Richard Spencer gets bulied by woman in gym, loses gym membership

[LeisureSuit912]

I was being sarcastic when I said "Yeah, that's exactly what I loving said".
This isn't a discussion of someone's politics and beliefs determining whether or not they're a bad person. It's about people getting locked out of having a normal life for their beliefs. What's really funny is, you're probably one of those people who complained when some christians said they wont bake a cake for a gay couple. Well how is this any different? Yeah, you're a private business, but does that give you the right to discriminate based on ideology? That's bullstuff man.

When your ideology calls for the destruction of other people's personal lives, I think that's when the line is crossed.

Also, stop with the "christians refusing to bake cakes" comparison. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

[Ad Bot]

[Juncoph]

I can't believe people are arguing about this stuff for 16 pages. The woman clearly verbally abused Spencer and therefore she should be the one having her gym membership revoked. I don't know the legality of all this but refusing service because of someone's political or ideological beliefs is handicapped and considered censorship.

Believe me I don't like spencer either but the rules shouldn't bend towards my opinion of who I like and dislike. The discussion ends there.

Also both sides are equally handicapped for obsessing over the semantics of the word 'national socialist.' He clearly falls into the category of white supremacist which is super similar to national socialist, and either way its not even worth debating

i love you

but, for the record, to be a national socialist you have to be a member of the national socialist german workers' party (NSDAP) which no longer exists. people like spencer are thus neo-national socialists.

[Trogtor]

Also, stop with the "christians refusing to bake cakes" comparison. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

how?

[Insert Name Here²]

Also, stop with the "christians refusing to bake cakes" comparison. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

its called using an brown townogy to prove a point

Dont cherry pick

[Insert Name Here²]

but, for the record, to be a national socialist you have to be a member of the national socialist german worker's party (NSDAP) which no longer exists. people like spencer are thus neo-national socialists.

qft

[ultimamax]

Sounds like a bullstuff reason to revoke membership one way or the other. This is completely what I mean by throwing credibility out the window, this is just downright ridiculous.

What's bullstuff about it? The gym had workers that weren't white, clearly, and it would be understandable that they'd be uncomfortable in Spencer's presence even if he's a "model gym-goer".

Seventh also captured an aspect of it I completely didn't think about, which is that having one of the biggest faces of white supremacy as a member of your gym is also just bad business

[Deus Ex]

When your ideology calls for the destruction of other people's personal lives, I think that's when the line is crossed.

Also, stop with the "christians refusing to bake cakes" comparison. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

Yes it is. You are refusing services to someone based on ideological disagreement. It's like kicking someone out of your restaurant for having MAGA hats. They may not be as egregious as Spencer's beliefs, but the point is, at what point are you going to put your foot down and say it's not okay for stuff like this to happen? Because if you're okay with this, then you'd have to be okay with people losing gym memberships because they believe in global warming. It's the same stuff. They aren't hurting anyone by having these beliefs. They aren't hurting anyone by expressing them. Free speech, at all times, or not at all.

[Rally]

I don't know the legality of all this but refusing service because of someone's political or ideological beliefs is handicapped and considered censorship.

This. Richard Spencer getting kicked out of a gym only represents an example of when the right to refuse service doesn't negatively impact a disaffected group. I think giving the owner of a business the right to refuse service to someone for any reason whatsoever is only going to open avenues for oppression in towns and cities where bigoted social tenancies are normalized. Throwing them under the bus isn't worth owning Richard Spencer on national news

[otto-san]

When your ideology calls for the destruction of other people's personal lives, I think that's when the line is crossed.

Also, stop with the "christians refusing to bake cakes" comparison. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

it is the same thing in a very particular sense: you're letting a business owner act as a moral arbitrator. if you allow businesses to be authoritative on what is and isn't acceptable, you immediately legitimize and create a pedestal for real discrimination. this is the fundamental problem with 'religious freedom' bills that allow business to do this, and the same principle does apply here. this is the sort of thing where a blanket statement on a particular ideology or trait is what's dangerous. the reality of the situation here is that this was not a blanket action, this was an action against a very specific individual for specific circumstances, and that is what makes this different. if a business has legitimate reason to believe that continuing to provide service to a customer will have a real negative impact on their business function, i would say it's very reasonable to deny service, and i get the impression that this is what happened here.

[crazies alt]

even if richard is beaming with racism i dont think thats a valid reason to kick someone from your establishment

[Ragequit]

even if richard is beaming with racism i dont think thats a valid reason to kick someone from your establishment

unless he's preaching tribal stuff in the gym or wearing a t shirt reading "forget brown skins" yes

[beachbum111111]

Also, stop with the "christians refusing to bake cakes" comparison. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

Except it is and you sperging out doesn't change that.

[bloody jumper]

(gonna preface this by saying this is my opinion, not trying to ruffle any feathers)
I think if a business takes your money to do a service and then decides suddenly to not provide it because they disagree with you, that's theft. A business (a lot like a possession) is the owner's property, and they should have the right to do what they want with it. If they don't want to serve a certain race, gender, or ideology, they're going to have to face the consequences. For example: Lowered income, and word of mouth spreading about their bias (leading to more reduced income as people shop elsewhere). But they have the right, as property owners, to do what they want with what they have. But however, if this business is receiving funding from the government or is getting tax exemptions (churches for example) they have to abide by different rules. I hope you people who disagree with me can see this from my standpoint.

[crazies alt]

unless he's preaching tribal stuff in the gym or wearing a t shirt reading "forget brown skins" yes

but was he ? ? ?

[PhantOS]

Also, stop with the "christians refusing to bake cakes" comparison. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

A business refusing to serve people because of their beliefs, race or gender SHOULD be illegal. I don't know how some states handle it, but it should. At the same time, beliefs includes personal ideology as well as religious beliefs.

Christians refusing to bake a cake is just a business refusing to serve a customer because of their beliefs/preferences. This incident with richard spencer is also a business refusing to serve a customer for the same reason as above. There's literally no difference de jure