But you didn't make that stipulation before and now you're backtracking on it, which is what typically happens. Police have no business enforcing discrimination...except when they do. Face it in the end we have government enforced discrimination all the time.
But the public doesn't own the business. Therefore it is a private business. This whole nonsense of being open to the public is a legal fiction. Either the business belongs to the owner(s) and is a private one and subject to all the same rights and freedoms as the owner(s) or it is owned by the public and thus subject to the non-discrimination requirements of the government.
Easy enough since both you and I would agree that the gun wielder in this case is violating another person's right (most likely. Can't say for sure unless you specify the crime). But it is obvious that there is disagreement on whether or not there is a right to not be discriminated against. We both agree that the government cannot do so. And actually we both agree that the private individual can do so in most situations. You simply don't want to believe that part of a person's private property and the inherent rights of that and himself are applicable at times and places that you don't like him exercising them. Use an actual comparable example where the action of the person is more subjective as to whether or not they are violating a right.
Not surprising. One does not have to know about something in order to interact with it, even if he objects to it. You object to murder and yet your friend, unbeknownst to you, is a murderer. Federalist objects to the use of eminent domain and yet might be using a facility, unknowingly, that was taken by eminent domain. It does not make him any more hypocritical to use such a facility than it would you being friends with the murderer. Similarly, if the only facility available to do a required task was obtained by eminent domain and he had no alternatives (phone, internet, etc), he would still not be hypocritical. That would be like protesting the work conditions in the shop but continuing to work there since you need the money. Finally we can play 6 degrees of separation with just about anything and probably find a connection to eminent domain. It is rather unreasonable to hold to account anyone for secondary relations to that which he opposes.
Finally you still have not proven anything as far as his association to eminent domain facilities. At best you can cite odds, but for all you know Federalist may live in a small town where they have never used eminent domain and no higher level has ever needed to make use of it. You cannot in any honesty show that he indeed benefits from eminent domain. Unless you're stalking him and then we have other issues to address.
Credit where credit is due....dude that was pitiful even for deflection. Your answer had absolutely nothing to do with the question posed. You entirely changed the premise. If you want to discredit the premise that is one thing, or show where it is incompatible to the topic at hand. But you don't get to change it and not get called out on it.
Sorry it is discrimination. Just because the liberals are trying to confine the concept of discrimination to just their special groups, it does not mean that any discrimination outside those groups is not still discrimination. If you base it upon the color of the person's hair....discrimination. Left or right handed....discrimination. Cat owner or dog owner....discrimination.
In the example you were indeed prejudiced. You made an assumption based upon the visual without really giving the person a chance that show whether or not they fall within your stereotype. By acting upon that prejudice, i.e. not hiring them to babysit, you discriminated.
