RE: Discrimination in Public Places....

RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

ownedgirlie -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 9:48:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vancouver_cinful quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang I will not by my silence allow that there should be only one view of what is right and what is wrong. The range of what is acceptable must be made wide enough to include everyone's way of life. [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif] "Everyone" is quite a statement.

Wolf1020 -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:02:38 AM)
quote: I never said once that I was surprised that they were thrown out. I said it was not wrong of them to take a stance. Of course they are going to have to face some tough attitudes, and that's why I called it brave. Sorry if I misunderstood. quote: By the way, I was once attacked, and once narrowly missed being hit in the head with a brick for standing in line outside a gay bar in 1983. (The people who attack didn't take a moment to find out if I was straight, they attacked out of hate.) I'm sorry if it offends people that I keep referring to the struggle that gays have gone through but it made me realize that complacency doesn't bring social change, standing up and be willing to take a hit for your rights, does. And that was wrong. If you go to a gay bar or hang out across the street from one as I said in my last post (yours I didn't see before posting) your location places a large part what is and isn't acceptable. A mall it is understood to be unacceptable behavior and should be common sense that walking around by a leash isn't going to be taken as well in the mall as it is at the local BDSM club. It isn't discrimination to boot someone out for expressing none normal views and the owner has every right to do so. And unlike color or race we are talking choices here. Yes, for many gay people they claim they were born that way and it has nothing to do with a choice. Now I'm not gay so I honestly can't say if this is true or not and wont try to. But how you express yourself is 100% choice. Going to the mall with your bf/gf is fine and dandy, but rubbing up on them and kissing them offends many people and shouldn't be done. As I mentioned to begin with I even extend that to strait people but many people will be more offended by a gay couple doing it then a strait couple. BDSM is another one and is more directly connected to the thread. For many people in the lifestyle they don't choose to be Dom, sub, or slave, it is simply who they are and nothing can change that. But what is 100% choice is how we handle ourselves in public and if we act in ways socially acceptable or not. Walking around in a leash or kissing your same sex partner in public isn't socially acceptable and I don't find it brave to try and change that. Blacks died and protested so they could eat at the same restaurants, drink from the same fountains, etc. I fail to see how the two compare. No one is oppressing you based on who you are, if they were there would be signs saying "No Gays" or "No kinky people" or whatever else your mind can come up with, and it would then be wrong. But what the mall did in this case was not allow these people to stay based 100% on choices they made.

truesub4u -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:07:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolf1020 On the public dungeons and such you should treat it like any other public place in what you will see there. In places like the mall, the grocery store, etc, you have the standard societal norms to go by. But if you go to a theme specific place that turns the situation on its head and if you don't agree with it you are now the one outside of the places norm. If naked women offend you don't go to the titty bar. If Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc offend you don't go to the places of worship. If homosexuality offends you don't go to the gay bar. Etc. What is acceptable can change based on the location both in business as well as geography. In the titty bar girls naked is acceptable, it isn't in the mall. Being drunk in a bar is acceptable, it isn't in the grocery store. In places where you are the exception to the norm expect to be treated differently if you feel the need to express your differences from those there. Wolf... you're trying to force your point down the wrong persons throat. Where i've said time and time again.. I do not expect no one to agree or disagree with me on this. I have a very open mind on this whole subject... I'm looking at everyones points of views on this. Not just one side. I see the pros and cons to this all... and pointing out a few other things here and there.... So lets just make sure it's understood... It really doesn't matter to me... because if i'm with a Dom.. that wants to lead me on a leash at the mall... I may or may not agree to it... depends on my mood and etc... if I have a Master.. that says I will... then by God I will do as I am told... reguardless what I think of it.. even after I voice it and he says I will anyways. And no communication.... and limit stages don't fall in at this time. Because the only way they can.. is at the begining of a relationship... I tell my future Master... oh btw.. I flat refuse to do this and that.. all terms are laid out there up front..... so a year later.... he gets a notion to do something like this.. that's his doing... I'm just doing as told. For what ever reason... kink... thrill... humilation... whatever the reason... the fall out will or will not be there.... and yes.... a year later... I can stand up and say.... "Oh hell no I won't..." and suffer the fall out there too. Oh I know what's coming next.... it's up to the Dom to know right from wrong... and morals and values.... Ya know.. sometimes.. people just simply want to do things..... so they do it. Granted they don't always think it through...... but ya know... life has such a serious note so much.... sometimes.. we like to add a little fun.... a little spice... and a collar and leash... isn't as harmful... or offensive.... as some other shit we do see out there.... or on our tvs... theater screens... books... magazines.... yep.. we can turn off tvs... not go to movies... don't read books and magazines..... Oh and speaking of magazines.... make sure you look at the April and May issues of the MAD magazines your kids are reading.... no matter if you bought them... or they're reading someone elses....

