I think the only way the gov should get involved is regulating that if any store wants to not serve a particular person based on whatever characteristics they should have to have a clear sign in their front window, so the person knows whether they should go in or not... also to let other businesses know they can get their business

let the free market decide

I can well imagine a few on the other side putting signs with crap like "no white men" ... no problem, store opens over the road "we serve everyone"

Businesses that sell shelf-products should let anyone with money shop there
Businesses that custom-make things (artists, etc) get to pick and choose their customers based on their 1st amendment (or equivalent document) rights

That's my current stance anyway

Yeah same.

That's why the cake thing was justified as it was a commission.

I dont see why they should be forced to sell anything...

free market will create a new shop across the road to fill the demand

and the people not serving will go out of business

At the same time I don't really think businesses should be forced to do stuff anymore. Back in the 50s and 60s it was needed but now we've progressed enough as a society that most people won't discriminate just because they can.

imagine the publicity... you open a new cake shop right across the road from that now infamous cake shop... you will make loads of money Im sure

Progress eventually turns regressive and I think that's the point we are at now with lots of laws which actually protected people being turned into jokes that protect no one.

to be fair I didn't mention laws or requirements, just said they (the businesses) "should"

They should yes with no relation to laws.

But if laws should force them is a whole different thing.

checking out a can of beans is hardly something that would fall under "entitled to someone else's labor"

Perhaps it should depend upon the type of service/good being offered

IE you are required to provide essential services and goods to people provided they can pay for it

things like food, water, clothes and cakes on hand should be sold to everyone

However those who provide/creat luxury and custom items/services should be free to decline to work if they do not want to do it

Though I agree with tim, political affiliation/source of income should be on the list of things that cannot be discriminated against

Okay guys here me out,

With Article 13 making memes illegal

What if, we all switched to Internet Explorer 🤔

its so slow, by the time the memes are detected, we'll be long gone
AND, we can claim it was due to poor saftey provided by IE

in Europe that is

everyone else can escape

i have a ton of respect for Jordan peterson when he said "maybe I was wrong about that"

on comedy central

Sam Seder seemed to use it as a way to push his credibility down.

Jordan Peterson has good life advice but shit politics.

It feels like that, but I'd don't believe he's taken enough time in that area.

Jayred The thing that bugs me about Article 13 is it essentially requires more than china level fire walling at the ISP level to control all content. What is fire walled can also be monitored, so it will be an end to anonymity and privacy as well. Then because the US is tied so close to europe, this is going to spill back on the US. I bet that if it passes, within a year we will be getting extradition requests for Americans who broke their laws.

Do we need an internet "Bill of Rights" yet?

Its not easy to admit you were wrong on national TV, especially when you know that your opponents are looking for an opportunity to destroy you.

Im chalking it up as another example of his good character

@Dr.Wol are you saying microsoft funded artilce 13 to increase their share of browser traffic?

i have a wager

The American goverment needs to nationalize platforms like twitter so people can't be censored.

if you align with the regressive left

and the revolution comes, youll be safe

if the revolution comes youre still safe

if you align against the regressive left

and the revolution comes