I couldn't find any hate or bigotry in Straif's post, but plenty in yours. Why can't both sides be free to live their own lives?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Civil rights was, first and foremost, about repealing laws that mandated discrimination. Businesses couldn't "self-police" back then because it wasn't even legal. Most businesses only care about the color green.
Right. That's why the Bill of Rights put restrictions on the government, rather than the people. Only government can force you to do anything. If there's a market and it's legal, someone will service it.
Well I have a right to eat pork. If you were to run a deli, refusing to stock it for religious reasons, would I have the right to sue you for discrimination? It's the same issue with the cake thing.
Historically speaking, free countries prosper more. And freedom means accepting beliefs that are different than your own.
Since everybody is required to do business to survive, you're effectively saying that nobody has rights. Where in the Constitution does it say that we lose them when engaging in business? I can accept that for corporations, who are making a bargain in exchange for limited liability, but not for partnerships and proprietorships.
I've always believed that gay people should be free to live the way they want and that they shouldn't have to ask anyone's permission to get married. I also believe that people should be free not to associate with them (or anybody else), if they'd prefer.
If everyone is required to think the same way, they you're not actually free. It seems though, that many people have a passionate desire to save bigots from their own bad business decisions, and would rather just give them their money blindly, without making the decision to shop elsewhere on their own. If businesses want to attempt to discriminate, in this day and age, then let them try and watch them go out of business. Prevent them from discriminating and all you're doing is saving them from themselves.
I don't believe it was a lie. That wouldn't make sense. I was already a customer and I told them I wasn't even going to move to that house, if I couldn't get internet. I stressed that point emphatically to them. Misinforming me cost them money too.
Before I bought my house, I went down to the Comcast office to confirm that I would be able to get broadband there. Multiple people told me yes, but I still wanted to speak to a manger, just to be sure. And they did assure me, over and over again. So I bought the house, moved in, and then they finally told me it wasn't available yet.
Since I was doing software consulting from home, at the time, I made it clear to them that I wasn't going to move there if I couldn't get it. I ended up going over a year before they decided to turn it on (the wiring was all there, it was a new development). It really hurt my business, at the time. I'm still bitter about it to this day. I couldn't have been any more thorough in checking before moving in. They are absolutely incompetent.
It ain't that hard to turn 30 into 80.
People who have enough of an opinion to vote aren't going to be swayed by ads nearly as much as those, who had no interest in voting in the first place. These are the types of people who will more likely vote for the most familiar brand name.
If anything, we should be going in the other direction. If you can't name the vice president, or you don't know which party controls the senate, you should lose your right to vote, until you do. We need better informed voters, not less informed.
That would be the freedom of assembly portion. You don't lose your 1st amendment rights because of who you associate with.
If Netflix wants to provide a premium experience for their customers, then let them pay for the equipment and pass the cost on to their customers. If Comcast now has to treat everyone equally, then everyone gets the lowest common denominator.
They do let you hit them and even exceed them form time to time. It's never been an issue for me. But that all goes aways, once they moved to tiered.
In other words, #2 means they'll do away with unlimited and move to tiered access. #3 means that Netflix will flood and congest the rest of the network, meaning longer buffering times for all. And of course, #1 was never a realistic worry.