Then they can also refuse to bake your cake.

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

Agree on all counts.

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

Yep.

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

Bearitto said:

---

Then they can also refuse to bake your cake.

---

You think baking a cake for Jim and Bob's wedding is the same as slowing the spread of a global pandemic? (Or more directly, protecting the health of your customers and employees?)

I'm not offering an opinion on the cake. I see your "irony" cuts both ways. During the cake scandal, conservatives argued private companies have a right to set their rules.

tommie said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Then they can also refuse to bake your cake.

---

You think baking a cake for Jim and Bob's wedding is the same as slowing the spread of a global pandemic? (Or more directly, protecting the health of your customers and employees?)

I'm not offering an opinion on the cake. I see your "irony" cuts both ways. During the cake scandal, conservatives argued private companies have a right to set their rules.

---

No. I think free speech, free association and freedom of religion are significantly more important than actions which are marginally effective at prophylaxes for a disease that should be renamed "The Nursing Home Killer".

Whether it's because you want to hide your face in fear of a disease that is statistically unlikely to harm you in any meaningful way or because you want to exercise one of the freedoms mentioned above, you should have the right to do as you please in your place of business. If you support the right to refuse service to customers not wearing masks, you should have the right to refuse service to customers for any other reason as well.

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

Exactly what group is being discriminated against?

When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, are they discriminating?

Again, no one is interfering with your "freedom". You are free to not do business with them.

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

Exactly what group is being discriminated against?

When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, are they discriminating?

Again, no one is interfering with your "freedom". You are free to not do business with them.

---

Yes. When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, they are indeed discriminating. I am saying it is their right to do so, in the same way it is the right of a baker to not make a wedding cake for two gay men. Do you disagree?

Again, you don't seem to be understanding the point I am making. Please go back through my posts and see if you might better understand by reading slowly and deliberately. The wording used isn't complex or circuitous in any way.

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

Exactly what group is being discriminated against?

When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, are they discriminating?

Again, no one is interfering with your "freedom". You are free to not do business with them.

---

Yes. When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, they are indeed discriminating. I am saying it is their right to do so, in the same way it is the right of a baker to not make a wedding cake for two gay men. Do you disagree?

Again, you don't seem to be understanding the point I am making. Please go back through my posts and see if you might better understand by reading slowly and deliberately. The wording used isn't complex or circuitous in any way.

---

Again, who are they discriminating against with said policies?

And I don't have a problem with the wedding cake business. They have every right to do as they please, just as any business that wants the customers to wear masks, or any business that wants the customers to wear shoes and shirts, or any business that wants the customers to be to a certain standard (upscale steak houses as an example). There is no discrimination in any of these cases, it is just business choices these businesses have made and they have to face any possible push-back from the public if these policies are controversial.

Maybe you should read what I've written slowly and take your time understanding what I've said. I haven't used any complex theories and I've tried to dumb it down for you as much as possible. I read it to my 3rd grader, and he understood it, so you should be fine. I can explain this to you, but sadly, I can't understand it for you.

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

Exactly what group is being discriminated against?

When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, are they discriminating?

Again, no one is interfering with your "freedom". You are free to not do business with them.

---

Yes. When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, they are indeed discriminating. I am saying it is their right to do so, in the same way it is the right of a baker to not make a wedding cake for two gay men. Do you disagree?

Again, you don't seem to be understanding the point I am making. Please go back through my posts and see if you might better understand by reading slowly and deliberately. The wording used isn't complex or circuitous in any way.

---

Again, who are they discriminating against with said policies?

And I don't have a problem with the wedding cake business. They have every right to do as they please, just as any business that wants the customers to wear masks, or any business that wants the customers to wear shoes and shirts, or any business that wants the customers to be to a certain standard (upscale steak houses as an example). There is no discrimination in any of these cases, it is just business choices these businesses have made and they have to face any possible push-back from the public if these policies are controversial.

Maybe you should read what I've written slowly and take your time understanding what I've said. I haven't used any complex theories and I've tried to dumb it down for you as much as possible. I read it to my 3rd grader, and he understood it, so you should be fine. I can explain this to you, but sadly, I can't understand it for you.

---

You seem very confused. Do you understand what discrimination means? One discriminates when one prefers one thing over another. That can be for any reason. Your discriminating tastes may lead you to select chocolate over vanilla. It doesn't need to be based on immutable characteristics. One can discriminate against Cowboys fans or ***** hat wearers or those choosing not to wear shirt, shoes or masks. Regardless of the reason, each is discrimination.

Since presumably you agree with my explicit statements that businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason, you appear to be arguing about how the word discrimination makes you feel. Feel better.

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

Exactly what group is being discriminated against?

When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, are they discriminating?

Again, no one is interfering with your "freedom". You are free to not do business with them.

---

at a beach restaurant, it is potentially discriminating against those that may not be spending as much money with you as those dressed for dinner. It is not strictly a health concern.

