Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1.  @ftr841  Yes, I am content with anti-Christians not needing to use their goods towards Christian ends.
    3
  2.  @typaul4859  Nothing wrong with hypotheticals - they are needed so we know how to act should a similar event arise.
    2
  3.  @mabatch3769  how does choosing customers not imply discrimination to some degree
    2
  4.  @mabatch3769  Then they can't freely choose their customers - the state says "you do business with subset x under threat of robbery"
    2
  5.  @GizmoMaltese  yes - both involved implementing means towards mutually exclusive ends. Which ends they are implemented towards should be the say of the prior user.
    1
  6. Trump has clearly just finished reading critique of pure reason
    1
  7.  @dwsmyyth3480  Live and let live, one can imagine
    1
  8.  @SuperPuzzler  Imagine a criminal had just shot a man you absolutely despise, and you are the only one who can treat his wounds in a timely manner, would his friend be entitled to flog you if you refused to treat him?
    1
  9.  @SuperPuzzler  If you are going to argue for such a latecomer ethic, then I presume you have no qualms against being murdered since you clearly think it is not just to discriminate between such uses of your person.
    1
  10.  @SuperPuzzler  Wanting a custom wedding cake could violate the person to as forcing someone to labour for you unconsensually is slavery, which is surely a trespass to the person if I ever heard of one.
    1
  11.  @SuperPuzzler  Disanalogy - the criminal element would not be in the mere request to do x, it would be forcing you to do x already knowing you did not want to do it.
    1
  12.  @SuperPuzzler  It's physically possible, but whether the DMV would exercise their right to fire him is a separate question.
    1
  13. I think discrimination should be allowed against people who don't know what inspect element is
    1
  14.  @mabatch3769  Well, I do presume they will be fined if they refuse to comply, and failing that they will be detained.
    1
  15.  @mabatch3769  ok, so they can break the laws then
    1
  16. Racism is very broad, and not all of it is necessarily criminal
    1
  17. They would have to be discriminatory, as certain uses of the paper and ink would exclude other uses of paper and ink.
    1
  18.  @nicknevins628  It is, it is excluding certain uses of your property
    1