Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do private companies have the right to ban?

Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Adam2isback
Posts: 364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 1:01:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

Yes
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:01:09 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
yes
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:07:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

What kind of security? just curious..
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:59:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 4:07:41 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

What kind of security? just curious..

I wrote an application that had a natural use in security. One security company was my first partner, and helped finance development. They are on the high end of security (like private police).
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment? The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card. There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 10:36:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Let me add, of the companies and properties I have seen ban lists for, they are likely 50% or more black or Hispanic. Not one ban has been overturn by some lawyer "playing the race card" - you just want to believe that crap with ZERO evidence.

Set policies (that conform with law) and enforce them fairly. That simple. Or... Do what you have done, make stupid blanket "Yea sure ban them" policies, then when YOU get sued for being an incompetent a$$hole, blame attorneys. Running a ACTUAL business is more complex than screaming "YOUR FIRED" and you might know it if you ever tried.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 5:13:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Just to be clear on the context, this thread was started about a month ago as satire because someone who got temporarily banned for consistent and repeated rule violations (including threats of violence) started a similarly named thread pretending to be the victim for being denied service from a private company for intentionally disobeying the posted rules (similar to: no shirt no shoes no service).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service. And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 9:23:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
...And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. ...

Sorry about that. I typed the original message on my phone.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 12:16:45 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 9:23:06 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
...And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. ...

Sorry about that. I typed the original message on my phone.

I was only trolling because that other user told me to F-OFF. I am not a grammar Nazi, I know exactly what you meant. I would have never mentioned it otherwise.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 10:52:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.

"Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one" Ya what the fuk ever. This conversation is over Mr mind reader. I don't need to say anything else you read minds.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 11:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 10:52:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.

"Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one" Ya what the fuk ever. This conversation is over Mr mind reader. I don't need to say anything else you read minds.

I don't need to read minds, only read your post. How about you look back at it, and check your own problems.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 12:13:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 11:05:41 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 10:52:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.

"Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one" Ya what the fuk ever. This conversation is over Mr mind reader. I don't need to say anything else you read minds.

I don't need to read minds, only read your post. How about you look back at it, and check your own problems.

What is your point? And when you make that point you better have hard evidence.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 12:25:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 12:13:40 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 11:05:41 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 10:52:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.

"Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one" Ya what the fuk ever. This conversation is over Mr mind reader. I don't need to say anything else you read minds.

I don't need to read minds, only read your post. How about you look back at it, and check your own problems.

What is your point? And when you make that point you better have hard evidence.

My point is as clear as your point. You brought in race, you were itching to.

The policy and procedures for banning, and thereby denying service to individuals is not a topic of race. Your attitude to this post was what we might call "bad advice". It was cynical and screams your preconceived notion about blacks, and lawyers for that matter.

I don't care what you think. Not one bit. I suspect, and said as much, that you have never been in any position of banning anyone or running a business that advises anyone on any subject like this. Your flippant response, followed by your cowardice, sounds like someone who I am happy will never be writing policy's that have repercussions.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 11:32:24 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 12:25:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/24/2016 12:13:40 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 11:05:41 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 10:52:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.

"Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one" Ya what the fuk ever. This conversation is over Mr mind reader. I don't need to say anything else you read minds.

I don't need to read minds, only read your post. How about you look back at it, and check your own problems.

What is your point? And when you make that point you better have hard evidence.

My point is as clear as your point. You brought in race, you were itching to.

The policy and procedures for banning, and thereby denying service to individuals is not a topic of race. Your attitude to this post was what we might call "bad advice". It was cynical and screams your preconceived notion about blacks, and lawyers for that matter.

I don't care what you think. Not one bit. I suspect, and said as much, that you have never been in any position of banning anyone or running a business that advises anyone on any subject like this. Your flippant response, followed by your cowardice, sounds like someone who I am happy will never be writing policy's that have repercussions.

So you think I am a racist? What other reason would someone get in trouble for refusing service to someone who refuses follow establishment rules? And why would they be in trouble? The list must be long.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 3:35:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 11:32:24 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/24/2016 12:25:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/24/2016 12:13:40 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 11:05:41 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 10:52:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.

"Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one" Ya what the fuk ever. This conversation is over Mr mind reader. I don't need to say anything else you read minds.

I don't need to read minds, only read your post. How about you look back at it, and check your own problems.

What is your point? And when you make that point you better have hard evidence.

My point is as clear as your point. You brought in race, you were itching to.

The policy and procedures for banning, and thereby denying service to individuals is not a topic of race. Your attitude to this post was what we might call "bad advice". It was cynical and screams your preconceived notion about blacks, and lawyers for that matter.

I don't care what you think. Not one bit. I suspect, and said as much, that you have never been in any position of banning anyone or running a business that advises anyone on any subject like this. Your flippant response, followed by your cowardice, sounds like someone who I am happy will never be writing policy's that have repercussions.

So you think I am a racist? What other reason would someone get in trouble for refusing service to someone who refuses follow establishment rules? And why would they be in trouble? The list must be long.

I don't need to call you a racist. Your free to feel however you like. The cowardice displayed in your posts makes me inclined to believe you would like to tell me all about it, if it weren't for the liberal PC police and shifty lawyers.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 4:44:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 3:35:29 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/24/2016 11:32:24 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/24/2016 12:25:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/24/2016 12:13:40 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 11:05:41 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 10:52:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 9:26:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 7:14:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:22:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:58:37 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:18:44 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 10:08:27 PM, TBR wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:07:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/21/2016 12:37:07 AM, TBR wrote:
At 7/20/2016 9:01:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:34:41 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/27/2016 4:47:24 AM, Ragnar wrote:
<satire>Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?

