The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $unreadreports - Line: 32 - File: global.php(961) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/global.php(961) : eval()'d code 32 errorHandler->error_callback
/global.php 961 eval
/showthread.php 28 require_once




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SCOTUS non partison ?
#11
??? Yes, people have no obligation to get into the baking or bar business.
Reply
#12
It is not about an obligation to go into a business, but the right to decide whom you want to serve. The property owner is the one who runs the risk if the market doesn't like the way they operate.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#13
(10-12-2018, 12:46 PM)k.d. Wrote: It is not about an obligation to go into a business, but the right to decide whom you want to serve. The property owner is the one who runs the risk if the market doesn't like the way they operate.

You are incorrect. You know that, right ?
Reply
#14
Please correct me,then.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#15
(10-12-2018, 06:07 PM)k.d. Wrote: Please correct me,then.

Civil rights act
Reply
#16
Seriously? The bar owner who refuses to serve someone whom he feels has had too much to drink can have the Feds come down on him?
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#17
Don't think a hammered bar patron is necessarily protected by Civil rights Act of 1964. I was responding specifically to the "right to decide whom you want to serve" comment.
Reply
#18
(10-13-2018, 07:22 AM)j.p. Wrote: Don't think a hammered bar patron is necessarily protected by Civil rights Act of 1964. I was responding specifically to the "right to decide whom you want to serve" comment.

Exactly, and the bar owner was deciding whom he wanted to serve. It is no different than "no shoes. no shirt, no service".
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply
#19
Agree. Cept he might not have the choice whether to serve or not to serve a drunk. And the no shoes/shirt thing would have to apply to everyone.
Reply
#20
Property rights is about individual rights, not about collectivism or the rights of a collective.
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”

― Voltaire
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)