Sorry Dude, I'm not doing it. You've literally misquoted me half a dozen times in this thread alone. But I guess that's just semantics, not reading comprehension on your part. Companies should be able to do business with whoever they want, and they should be able to exclude whoever they want, as long as it is not a protected class of people. It is illegal for the government to do this, not private industry or private individuals. That's my position, and I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with you.
You are entitled to your position just as i am mine. You post generalities forcing people to make assumptions. your position sits fine with me. Its your opinion and its just as wrong as. Claiming nobody on this thread disagrees with you. You were and are wrong. Thats a fact exposed in previous posts in this thread. You can man up or not. Your call. who cares what the constitution says? That isnt the discussion if its legal or illegal. Its whether its needed or not. But you cant seem to stay on topic, post generalizing statements snd then expect everyone to know what you mean even though you just turned the conversation inside out. but you are wrong. just to get you back on topic, the discussion is whether the government should step in on suspect companies doing business with national threats and other such nefarious entities. Should the government step in and regulate companies doing business based on their political views? Thats another topic, though similar. Many people believe they should. Not whether its legal or not. Stay on topic and it will go smoother bro. Continue to spin things to always be right and it wont go smooth. Simple as that.
Hmm... Looks like you're the one all upset about who is right and who agrees with who. I couldn't care less. I support our rights to freedom of assembly. I generally support rights rather than restrictions. I'm pretty darn consistent about that. Not sure how you're able to twist things into pissing yourself off so easily, but fly after it bro.
I could be wrong, but I think I know who BlazerBender is. His posts are strikingly similar to a former poster. A good guy who was a bit argumentative, but a good guy nonetheless.
You both are insanely patient, and also have a ton of time to respond to that. The responses are full of emotion and nonsensical rhetorical talking points, I am amazed you made it to 3 pages responding to that.
Lol. Mildly amusing. Have you mastered the game twister? Its a fun people person game. But if not, Its fun and its a perfect game for you if you haven't tried it. Id buy it and have a family game night if i were you.
So perhaps I'm the one with reading comprehension issues. From what I'm seeing, PGR has said that he believes: Banks (or other businesses) should be able to turn away anyone they want, for any reason they want (outside of protected class reasons [ethnicity, nationality, gender, etc...]), including political ideologies Government should not be able to step in and tell banks (or other businesses) to turn people away @BlazerBender--are you actually saying that you do support the government telling businesses to turn people away due to ideology? Like, you think Biden should be able to tell Chase Bank to close accounts for conservatives? Because it looks to me that that is the type of activity PGR is saying nobody supports. Am I reading that wrong?
I commend you for trying to parse out what these guys are arguing about, because I got totally lost in their back and forth.
It is my understanding the OP posted this topic and is against private entities being able to cut off business transactions based on political ideologies. It is my understanding that psg stated private entities should be allowed to cut off business with anyone they want that aren't protected. This is where it becomes a twofold event. I agree companies should have the right to refuse business to criminals or entities that actively put our nation in jeopardy. But its my understanding, this os not the OP’s topic regarding criminals. But This is where it gets mirky because what puts us in jeopardy is largely opinion based. Some feel people who support gun ownership could be a jeopardy to the nations safety. Some may feel terrorist groups jeopardize our safety. Some may think pro lifers or pr abortionists jeopardize our safety. So to me i feel the government should be able to step in and say yes. This is a terrorist group. You shouldn't do business with them. Yes this is a political ideology of sorts, but is also fairly black and white that they are a threat to our safety as individuals and a society. When a company decides to refuse business because of ones beliefs that are backed by a constitution, like the second amendment( which seems to be the focus, not terrorist groups or criminals) then the government should step In and not allow businesses to deny goods to the masses on the opposite political spectrum. Because of the polarization of our society and how we are becoming more segregated with mindsets like “ you are either for me or against me”) with zero compromise, i do not believe we should allow businesses to follow this mentality. Regardless of what the constitution says or what is legal vs illegal, i believe we need more government over-site of private business than ever before because more and more businesses are pushing political agendas. And private businesses can align with politicians to succeed in their cancelation of opposing political opinions. so without this over-site, who is to stop companies from denying any business to anyone who voted for trump or biden? i might recall incorrectly but i believe a company in portland was denied the right to refuse service based on sexual orientation. Another example of how businesses are leaning more political when they shouldn't. And i believe the government should step in and say “close your doors or serve all law abiding citizens equally.” Just because one is pro life or pro abortion, should not be a factor in being able to purchase goods and services. I believe if we continue down this path, it will aid in companies controlling things to the point of legal monopolies and now all we have are large corps making ALL the calls. If i previously misconstrued my stance or anyone else's i apologize, as to me, the initial posts were somewhat difficult to comprehend clearly. @SlyPokerDog i apologize. I know what i told you yesterday, but i have too much respect for platy to ignore his questions.