Business owners should be allowed to do business with whom they please and for whatever reason they please.

I am against the no smoking ordinances in restaurants. At the same time, I had no idea how much I enjoyed smoke-free restaurants until I walked into a smoked-filled one recently.

I, like everyone else, get to choose where I spend my money.

Bearrito is on a tear these past two months. He/she has gone from an unknown to one of the Bottom Three posters on this board.

Quite the accomplishment.

BaylorBJM said:

---

Bearrito is on a tear these past two months. He/she has gone from an unknown to one of the Bottom Three posters on this board.

Quite the accomplishment.

---

High praise indeed and particularly valuable from someone who doesn't know up from down.

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

I totally agree. I still don't understand why the couple wanted such a backwards, idiotic baker to bake them a cake either, but in America, we have the right to total stupidity.

By the way, in both cases, it's not really discrimination the way the law defines it. If chickfila closes on Sunday, are they discriminating against Sunday eaters? Or are they choosing how to do business?

At a lower level, yes businesses can discriminate against science denying idiots. It's called Murica, look it up.

Bearitto said:

---

BaylorBJM said:

---

Bearrito is on a tear these past two months. He/she has gone from an unknown to one of the Bottom Three posters on this board.

Quite the accomplishment.

---

High praise indeed and particularly valuable from someone who doesn't know up from down.

---

Congratulations on your achievement, you are an inspiration to many of us.

Porteroso said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

I totally agree. I still don't understand why the couple wanted such a backwards, idiotic baker to bake them a cake either, but in America, we have the right to total stupidity.

By the way, in both cases, it's not really discrimination the way the law defines it. If chickfila closes on Sunday, are they discriminating against Sunday eaters? Or are they choosing how to do business?

At a lower level, yes businesses can discriminate against science denying idiots. It's called Murica, look it up.

---

Reading your posts is like watching a monkey try to **** a football.

Bearitto said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

I totally agree. I still don't understand why the couple wanted such a backwards, idiotic baker to bake them a cake either, but in America, we have the right to total stupidity.

By the way, in both cases, it's not really discrimination the way the law defines it. If chickfila closes on Sunday, are they discriminating against Sunday eaters? Or are they choosing how to do business?

At a lower level, yes businesses can discriminate against science denying idiots. It's called Murica, look it up.

---

Reading your posts is like watching a monkey try to **** a football.

---

Either very strange or very telling; this ad just popped up on the same link where I trade BU football tickets
https://www.makemascot.com/Simian-Gorilla-Mascot-Costume?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyZvG_P7O6QIVEdvACh0hgwjpEAQYASABEgJJr_D_BwE

BaylorBJM said:

---

Bearrito is on a tear these past two months. He/she has gone from an unknown to one of the Bottom Three posters on this board.

Quite the accomplishment.

---

Stay frosty so you don't lose that coveted #1 Bottom Poster

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

contrario said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

I think you misunderstood the point. This is discrimination. It certainly is. And it's discrimination that every business owner (which isn't a monopolistic utility with special government protections) has the absolute right to engage in. Just like refusing to bake wedding cakes.

---

Exactly what group is being discriminated against?

When businesses have "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policies, are they discriminating?

Again, no one is interfering with your "freedom". You are free to not do business with them.

---

I think that's the point. If a bakery doesn't want to bake you a gay wedding cake, you are free to find another bakery.

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

My sister is a nurse...doesn't wear one in public. Her husband is a nurse...doesn't wear one in public. She tells me that behind close doors, many medical professionals are rolling their eyes at the public panic and the "mask-wearing" nazis.

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

A while back you posted that wearing a mask was unnecessary because it did nothing to help if you were socially distanced. I inferred from that remark that cloth masks do in fact reduce the spread of the droplets but that the utility for doing so when people were already 6 feet apart was minimal to non-existent.

Am I wrong about that?

And if not, what is the harm in the redundancy?

Booray said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

A while back you posted that wearing a mask was unnecessary because it did nothing to help if you were socially distanced. I inferred from that remark that cloth masks do in fact reduce the spread of the droplets but that the utility for doing so when people were already 6 feet apart was minimal to non-existent.

Am I wrong about that?

And if not, what is the harm in the redundancy?

---

If you choose to be redundant, there's nothing wrong with that. If I choose not to be, there's nothing wrong with that either.

Booray said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

A while back you posted that wearing a mask was unnecessary because it did nothing to help if you were socially distanced. I inferred from that remark that cloth masks do in fact reduce the spread of the droplets but that the utility for doing so when people were already 6 feet apart was minimal to non-existent.

Am I wrong about that?

And if not, what is the harm in the redundancy?

---

You are not wrong, additionally, there is nothing wrong with redundancy. This thread was about barrier to entry without a mask which I find not only absurd but completely without utility. You want to wear one, be my guest, just don't shame me for my choice to go without.

