring them to keep their kitchens and serving areas clean, to safe working conditions, alcohol regulations, handicapped parking spaces, construction standards, fire prevention, minimum wages, minimum working age, and a whole host of other requirements. They may not refuse service because of a person's color or ethnicity or religion, by law. I agree with most of them, and the vast majority of Americans support them. They work to make it a fair and safe and quality marketplace to provide food services.

And, yet, you would argue that somehow the 1st Amendment deserves less...and for that matter the 2nd Amendment, too?

If we let companies discriminate on the basis of color because "it is their right", then we would still have segregated restaurants in most of the South.

The point here is that sometimes the government(s) have to set the standard when companies don't. On the other hand, governments have to be restrained from regulating rights out of existence, such as they tried to do with alcohol sales (Constitutional Amendments) and adult bookstores and porn sites. (1st Amendment, too)

Corporations are not free and clear to do whatever they want, and shouldn't be.

With all due respect, labels mean nothing. What matters is the integrity of our behavior and our governments.

CC

Your base assumption, that all those things the government currently regulates are necessary and proper for them to regulate.... is not correct.
Health and safety... certainly within government scope, IMO. Alcohol, service to protected classes, minimum wages.... I could easily argue these are none of governments business... Not saying I disagree with any of those, but, they are not on the same page as health and safety. Neither is filtering the internet/or not.

[RoyGBiv]

Corporations
Try using the term "privately owned businesses", maybe it'll feel different.

[BLR]

If we let companies discriminate on the basis of color because "it is their right", then we would still have segregated restaurants in most of the South.

Corporations are not free and clear to do whatever they want, and shouldn't be. C

Who is "we?" I assume you mean the generic "You and me." If that's the case, my response to that is this:
Government stay the heck out. I'll not go to a place that discriminates for race, sex, or whatever. You wouldn't either. They would promptly go out of business as a result.
What your are advocating is the imposing of what you consider "right and just" by force of government. Yes, the majority rule might be in line with your and my ideals now, but what about 10 years from now? By what right do you or the government have in telling me I have to hire/serve/whatever everyone? What if I don't want to? Why should it be your choice to force me? Why are you not concerned that you are, literally, threatening me with legal ramifications to do what you think is right? You are saying my rights, simply because I am a business owner, are trumped by yours? Not a chance.

Don't like my engineering/nano materials? You can always compete with me or do not patronize me. Don't like the policies of UNO? Compete with them. Start your own pro gun pizzeria. Make it known you don't discriminate against websites and people like myself will follow you straight there.

It would be different if the government made you go to UNOs.

But you are embarking down a very dangerous road with this philosophy.

[ToddG]

Businesses who serve the public are under a whole host of requirements, from health department requiring them to keep their kitchens and serving areas clean, to safe working conditions, alcohol regulations, handicapped parking spaces, construction standards, fire prevention, minimum wages, minimum working age, and a whole host of other requirements. They may not refuse service because of a person's color or ethnicity or religion, by law. I agree with most of them, and the vast majority of Americans support them. They work to make it a fair and safe and quality marketplace to provide food services.

And, yet, you would argue that somehow the 1st Amendment deserves less...and for that matter the 2nd Amendment, too?

You're all over the map here, dude.

Your first paragraph lists a number of black letter laws & regulations which specifically apply to those businesses.

Your second paragraph lists two Constitutional amendments which very specifically apply to the government.

Now, it's certainly fine for you to say -- as a personal principle -- that you believe all internet access should be uncensored. But when you take the giant leap from personal ideology to government imposition you've gone too far.

[Tamara]

Businesses who serve the public are under a whole host of requirements, from health department requiring them to keep their kitchens and serving areas clean, to safe working conditions, alcohol regulations, handicapped parking spaces, construction standards, fire prevention, minimum wages, minimum working age, and a whole host of other requirements. They may not refuse service because of a person's color or ethnicity or religion, by law. I agree with most of them, and the vast majority of Americans support them. They work to make it a fair and safe and quality marketplace to provide food services.

And, yet, you would argue that somehow the 1st Amendment deserves less...and for that matter the 2nd Amendment, too?

Non sequitur.

You're arguing that your freeze peach rights compel businesses to offer things they have no need to offer.

I realize that using a mosque for an example is getting way inside your Progressive OODA loop, but your continued refusal to tell me whether you think a mosque's WiFi filters need to be as freeze peachy with the swimsuits as UNO's need to be with the guns tells me that you realize deep down inside that you haven't really thought your argument through, hence the hasty retreat to "But then there'll be segregation! Like those crackers in the South had!"

[MDS]

Because this is America and the 1st Amendment protect the rights of corporations.
CC

Fixed it for you

[Chuck Haggard]

I think the WiFi offered, or not, at any business is whatever they want it to be. If you don't like it, just as if you didn't like the decorations on the walls or the menu, you are free to take your business elsewhere.
The idea that you can compel someone on private property, by government action, to offer something to you for free because it's a "right" is some very tortured logic.

[Tamara]

I think the WiFi offered, or not, at any business is whatever they want it to be. If you don't like it, just as if you didn't like the decorations on the walls or the menu, you are free to take your business elsewhere.
The idea that you can compel someone on private property, by government action, to offer something to you for free because it's a "right" is some very tortured logic.

Oh noes my freeze peach!

(UNO doesn't have freeze peach, because they're a bunch of fat white guys in top hats smoking cigars and blowing smoke clouds shaped like dollar signs.)

[BLR]

Oh noes my freeze peach!

(UNO doesn't have freeze peach, because they're a bunch of fat white guys in top hats smoking cigars and blowing smoke clouds shaped like dollar signs.)

You say that as though being a fat white guy smoking cigars and blowing $$$s is a bad thing.

I fully intend to be that guy ASAP. Though I prefer pipes, thankyouverymuch!

[TGS]

Businesses who serve the public are under a whole host of requirements, from health department requiring them to keep their kitchens and serving areas clean, to safe working conditions, alcohol regulations, handicapped parking spaces, construction standards, fire prevention, minimum wages, minimum working age, and a whole host of other requirements. They may not refuse service because of a person's color or ethnicity or religion, by law. I agree with most of them, and the vast majority of Americans support them. They work to make it a fair and safe and quality marketplace to provide food services.

And, yet, you would argue that somehow the 1st Amendment deserves less...and for that matter the 2nd Amendment, too?

If we let companies discriminate on the basis of color because "it is their right", then we would still have segregated restaurants in most of the South.

The point here is that sometimes the government(s) have to set the standard when companies don't. On the other hand, governments have to be restrained from regulating rights out of existence, such as they tried to do with alcohol sales (Constitutional Amendments) and adult bookstores and porn sites. (1st Amendment, too)

Corporations are not free and clear to do whatever they want, and shouldn't be.

With all due respect, labels mean nothing. What matters is the integrity of our behavior and our governments.

CC

Well, I think everyone else addressed pretty much everything I could hope for, and then some.

[JAD]

Like those crackers in the South had![/I]"

If the nazi hyperbole is Godwin's Law, is the race hyperbole Gawdawiyun's Law?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Tamara]

You say that as though being a fat white guy smoking cigars and blowing $$$s is a bad thing.

It means you don't have any freeze peach, because you're a hater. (Unless you're George Soros, and then you're okay.)

[Mr_White]

freeze peach

Put some rum in it already.