Applebee's was a no go...
- Thread starter tamarahvt
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- provari vapor pro virgin vapor
- Status
We aren't talking about who you associate with, but about the basic rights of a citizen to be treated like any other citizen when we walk into a business. We all have a right to buy gas, eat food, or shop for groceries, regardless of our backgrounds or skin color.
Way to miss the point.
Nice rant though.
Way to miss the point.
Nice rant though.
Dragging racial stereotype wording into the thread is not needed, no matter the context ..
Yes, actually, we are. When I walk into a store and exchange currency for goods, I am creating an association with that business owner. He or she is agreeing to take my money for their goods or services. It is an agreement between us. If he chooses not to accept my money because I have dark skin and black hair, he should be able to do that. His loss, as I will choose to take my patronage elsewhere, and most likely word will get out that he is a racist ...... and eventually, he will go out of business.
I don't believe in forfeiting my constitutional right to associate or disassociate simply so a powerful entity can point a gun at someone else's head so they have no choice but to sell me goods and services...or hire me...or serve me a drink.
And it wasn't a rant. Rants are emotional explosions devoid of reason...sort of what you exhibited earlier.
Last edited:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 disagrees with you.
Just to clear up the air on this one - the CRA of 1964 only covers protected classes, which (very heavily and grossly summarized) usually defined either in a race, ethnic, or religious manner.
Technically speaking, a place can refuse to serve someone (by asking them to leave, calling local security to escort them, or calling the police) for other reasons. It can be as contrived as you can imagine, but as long as it is reasonable, justifiable, or provable, it may/can/will stand up in court (if you actually decide to sue - which would mostly be a waste of time).
I have to agree with Pheisty on this one. I think discrimination for any reason is stupid and pointless and would cause an incredible amount of resentment and anger in the person being discriminated against. But that's the price you pay for a free society. Of course we think the removal of some freedoms is ok for the right reasons until the day comes when we suddenly discover they're all gone.
good idea...hmmm, speaking of which, it's time for me to order more medicine...
You say that now. Ask my husband what it's like being married to a volatile Italian woman and you may change your mind. Heheheh
I feel his pain
Yes, it DOES make you a proponent of institutionalized racism. You stated yourself, "I also believe that they have the right to refuse service to anyone." Without stating who is the person the owners have the right to refuse service to, then, yes, you are a proponent of institutionalized racism. You're suggesting in your comment that they can refuse service to ANYONE who they don't want in their building.
If we still believed in this, then property owners will discriminate everyone who is not like them from entering into their establishment. Without the law, we would still be a segregated society. It doesn't matter if it still happens even though the law exists. Without the law, we would have no right to fight back. Or, did you forget how hard it was for the African-American people to create this law in the first place? We NEED the Civil Rights Act in order to have some power to fight against discrimination.....
Which is WAY off topic from the topic of this thread....so Let's NOT have a discussion on why it is important to have a law to protect us from discrimination.
Jen
P.S. Almighty God never said any racial slurs in his comment. I don't even know where you even got that idea from.
Last edited:
If you hold it just a minute and exhale slowly nothing much is visible. I vape everywhere I just try not to make big clouds when I'm in a store or restaurant.
Actually...business owners DO have the right to refuse business to anyone. They only break the law if they give the reason. For example...I can refuse to serve a person a beer. I don't need to give a reason. If the person wants to give me any crap about it, I can call the police and have them removed. Now if I say I'm not going to serve you because you are white...THEN I'm in trouble. But I agree with Pheisty. A business owner should have the right to operate and do what he/she wants. It's his/her property/business. If they want to let people in who smoke...they should be able to do that.
Once or twice ... OK, a few times during a meal, I stealth vape, get my nic hit, and put it back in my pocket. I have yet for anyone to act like they noticed. My wife is always self conscious and thinks someone is going to come over and ask my to stop.
I take the eGo if we are going to eat most of the time. The Provari is harder to hide.
I take the eGo if we are going to eat most of the time. The Provari is harder to hide.
Jen, if you would go back and read every post, you would see that I quoted AG when he did use the racial slurs, and if you would read the other posts, you would see that other people got after him for it, and he stated that he would delete them. So now that we have that out of the way, let me try to get you to think a little differently than our media and zombie culture has trained you to.
First of all, just because government says that something is illegal or wrong does not mean that you are eradicating the behavior, or changing people's minds and hearts. All it does is drive the behavior underground and make politicians and other do-gooders get elected and feel good about themselves. (Case-in-point: The War on Drugs.)
This idea that we can institutionalize (using your term) morality is naive and illogical. I believe that people's minds and hearts can be changed through rational discussion (awareness) and through the heart (understanding that we are all part of the human experience and have similar wants/needs). You believe in putting a gun to people's heads and taking away their right to associate or disassociate (a true and expressed "right" as outlined in our Founding Documents), for a made-up right that is NOT expressed in our Founding Documents (being able to purchase goods and services, etc, from wherever and whomever we wish).
