Wow! People forced a company to change behavior without legislation. Go Figger.

[Minor Axis]

So, should the sponsor be forced to stop discriminating against the Muslims and resume advertising on their show?

Wow, this is really a reach if you think this is how those who support anti-discrimination laws think... Your premise is flawed, your conclusion is in error.

And don't you find it the least bit amusing that Christians are in the middle of this equation? BTW I have no problem if a company pulls advertising because a subject is deemed to be a lighting rod of controversy. It is within their rights. And it has no parallel to being denied entrance into a public establishment, open to the public based on your race, religion, or gender. It just burns you up that a restaurant can't say no to a black person because you think it's within their individual rights to do so.

 

[Francis]

Nobody beats a Christian when it comes to being judgmental.

I would go one step further and say nobody beats a religious group when it comes to being judgmental.

 

[Panacea]

I would go one step further and say nobody beats a religious group when it comes to being judgmental.

Aww, but jains are so sweet

 

[Guyzerr]

I would go one step further and say nobody beats a religious group when it comes to being judgmental.

That's the whole point right there. It was a bunch of them that " forced " Lowes to do what they did. Strength in numbers which in this case just means more assholes the world doesn't need.

 

[Joe the meek]

Lowes Corporate is a short drive from my house. I know Lowes personally. I'd never give them any of my business anyways.

 

[Accountable]

That's an entirely different matter isn't it?

That's not an answer, and no, I don't believe it is such a different matter.

 

[Tim]

That's not an answer, and no, I don't believe it is such a different matter.

Then help me understand why you think it's the same.

I see this as a form of "discrimination" against a show. Nobody is denied anything but sponsorship dollars to a corporate owned show about a group of minorities. If they denied this minority into their stores, that's completely different.

So how do you see them as the same?

 

[Accountable]

The basis of the decision, of course. The show is about a minority, an ethnic group, a religion. This bigotry is the whole and only reason for the protest, thus the reason for pulling the sponsorship. It's not different.

 

[Guyzerr]

The basis of the decision, of course. The show is about a minority, an ethnic group, a religion. This bigotry is the whole and only reason for the protest, thus the reason for pulling the sponsorship. It's not different.

The reason they pulled the sponsorship was due only to the backlash they got and what it could have turned in to. That backlash would turn into a boycott and we are all well aware of what the financial repercussions of that would be.

I know you want to ensure that this thread stays on your intended track of prejudicial behavior but I for one won't subscribe to it.

 

[Minor Axis]

I understand where you are going with this thread, but you are not comparing apples to apples here.

That's the only way he can make his discrimination is an "individual right" argument sound reasonable to the end he desires.

 

[Accountable]

The reason they pulled the sponsorship was due only to the backlash they got and what it could have turned in to. That backlash would turn into a boycott and we are all well aware of what the financial repercussions of that would be.

I know you want to ensure that this thread stays on your intended track of prejudicial behavior but I for one won't subscribe to it.

Wouldn't the backlash be due to religious and ethnic bigotry?

 

[Guyzerr]

Wouldn't the backlash be due to religious and ethnic bigotry?

It could be but it could also be attributed to stupidity or the " sheeple principal." Nice try.

 

[Accountable]

It could be but it could also be attributed to stupidity or the " sheeple principal." Nice try.

I don't know what you're afraid of. You act as if you are being trapped. I am simply looking for consistency. Do you really think the headlines will read that there was a sheeple backlash?

 

[Tim]

I still don't understand your argument about being free to discriminate against anyone you wish.

The moment you agree to open a public business you voluntarily give up certain rights to do so.
You may not believe in washing your hands 50 times a day, but if you open a restaurant you MUST do so to protect the public.
You may not want to invest in safety glass for you store windows and doors, but you must to protect the public.
You may not like women, but you must still serve them in the interest of the public you serve.

 

[Accountable]

I still don't understand your argument about being free to discriminate against anyone you wish.

The moment you agree to open a public business you voluntarily give up certain rights to do so.
You may not believe in washing your hands 50 times a day, but if you open a restaurant you MUST do so to protect the public. Apple
You may not want to invest in safety glass for you store windows and doors, but you must to protect the public. Apple
You may not like women, but you must still serve them in the interest of the public you serve. Orange

Also off the current topic. In fact, it flies in the face of the opinions expressed here.

Any business transaction between a businessman and a retail purchaser is the same as a transaction between two businesses, don't you agree? In every transaction there is a buyer and a seller. Why is it okay to refuse to do business based on religious bigotry in one instance and not okay in another?