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

[MorningGlory]

4 hours ago, Running Gator said:

100% and I think there is nothing you can say to refute my post.  

 

Refute it?  Not worth my time; I simply reject it.  You don't get it.

[Running Gator]

8 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Well, your position in the other thread revolved around you not allowing others to tell you what was or was not a curse word.  

Actually, no that was not my position.  My position was that society tells me what is and what is not a curse word and as such it is a thing that is in a constant state of flux.  My whole point in the thread was that there is not some magical list of words that are curse words and always will be.   The problem with many people who grew up being told that A, B, C and D were curse words is they cannot accept that B and D are no longer curse words. 

Quote

I curtail my freedom of speech out of respect for the rules of anyplace that requires it, but that is still by choice.  As I said, I don't do things or say things if I think they may hurt or offend others.  I don't believe that gives me the right to decide for others what is or is not acceptable.  

That is also why I curtail my freedom of speech, which is what I have said multiple times.  When I am at work I follow the rules of what is acceptable to say because they are giving me a paycheck every two weeks.  When I am away from work I do not have to follow those rules.  

Ins't your job as a moderator on this forum to decide what is and is not acceptable?

Quote

 

 Does Walmart have rules posted when someone enters their store, or do they just make them up as they go along?

God bless

 

WalMart makes it up as they go along based on the amount of publicity and perceived damage to sales.  That is all they care about. 

[Running Gator]

7 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Refute it?  Not worth my time; I simply reject it.  You don't get it.

Well, one of us does not that is for sure.   Have you actually read the 1st Amendment? 

[Running Gator]

7 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

What the first amendment is stating is that Congress cannot restrict the freedom of speech, this freedom applies anywhere on American soil.  About 10 years ago here in Michigan there was an incident involving a family.  They took a weekend camping excursion along a popular river here.  On their journey they were in close proximity to a group of young men that continually used profane and explicit language in their presence.  They appealed to the young men to stop on account of their young children that were with them, but the young men refused and got even more vulgar in response.  The couple complained to the DNR who fined the young men.  The young men took their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Michigan (which by the way was majority conservative), and the young men won their case.  The court stated that it was a violation of their 1st amendment right and a 130 year old law was wiped off the books, just like that.

So now here in this state, one can use any kind of language they want in public, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  If you think it can't happen in your state just wait and see when the opportunity presents itself.  Of course now the federal government has deemed certain words as hate crimes, but they don't apply to everyone equally.  The establishment understands that you can't simply take freedom from people, not without a fight, but if you can get them to give it up themselves, the sky is the limit.  People should be careful what they give away, eventually they are going to take something you don't want to give up and it will be too late.

God bless

I fail to see how this ties into the WalMart case.  In this incident it was the government (the entity the 1st Amendment applies to) that was attempting to curtail the freedom of speech by the young men.    This is not the same as a private (as in not the government) company having rules of conduct and speech in their establishments. 

[wingnut-]

47 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Actually, no that was not my position.  My position was that society tells me what is and what is not a curse word and as such it is a thing that is in a constant state of flux.  My whole point in the thread was that there is not some magical list of words that are curse words and always will be.   The problem with many people who grew up being told that A, B, C and D were curse words is they cannot accept that B and D are no longer curse words. 

 

 

Ok, then I guess we didn't agree on the other thread lol.  I think for myself, society is not my authority on anything.

 

49 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Ins't your job as a moderator on this forum to decide what is and is not acceptable?

Quote

 

I'm not a moderator, I am a watchman.  One of the purposes of a watchman is to review moderator actions to ensure that everyone is treated fairly under the terms and conditions of the site.  Also to help assist in spreading the gospel message, to make myself available to any member that wishes to speak with someone privately.  Here is a link below that outlines all of the purposes of a watchman and why the position was created.

 

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/14754-worthy-watchman/

 

1 hour ago, Running Gator said:

WalMart makes it up as they go along based on the amount of publicity and perceived damage to sales.  That is all they care about. 

 

So how is it just to enforce rules no one knows exist and are subject to change as the wind blows?

[wingnut-]

42 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

I fail to see how this ties into the WalMart case.  In this incident it was the government (the entity the 1st Amendment applies to) that was attempting to curtail the freedom of speech by the young men.    This is not the same as a private (as in not the government) company having rules of conduct and speech in their establishments. 

 

Because if that happened here in Michigan the woman would have a case against Walmart for violating her freedom of speech, and if the woman pursues it in Arkansas she would have a case as well.  The only exception would be if her speech was deemed a hate crime, which of course is a direct violation of the Constitution because it is clearly a law that abridges this freedom.  And as I keep pointing out, the government has already injected themselves in the matter of private institutions and said that they cannot make rules that violate the rights of citizens or discriminate against any particular group as outlined by the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

[Running Gator]

5 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Ok, then I guess we didn't agree on the other thread lol.  I think for myself, society is not my authority on anything.

So, your view of what words are "curse" words came totally from within and society had no impact on it what so ever?   That is fascinating. 

 

Quote

So how is it just to enforce rules no one knows exist and are subject to change as the wind blows?

It can be challenging. 

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, wingnut- said:

 

Because if that happened here in Michigan the woman would have a case against Walmart for violating her freedom of speech, and if the woman pursues it in Arkansas she would have a case as well.  The only exception would be if her speech was deemed a hate crime, which of course is a direct violation of the Constitution because it is clearly a law that abridges this freedom.  And as I keep pointing out, the government has already injected themselves in the matter of private institutions and said that they cannot make rules that violate the rights of citizens or discriminate against any particular group as outlined by the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

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.

[wingnut-]

3 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

So, your view of what words are "curse" words came totally from within and society had no impact on it what so ever?   That is fascinating. 

 

 

My view of what are curse words is derived from what the Holy Spirit convicts me of as being curse words, so yeah, it comes from within.

[wingnut-]

1 minute 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.

 

You need to tell that to the Supreme Court of the United States then, because they have told private clubs that their membership restrictions violate the Constitution, they have told the Boy Scouts that their restrictions regarding leadership positions are violations of the Constitution, etc., etc.