You have bought into this idea of creating "rights" where there are none, and in the process destroy the ones that already exist (albeit unknowingly and with the best of intentions), thus eroding liberty and freedom for all Americans.
And AG started it...I responded...a little back-and-forth...and then it ended...and then you brought it up again. So you're just as guilty as I am. And actually, I happen to think that these discussions are good to have and are actually quite healthy. Just because people disagree doesn't mean that they shouldn't engage. People just need to learn to stop getting so offended, take out the emotion, and have logical, factual, thoughtful discussions with each other.
Last edited:
Recently eating lunch out with my mom at Outback (she's a new vaper, too), I was semi-stealth vaping and she got nervous for the same reason your wife did. My response was "And...?"
If someone asks me to stop, I'll stop, and while that hasn't happened yet, I don't think it would bother me.
Besides, they'd have to catch me first.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. The way I interpreted what you had written in the post was that we shouldn't even bother with making laws for equality, because people are going to be racist regardless of the law. I am NOT naive to thinking that racism does not exist if laws are made. I just believe that once there is a law, even though people are apt to break them, then those who are being abused will have a chance of fighting for their rights without the need for violence (as we have seen from history).
For example, in the '60's, African-Americans have had a helluva time trying to get equal rights.....why??? Because, there weren't any rights to begin with....they HAD to FIGHT to get those rights (literally! Remember the films where cops would have dogs attack crowds of people while fireman hosed everyone down? or the video footage of people getting beatings by the police?). Just ask anyone who lived during that decade. Segregation was LEGAL. Having Whites and Colored only bathrooms, water fountains, restaurants, schools, buses, etc, etc, etc was the norm. This does not mean that they eradicated racism. Any person of racial or ethnic origin other than white can tell you that...hell, I'm half white and half Korean...I have experienced a lot of discrimination because of my mixed heritage. People will have their biases and prejudice, but the law is there to protect us if someone is being flagrantly abusive. An example of this was in the '90s, Rodney King was videotaped getting beaten by several cops in L.A. With that film footage, those cops were found guilty, and it opened our eyes to the prejudice that some cops have against people of another race. Without the Civil Rights Law enacted in the '60s, those L.A. cops would not have been found guilty. Rodney King would most definitely be dead and the white officers would have been commended for killing him.
As to Meggers, who said that a property owner can discriminate against someone as long as they don't give them a reason,....you are exactly right. This is the EXACT point I am trying to make. As long as they don't give a reason, they can not get in trouble for being prejudiced or biased. The are not being obvious and flagrant about their discrimination. The second they say that someone can not eat in their establishment because they are black, white, fat, skinny, too tall, too short, too ugly, too pretty, etc, etc, etc, then they can be sued for discrimination under the Civil Rights law. The video footage captured by onlookers in the Rodney King trial is an example of flagrant abuse. If a property owner is video taped saying or doing something against the law, then they can get in trouble for it.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post. In the post, you quoted AG in a post where he did not use racial slurs. If you had pointed out the exact post where he had used said racial slurs, it would've been easier to reference. Also, I think a mod either deleted or edited the post, because I did not see a post with racial slurs.(I also went back again to see the post you were referring to but can not find it.)
Now, that I know that you are not FOR racism, then we are in agreement, and we can quit talking about racial equality in this country since this thread isn't even about racial equality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, btw, I just vaped freely at my doctor's office and at Barnes & Noble, and NO ONE said anything. I used my Bolt mod (which had an extension to fit an 18650 batt) and casually took a couple of hits off of it while perusing the aisles, and while sitting down with a cup of coffee and reading. Basically, if you look sketchy while vaping, then people will assume you are doing something illegal.
Key points I have learned to vaping in public:
1. Don't look sketchy when vaping. This means don't look around at people like you are looking to see if someone is watching.
2. Don't blow huge vapor clouds indoors. Of course, if you are around smokers, then by all means, blow as big a cloud of vapor your PV can muster! haha! This may convince smokers to give vaping a try.
3. If someone objects, then just be considerate, and stop.
I've only had 1 person ask me to stop and that was the first time I vaped in public. I did not know about the double inhale trick and tried to just cover the blue light at the end of my KR8 and vape into my jacket at the movies, I thought I was being considerate. Apparently, it still bothered the guy behind me. After he asked me to stop, I didn't vape for the rest of the movie until the movie ended, and the guy was fine with it.
Ever since then, I used the tricks I have learned from the vets, and I haven't had anyone object. I will continue to do this, so I can at least get people to see that there is nothing wrong with vaping and that it is not like smoking.
With smoking, you can't hide the smoke. With vaping, you can hide the vapor produced by your PV. When we hide the act of vaping, we are just contributing to people's ignorance by making people think vaping = smoking.
Jen
Last edited:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 disagrees with you.
There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:
Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
(as a former restaurant owner in NYC and an Italian i had a sign that said "we proudly serve feisty hot headed Italian woman here.. would u like them on a bun to to go" )
but to keep this on topic.. i do not vape from the pulpit.. but im thinking about making a holder for my mod in the lectern..
blessings folks..
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