That is the question of the hour. What say you?</satire>

It is a little more complex that a yes or no. Yes, sure, businesses CAN ban, and charge violators with trespass. They MAY NOT ban based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

I have been working (tangentially) with high-end security, and they ban people all the time. The rules, again, are more detailed than just telling someone they are banned and kicking them out. Further, ANY ban can (must have) a way to dispute.

Actually the OP is that simple to answer It says nothing about discrimination of race or gender of any kind. "It says only" can a business ban you for constantly violating posted rules. The answer is a simple yes. No need to add anything to that answer.

Sute there are reasons to answer more verbosely. The right answer is, yea, but not without caveats. If this OP was thinking of banning someone and only got "yes" as the answer he could be in trouble.

Why would he get in trouble for banning someone for repeatedly violating the rules of the establishment?
One, that is not what he asked. He asked if they could ban. You have pointed to a caveat. Two, never mentioned until I pointed it out, you have to set rules that have nothing to do with protected classes. As an example, your rule can not be "no blacks" and have them banned for contumely breaking the rule by being black.

The only reason the race card would come into play is if the person being banned tries to use it as an excuse or some blood sucking lawyer gets involved on the banned persons behalf and plays the race card.
Yea. And I don't need to talk to this any further. Just the usual crap. F**k off now.

There is nothing anyone can do when the race card is played. Doesn't matter how many precautions you take. Once it's played, it's played. You can't prove you are not a racist.

"One, that is not what he asked" Actually we are both wrong. Here it is verbatim, "Do private companies have a right not deny service to those who consistently are unable to follow their posted rules?" He never said ban he said deny service.
Look at the title of the thread.

And if you really want to split hairs his grammar is wrong too. Which could make the statement mean the exact opposite of what everyone is thinking. "Do private companies have a right not to deny service." Sure, they serve unruly customers all they want, not very good for repeat business though.

Uh ya I get what he is saying. I think my previous response clearly covers the Title and the question as it is worded with no further explanation needed.

Except why you feel the need to jump to race. If you were only concerned with the question at hand, and not your own personal issues, you would have left out that crap.

Eh you are directing this comment at the wrong person, I am rejecting the premise of race in the OP. Re read the thread and who said what and you will see that.

Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one, and when you finally did, and I call you out on it, you seem to run like a child.

"Garbage. Seriously, you know you wanted to bring race in from post one" Ya what the fuk ever. This conversation is over Mr mind reader. I don't need to say anything else you read minds.

I don't need to read minds, only read your post. How about you look back at it, and check your own problems.

What is your point? And when you make that point you better have hard evidence.

My point is as clear as your point. You brought in race, you were itching to.

The policy and procedures for banning, and thereby denying service to individuals is not a topic of race. Your attitude to this post was what we might call "bad advice". It was cynical and screams your preconceived notion about blacks, and lawyers for that matter.

I don't care what you think. Not one bit. I suspect, and said as much, that you have never been in any position of banning anyone or running a business that advises anyone on any subject like this. Your flippant response, followed by your cowardice, sounds like someone who I am happy will never be writing policy's that have repercussions.

So you think I am a racist? What other reason would someone get in trouble for refusing service to someone who refuses follow establishment rules? And why would they be in trouble? The list must be long.

I don't need to call you a racist. Your free to feel however you like. The cowardice displayed in your posts makes me inclined to believe you would like to tell me all about it, if it weren't for the liberal PC police and shifty lawyers.

So you can't think of a reason to counter what I said as a plausible reason to get in trouble other than to call me a coward for mentioning it. We all know it happens all of the time but refuse to acknowledge it like the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 4:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
So you can't think of a reason to counter what I said as a plausible reason to get in trouble other than to call me a coward for mentioning it. We all know it happens all of the time but refuse to acknowledge it like the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I am calling your behavior cowardly because you have a clear bent, but are so chickensh1t you want to say everything BUT whats on your own mind.

Dance chicken, dance. ~ "Blacks will play the race card, and there is no blah blah...". Please...
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:21:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 4:53:57 PM, TBR wrote:
So you can't think of a reason to counter what I said as a plausible reason to get in trouble other than to call me a coward for mentioning it. We all know it happens all of the time but refuse to acknowledge it like the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I am calling your behavior cowardly because you have a clear bent, but are so chickensh1t you want to say everything BUT whats on your own mind.

Dance chicken, dance. ~ "Blacks will play the race card, and there is no blah blah...". Please...

I said exactly what was on my mind. What other reason would someone get in trouble for denying service to someone who constantly breaks the rules of an establishment? Someone who would play the race card or play it for them. Do you have any alternative reasons?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 5:24:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 5:21:16 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:53:57 PM, TBR wrote:
So you can't think of a reason to counter what I said as a plausible reason to get in trouble other than to call me a coward for mentioning it. We all know it happens all of the time but refuse to acknowledge it like the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I am calling your behavior cowardly because you have a clear bent, but are so chickensh1t you want to say everything BUT whats on your own mind.

Dance chicken, dance. ~ "Blacks will play the race card, and there is no blah blah...". Please...

I said exactly what was on my mind. What other reason would someone get in trouble for denying service to someone who constantly breaks the rules of an establishment? Someone who would play the race card or play it for them. Do you have any alternative reasons?

It doesn't have to be the race card it can be any of the cards that are constantly played to cry victim to direct attention away from the rule breaker and blame someone else for their crappy behavior. Happens all the time, it is the legal systems #1 defense in such cases.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%