Arkansas woman to be banned from Walmart for racist remarks - what?

[wingnut-]

Just now, Running Gator said:

Cold and indifferent is an emotion, and typically a strong one at that.

I do not believe that is the case.  The story you gave dealt only with a government agency, not private companies.   

 

Well I didn't say I agree with her, the fact is, I am not an emotional person, which is why people that know me would find it so amusing that anyone would accuse me of being such.  Well, I listen to my co-workers curse and yell at the bosses all the time, they don't get fired.  I listen to people use all kinds of disturbing vulgarities when I go out to eat, and no one stops them.  It wasn't always that way, everything changed when the law was changed allowing people to curse in public.  I would prefer if people showed respect for others, as I do, but not everyone has the same moral compass.

[LadyKay]

11 hours ago, ayin jade said:

So a private business does not have the right to decide who they will allow in? It is acceptable for someone to force themselves in to a private enterprise? Lets carry this further. Does that mean that you support for instance someone coming in to your store and blasting Christians and you are ok with not having the right to refuse them service? 

Im sure this is a sign of the apocalypse, but I agree with gator. A private business has the right to decline service and ban someone from their store. 

 

Right on! I give you a thumps up ! 

[wingnut-]

4 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

I'm confused You say you would be fine with her being escorted from the store for what she was saying. Yet you are  saying that Wal Mart ban her from the store is an attack on free speech. Wouldn't escorting her out of the store for what she said also be an attack on free speech?  Your talking in circles here. 

 

She was causing a disturbance, that is why they have the right to escort her from the store.  Telling her she can never return because they don't like what she said is a violation of free speech, particularly since they don't inform people of their rules which they apparently make up as they go along.

[LadyKay]

1 minute ago, wingnut- said:

 

She was causing a disturbance, that is why they have the right to escort her from the store.  Telling her she can never return because they don't like what she said is a violation of free speech, particularly since they don't inform people of their rules which they apparently make up as they go along.

I guess I just don't get it. To me it is one in the same. Being ask to leave because of what you said and being ban because of what you. Both are bass on what you said. But if that is how you think about it so be it. 

[LadyKay]

I think some people on here are being hypocrites.  Nothing more nothing less.  

[wingnut-]

11 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

I guess I just don't get it. To me it is one in the same. Being ask to leave because of what you said and being ban because of what you. Both are bass on what you said. But if that is how you think about it so be it. 

 

I guess you didn't see the video about this, it was her actions that caused the disturbance.  I don't condone what she said, nor do I agree with what she said.  If I had my way no one would think or act in such a manner, but I have learned I don't always get my way, I'm over it.  The ultimate goal is to silence the truth, and I will continue to stand up for liberty, regardless of how unpopular that is.

I know you don't get it now, but one day you will, and when you see the truth silenced and places like churches and this forum silenced you will remember that someone told you it was coming.  I rather enjoy discussing things with all of you, and would prefer to keep that going for as long as possible.

God bless

[LadyKay]

1 minute ago, wingnut- said:

I guess you didn't see the video about this, it was her actions that caused the disturbance.  I don't condone what she said, nor do I agree with what she said.  If I had my way no one would think or act in such a manner, but I have learned I don't always get my way, I'm over it.  The ultimate goal is to silence the truth, and I will continue to stand up for liberty, regardless of how unpopular that is.

I know you don't get it now, but one day you will, and when you see the truth silenced and places like churches and this forum silenced you will remember that someone told you it was coming.  I rather enjoy discussing things with all of you, and would prefer to keep that going for as long as possible.

God bless

What I don't get is how you can't see that telling someone to leave the store for their speech is fine and okay do to. But to ban them is a violation of their free speech. In both cases they are being punished for what they are speaking. In both cases they are being silence. That is what I am not getting!  

Okay, I am going to take a break before I get all worked up. Say something stupid and get myself kicked out. 

[wingnut-]

9 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

What I don't get is how you can't see that telling someone to leave the store for their speech is fine and okay do to. But to ban them is a violation of their free speech. In both cases they are being punished for what they are speaking. In both cases they are being silence. That is what I am not getting!  

Okay, I am going to take a break before I get all worked up. Say something stupid and get myself kicked out. 

 

Because it wasn't just about what she was saying, but how she was behaving, causing a disturbance.  I guess you won't understand if you don't see the video.  Her actions are why they asked her to leave in my opinion, they are justifying it because of what she was saying which really isn't necessary.  I guess because most rational people don't approve of what she said.  Don't get worked up, it's not worth it to get upset over someone behaving poorly.  And I still love ya sister, even if you call me a hypocrite.

[Running Gator]

23 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

I guess you didn't see the video about this, it was her actions that caused the disturbance.  I don't condone what she said, nor do I agree with what she said.  If I had my way no one would think or act in such a manner, but I have learned I don't always get my way, I'm over it.  The ultimate goal is to silence the truth, and I will continue to stand up for liberty, regardless of how unpopular that is.

I know you don't get it now, but one day you will, and when you see the truth silenced and places like churches and this forum silenced you will remember that someone told you it was coming.  I rather enjoy discussing things with all of you, and would prefer to keep that going for as long as possible.

God bless

If this is nothing more than a liberty issue, then it seems we have to liberties that are clashing and they both cannot "win".  

One on side you have the freedom of speech liberty in which it seems that people should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want and there should be zero restrictions. 

Then on the other side you have the liberty of the private entity that owns the location/business.  They should have the liberty to set the rules and regulations in such a way that is conducive to their business making money, which is the only purpose of a business.  

Why, in the mind of those who are against WalMart doing this, is the first liberty more important than the second one?

[Steve_S]

2 hours ago, Running Gator said:

No, she would not have a case as Walmart is not part of the government and thus would not fall under the ruling of the Michigan SC.  

Laws against discrimination and conduct rules by private entities are apples and oranges.

I'm not so sure they are apples and oranges. For instance, what if wal mart decides to institute a policy that says that one cannot speak arabic in their stores?