[codexon]

I am merely enlightening you to the fact that "private property" is not a catch-all excuse to discriminate and revoke "invitations" to people, which you seem to believe.

What's next? Maybe you'd like to include homosexuals and Muslims next because you can change your religion and sexual practices?

It's quite a dangerous precedent you are setting, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the 3rd amendment. The 3rd amendment deals with government troops and the right for troops to trespass on private property during war.

[nathanieljones]

It appears we must agree to disagree. If I cannot choose who visits my property, I would hardly call it private.

[codexon]

Private property does not automatically make an event private.

In this case, this was a US government funded event (taxpayer money), with tickets handed out to the __public__. The only thing private about this was that the area was rented from a private owner.

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-1085.pdf

If you think this is private, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you support restaurants, supermarkets, and businesses being able to discriminate based on whether someone wasn't Christian or white.

[nathanieljones]

No, I would not label this event private. Yet you would apparently label no event as private, with your continued references to supermarkets, resteraunts, and the like. You can't frame the debate as bring about publicly-funded events and then use examples of privately-run ones for your arguments.

Anyway, in most areas, I actually am ok with "discrimination." What is morally reprehensible about running an event designed to disciple someone in their religion, then asking people of another religion to stay away? I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah. Nor would I be terribly thrilled if I was on a men's campout and we were forced to bring women along. Like it or not, we aren't all the same, and sometimes we need to hang out with people like us in a certain area. As long as you aren't terrorizing a certain group of people out of hatred, private property laws should allow you to decide who comes on your property.

If the government pays for an event, that's another matter entirely, but please choose which debate we are having and use relevant examples so I can be clear going forward.

[codexon]

It's the same concept.You cannot use the excuse of "private property" to allow arbitrary discrimination when you are selectively serving the public.

This opens the flood gates for supermarkets, restaurants, and businesses that serve the public to discriminate based on race, religion etc. This is not a world you want to live in.

How would you feel if all the banks in your area refused to lend or deposit for you because your political views? How would you feel if you could not find a place to live or rent because the "private" housing and apartment communities decide that they don't like your race?

> I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah.

Why do you keep arguing about this when the people in the article weren't even picketing at the event? They were merely attending it. Please try to stay on topic.

[pbhjpbhj]

Why did you say "Christian or white" and not "[on someone's] religion or skin colour"?

[codexon]

Why not?

It is the dominant category in the US and has been often been used as a reason for discrimination in the past especially among supporters for segregation.

By using a concrete example, I hope I can help him or others realize absurdity of his views.

[pbhjpbhj]

Thanks for expanding.

As for why not: well, because it implies that you believe people who are Christian are racist and white. Perhaps also because the disjunct suggests that you believe race and religious choice to be equivalent with regards to discrimination - one is a choice the other is not.

Plus the story is about removing those with dissenting views from a social invitation only event in a private location.

Suppose the president practised homosexual sex and the bumper sticker was a "God hate fags" one. Do you maintain your view?

[codexon]

> Plus the story is about removing those with dissenting views from a social invitation only event in a private location.

Just because the event was hosted in a private location does not make it a private event. Just because a supermarket or restaurant is privately owned doesn't make it a private service. Saying that it does allows people to selectively discriminate based on race.

Yes I would maintain my view if they were merely attending the speech and not being a nuisance: which is the case in this article.