Except that there's probably a good reason why this was evolved into our herd in the first place. For some reason, this probably makes us fitter for some function.
You miss the point of the license.
If you could choose not to pay the license, then the BBC must produce shows specifically with the interest of getting as many subscribers as possible. The result of this is that they must appeal to everyone. The result of this is that they must produce lowest-common-denominator shite, like ITV and channel 5.
The entire point of the license is to avoid them having to produce this bollocks.
No, the point is that this map is meant to be useful. It is meant to accurately show what the weather is doing in various places. If someone chooses to make the representation of that 40 times smaller (yes, that really is how much smaller shetland ends up with this projection) for some people, than for others, then it's a very clearly biased map.
The point re independence is that while the weather map is clearly a subtle and tiny issue, these things add up. Every time a decision is made, it's made with first thought to London, and 1/40th of the thought to the north of Scotland. As such, decisions are made that are not in the best interest of Scotland, and hence... We should go independent.
Those of us who want to know what the weather is in Scotland care. We're not talking about Merkator making the UK look a little big here, we're talking about the north of scotland being reduced in size by 40 times thanks to perspective, and hence making it very difficult to tell what's going on up there.
Actually, from your east coast, you can see significantly more Scotland than England. Partly because Scotland is actually as long as England north to south, and partly because Ireland blocks your view of England.
Okay, and how is this an alternative system to money?
This is just a different way of distributing money (which may or may not be a good idea).
No, it just happens to do a better job than all the other broken systems that people have thought of.
I'm trying to figure out how forcing someone to provide a service to another person (for whatever reason) does not have an affect on the person PROVDING the service.
No one is forcing them to provide a service. They are asserting that if they decide to provide a service they must serve all people equally unless there's a compelling reason why they would be wronged by serving that person more than by serving anyone else.
I'm pretty sure that this has already been argued to death and found that you're talking out of your ass. The last time it was argued you can substitute the word "gay" for "black", and you will find that then, as now, the conclusion was "they're not doing anything to harm you, so you can't harm them".
I have not in any way changed my response. As you say, if you have been wronged at can prove it in court it is not inconsequential. That is my definition of inconsequential. If you can not prove this, then it is inconsequential, and you have no right to refuse service.
Who are you to define what is inconsequential to someone else?
If you can prove in court that they wronged you, then feel free to discriminate against them.
Of course. The question is: where is the line?
Simple. The line is "if you can come up with a legitimate reason that that person wrongs you, then you can discriminate against them."
They have the right to think racist/homophobic thoughts. They have the right to say racist/homophobic things. What they do not have the right to do is damage someone else's live and liberty based on that though.
No, it's not okay to refuse them service. Unless their actions have a direct negative impact on your business.
Yes, its absolutely okay for a state to tell someone that they may not refuse business based on inconsequential reasons that cause the lives of others to get worse.
That's an obvious liberty balance. One side has liberties infringed (their liberty to live their life how they feel), while the other has no consequential liberty infringed at all.