Posts by wakingrufus@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #34988 by wakingrufus@mastodon.social
       2018-09-15T17:29:44Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @freemo@SiedgeRights only go so far as they don't infringe on other's rights.Refusing services to certain people because of who they are is infringing on _their_ rights. This is why we have identified "protected classes" which it is illegal to do this to, and why we no longer have "whites only" restaurants. We are free to partake or not in patriotic displays. This is free speech, and does not infringe on other's decisions. That's the difference.  They are _not_ equivalent.
       
 (DIR) Post #35354 by wakingrufus@mastodon.social
       2018-09-15T17:52:33Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @freemo@SiedgeProtected classes are not arbitrary.  Which classes are included IS debatable, but they all have to do with who the person IS, something about their identity, not what they do or say.Discrimination based on height or religion are equally wrong, in my book.There are and have been people who think it moral to commit genocide. Your line of thinking leads us to a Mad Max-like hellscape.
       
 (DIR) Post #35803 by wakingrufus@mastodon.social
       2018-09-15T18:21:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @freemo@SiedgeMy point is that just because someone can morally justify an action, does not mean it should be legal. You may think it is moral to refuse service to women, but in order to have a just society, we have decided that doing so is an illegal act which infringes on the rights of women.Rights are meaningless if others can just deprive you of them with no penalty.
       
 (DIR) Post #36102 by wakingrufus@mastodon.social
       2018-09-15T18:42:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @freemo@SiedgeI was responding to "... people should have the freedom to choose their own morality. The consequence should be the court of public opinion, not a legal one in my view."My point, in short, is the law IS the codification of prevailing public opinion into a form that is enforcible.
       
 (DIR) Post #36397 by wakingrufus@mastodon.social
       2018-09-15T19:05:50Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @freemo@Siedge"If person A refuses to do a service for person B, for **any** reason what so ever that does not in anyway violate the autonomy or free will of person B."This is the core of our disagreement. I think this shows that you have never been the target of discrimination, and don't know what it is like. This is basically the entire point of the civil rights movement. I think this is a good spot to leave this discussion.
       
 (DIR) Post #192091 by wakingrufus@mastodon.social
       2018-09-25T22:22:25Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tauliI think this was a deliberate change engineered by the purveyors of surveillance capitalism such as Google, Facebook, and 3-letter agencies.  The flip from pseudonyms to real names happened when Facebook and Google+ pushed it.