Gold Tron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

A while back you posted that wearing a mask was unnecessary because it did nothing to help if you were socially distanced. I inferred from that remark that cloth masks do in fact reduce the spread of the droplets but that the utility for doing so when people were already 6 feet apart was minimal to non-existent.

Am I wrong about that?

And if not, what is the harm in the redundancy?

---

You are not wrong, additionally, there is nothing wrong with redundancy. This thread was about barrier to entry without a mask which I find not only absurd but completely without utility. You want to wear one, be my guest, just don't shame me for my choice to go without.

---

Not shaming you and much of the prescribed reaction does feel like "belt and suspenders." My wife is a principal and I look at the CDC recommendations for schools and think "that is impossible."

On the other hand, it is pretty clear that lost of people refuse to socially distance-indoors and from people who they don't know-- and refuse to wear a mask. Its a lot easier for a store to identify and deal with those not wearing a mask versus those not socially distancing.

fadskier said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

My sister is a nurse...doesn't wear one in public. Her husband is a nurse...doesn't wear one in public. She tells me that behind close doors, many medical professionals are rolling their eyes at the public panic and the "mask-wearing" nazis.

---

Yep, I hear same just about every day. Seems those on the front lines know something many of us don't know.

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

Agreed, but his point stands. As with your scenario, the trans activist can go to another cake store to celebrate his perversion.

contrario said:

---

Exactly what group is being discriminated against?

---

The Dumb

Booray said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

A while back you posted that wearing a mask was unnecessary because it did nothing to help if you were socially distanced. I inferred from that remark that cloth masks do in fact reduce the spread of the droplets but that the utility for doing so when people were already 6 feet apart was minimal to non-existent.

Am I wrong about that?

And if not, what is the harm in the redundancy?

---

Bar someone because they are not redundant? Sounds a little OCD.

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

A while back you posted that wearing a mask was unnecessary because it did nothing to help if you were socially distanced. I inferred from that remark that cloth masks do in fact reduce the spread of the droplets but that the utility for doing so when people were already 6 feet apart was minimal to non-existent.

Am I wrong about that?

And if not, what is the harm in the redundancy?

---

Bar someone because they are not redundant? Sounds a little OCD.

---

No, bar someone because its impossible to keep people 6 feet apart and at that point, the mask is no longer redundant. This isn't that hard to understand.

Booray said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

A while back you posted that wearing a mask was unnecessary because it did nothing to help if you were socially distanced. I inferred from that remark that cloth masks do in fact reduce the spread of the droplets but that the utility for doing so when people were already 6 feet apart was minimal to non-existent.

Am I wrong about that?

And if not, what is the harm in the redundancy?

---

Bar someone because they are not redundant? Sounds a little OCD.

---

No, bar someone because its impossible to keep people 6 feet apart and at that point, the mask is no longer redundant. This isn't that hard to understand.

---

Then why do you need to cite "redundancy" and then come back and talk about why the redundancy doesn't exist? If your argument is that it's impossible to keep 6 feet apart, why try to bolster it with the "no harm in redundancy" comment? I swear, some of you guys just love to twist yourselves into pretzels just to pretend you are right. Now you are saying that someone is not being barred because they aren't wearing a mask, but because the business can't keep them 6 feet away from other customers. What's hard to understand is which rationale you espouse is the actual one you want to own.

CHP Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Gold Tron said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is a difference. Refusal to serve blacks is an issue based upon prejudice against personal characteristics. Refusal to serve someone on wearing a mask is a public health and safty issue.

---

Not entirely. Refusing to serve someone for not wearing a mask is a pride issue. I wear a mask every day at work and have done so now for more than 20 years. There is a big difference in my trying to protect someone from my germs when they have an open wound and walking around in public when you have the benefit of the integumentary system which is quite a formidable defense. I love all the lectures from the Internet Chads and Karen's that had never worn a mask before March telling the rest of us how to live. If I thought a mask would keep me safe, trust me, I would wear one. If I truly thought it would curb the spread of Covid-19, trust me, I would wear one.

---

My sister is a nurse...doesn't wear one in public. Her husband is a nurse...doesn't wear one in public. She tells me that behind close doors, many medical professionals are rolling their eyes at the public panic and the "mask-wearing" nazis.

---

Yep, I hear same just about every day. Seems those on the front lines know something many of us don't know.

---

I realize Karen Truett will pop-up with his magical mystery doctor friend, but similarly - the passion for wearing masks seems inversely proportional to medical experience. Every doctor or nurse I have asked laughed and said they were pointless.

Mothra said:

---

contrario said:

---

Are you for or against "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy or not?

There is no discriminating involved here...just public health concerns by a private business. If you don't agree with a business taking these measures, don't do business with them.

---

Agreed, but his point stands. As with your scenario, the trans activist can go to another cake store to celebrate his perversion.

---

Sorry to chase a rabbit, but my gay friends are the most passionate pro-mask Nazis. I laugh at the irony (behind their back of course like a good queer LOL).