You don’t get what he said.
he said you should be able to refuse service to African Americans because of the color of their skin...you just don’t like African Americans. That is what he and I are talking about.
he thinks THAT should be legal.

you are talking about Allstate and insurance.

For bob:


wig·ger
/'wig?r/
Learn to pronounce
noun
INFORMAL•OFFENSIVE

1. a white person who tries to emulate or acquire cultural behavior and tastes attributed to African Americans.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

fwiw, I don't think businesses should be able to refuse service to someone based on intrinsic qualities that they have. You can refuse service for being a Republican or Democrat IMO, but not for being black and white (or gay and straight, or what gender they are).

But, but, but...

You told us we do get to pick our gender.

Shouldn't you be able to then refuse to serve someone based on gender? Not sex. Gender.

It is the federal law. you can’t refuse service for race or gender or religion.

this is the law that alt3 does not agree with.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/21/2020 10:51:00 AM (view original):
But, but, but...

You told us we do get to pick our gender.

Shouldn't you be able to then refuse to serve someone based on gender? Not sex. Gender.

What a pain in the ***

Strong response.

Tang at least is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the potential issue with having gender be something the government should protect your right to choose for yourself when that's convenient, and a protected intrinsic quality when that's convenient.

You can’t discriminate based upon gender or sexual orientation.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/21/2020 10:51:00 AM (view original):
But, but, but...

You told us we do get to pick our gender.

Shouldn't you be able to then refuse to serve someone based on gender? Not sex. Gender.

Wrong. You don't get to choose whether you have gender dysphoria or not. You do get to choose what you wear, I guess? I don't really care if a business has no shirt, no shoes policies?

I agree that the line gets a bit blurry here, but I do think we should draw a distinction between gender and political identity.

If someone wanted to say "no dresses allowed," I'm fine with that. If they want to say, "no dresses allowed if you look like a guy/have a *****, but it's ok for others," that's not Ok with me.

You guys are confusing the sh*t out of me!!
TY all3 for the definition!! I always just called them folks wannabes.........

So......... I really AM confused about what some of you are arguing.
As a (former) business owner OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, a basic "retail" store here is what I THINK you can and can not do.

YOU CAN decide NOT to serve someone for ANY reason you choose to do so EXCEPT it is illegal to do so on the basis of Race, Gender, and ??? (please tell me what else is prohibited discrimination BY LAW!)
You can refuse service, deny presence in a private business (as I did) for deciding some person is a JERK and you don't want to transact business with them as long as you don't do it on an illegal basis. Right?

Where am I incorrect?

And as far as "dressing" is concerned.
Some business should be allowed to remain "topless".
By choice, of course!
Just provide that (required) mask, these days!

We aren't debating the law currently. The law is the law. I'm talking about what should be.