Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

I have pointed out how the community operates based on real-life examples which happen to concern discrimination. If you want to claim that the community will operate differently in situations that do not concern discrimination, go ahead.

Right after you back up that the community thinks it is illegitimate to allow you to refuse service to known thieves, and they're inadvertently letting it happen because the enforcement of their actual standard is lagging behind.You just make this shit up as you go along, don't you?

At least one of the ringo's posting here has already admitted exactly that.

Are you suggesting that that isn't true? Are you suggesting that the community thinks thieves should be barred from commerce?

Quote it.

I think the community allows the business to decided if they want to serve the person or not, as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class.

I think the community requires the business to serve the public, unless there is a specific and immediate reason to deny service.

And unless you think spotting a gay couple holding hands is a reason to deny service, then you have your example of how ringo treats situations that involve discrimination differently than those which do not.Of course yet another ringo told me that I could not kick someone out of my shop for using an ethnic slur at a another customer, so I actually don't know which ringo I am responding to now.

Refusal of service is discrimination. What we're discussing is when it is legitimate to discriminate and when it is not.Since businesses are licensed by the community and customers are not, business owners are necessarily held to a higher standard than their customers - which is why a customer can get away with behavior that a business owner can not.

If that is the definition is use, then many of your posts do not make sense. For example you claimed to be using cases involving discrimination to inform your responses on situations which do not involve discrimination. But from the definition you presented here, there are no such situations under discussion at all.You're also glossing over the point that you've given different answers to exactly the same question.There is no basis for discussion with someone who moves the goal posts in this fashion. I'm out.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Huh? All situations in which you bar one customer involve discrimination. It may be discrimination on the basis of colour or sexual orientation or behavior but it's all discrimination.

And the reason and its immediacy is up to the business owner to determine, within reason.If they don't want to serve someone because they're legitimately afraid that they will steal from them, then that is acceptable. That's not what discrimination means.Discrimination is when you treat someone based on a group they belong to rather than on their individual qualities.A known thief who is refused service because the business is afraid they will steal is not being discriminated against, he's reaping the consequences of his behavior.

Let's use that definition for this post.I have no problem with you using that definition. The problem is that when I ban someone from entering my bar simply because he got drunk and tore the place up on his last visit, I am not aware of any reason either morally or legally that I cannot take such action.Similarly, if you write a bad check, I am not likely to take your next check at my establishment. You claim that there is some community rule that forbids such action, but you cannot point to it or show any evidence of it other than ringo says. Apparently the rule is based on what ringo knows about what some unknown group of people is thinking.As for your immediacy criteria, that never applies to racial, ethnic, or sexual orientation discrimination. It only applies to behavioral discrimination, so clearly the rules are different. I cannot kick someone out because he is immediately black.The community clear has rules that apply to some kinds of discrimination and not others. The fact that I can kick out a person who insults a customer or who enters without shoes is pretty much proof of that.You are free to agree or disagree, but at this point I no longer care what you think. Your ridiculous and well practiced tactics make reasoned discussion impossible. Maybe you have some point, but I cannot discover what it is.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I thought you were out...

I did respond to one last message, but yeah, I'm out.Thanks for following up.