MsIncognito -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:10:53 AM)
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore but geeze Louise, all this dramatic comparison of what these people did to slavery and gay rights is completely and utterly ridiculous and, IMO, dilutes and diminishes the efforts of those who fought for the rights of gays and other minorities. Being kinky (even if you claim it is who you are and your lifestyle and something you just can't change....newsflash: no one is telling you to change!) is not anywhere even close to being the same as being a racial minority, being annihilated by Nazis or being gay. Kinky people have exactly the SAME rights as everyone else. There is no law stopping you from marrying your slave, walking down the street holding your slave's hand or from going to certain restaurants with your slave. No one is going to deny you service in a restaurant or other place of business because you are there with your slave. THAT's the kind of thing gay and minority rights activists were fighting for - NOT for a bunch of adults who don't seem to understand that part of living in society is give and take to parade about in public flashing overt signs of their "lifestyle." Again, if you want to flaunt social conventions expect to get some kind of backlash but stop thinking you're some big hero because of it. You and your slave are not being denied any basic human rights. Edited to add: All of the "You's" in this thread are not intended towards you specifically, Vancouver_cinful, but mean in the general sense.

Wolf1020 -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:12:07 AM)
quote: I will not by my silence allow that there should be only one view of what is right and what is wrong. The range of what is acceptable must be made wide enough to include everyone's way of life. That simply isn't possible. Everyone means just that, everyone. Are you willing to shop next to the person who hasn't showered in a month and doesn't wipe after going to the toilet? By making everyones way of life acceptable you are saying we should. How about someone who is a nudist? Should we have to shop at the mall next to the guy with his frank and beans hanging out for the world to see? Or the woman with her whisker biscuit hanging out for everyone to see? How about the person that is fine with whipping it out anywhere to take a leak? Wanna walk through that puddle on the floor? Everyone has the right to be who they want to be, but expressing such needs to be left at home or with like minded folks. The mall is not the place to express such and to say socially acceptable standards need to be widened to allow everyones life style is preposterous.

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:17:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolf1020 In the titty bar girls naked is acceptable, it isn't in the mall. Being drunk in a bar is acceptable, it isn't in the grocery store. In places where you are the exception to the norm expect to be treated differently if you feel the need to express your differences from those there. And because, here in Canada, we refused to be complacent about this attitude, gay people can legally marry, and expect full protection from thr law against gay-bashing, and women can bare their breasts in public and expect that their right not be raped will be upheld. I'm sure as hell glad I walked in those parades, stood in those demonstrations, stood with my gay friends when they held hands in the mall, and went topless on the beach. Canada rocks. Now I support the people who are fighting to legalize marijuana. I don't smoke it, myself but I'll stand on their side. Cin

truesub4u -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:18:53 AM)
Gotta love the bullshit in this thread as well...... it went from a collar and a leash to gays... nazis'... to non bathing... pissing... so much for thinking that adults post on this thread... everytime someone responds to someone... they talk to each other like their having to explain something to a child.... you my not like ones way of thinking... and responding to it is great... but let's try to stop talking down to each other... and talk to each other when debating.

feastie -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:28:38 AM)
You know, (and btw, I'm not replying to anyone in particular, just using Fast Reply), years ago, people did not walk around in public, or even at home for that matter, using expletives as part of their normal speech. Then Hollywood started putting one or two in movies. It was HUGE when Rhett said to Scarlett, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!" It was considered extremely racy. Now, it's fortunate if the mildest thing one hears at the ice cream shop or the dry cleaner or grocery store is "damn." My point is, entertainment venues are largely responsible for affecting change in society. They are not entirely responsible, but most people are sheep. If they're doing it on the big screen or a popular novel, then it MUST be ok. "Everyone" must be doing it. I think the same principle can and will be applied to BDSM activities. It's already begun, albeit somewhat negatively. It's an evolution, it doesn't have to be a revolution. You want to fight for it, fine, then expect to get tossed out on your hiney. Expect that people may well be resistant to what you choose to do in a public space. No, collars and leashes are not that big of a deal. My own kids saw a nearly nude young man in cuffs being led by a chain leash all day. Of course, we were at a renaissance festival and it wasn't out of place. The point I'm trying to make here is that awareness and acceptance can be achieved in a more intelligent and less aggressive fashion. We want to be accepted, not begrudgingly given a place public but still judged because people aren't educated and don't understand. Then again, just how accepted do we want to become?

MsIncognito -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:29:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vancouver_cinful and women can bare their breasts in public I know I'm getting sidetracked here but I'm curious if, outside of the pride parades, you actually see many women walking down the streets of Vancouver bare breasted? I live not 20 minutes away from where Gwen Jacobs "made her stand" (which I think is an overly dramatic way to describe it since she herself said she was just hot and not trying to make a stand...the humidity in Southern Ontario will kill you in the summer months) and I have yet to see any females exercising this right to bare their breasts in public. The only time I see it is at the Toronto Pride Parade, at beaches that are designated as clothing optional (I never see it at any other beaches, either) or at play parties. Otherwise, I have yet to see anyone exercising the right to bare their breasts, law or not. I'm glad the law exists, but this is yet another example of how people still follow what is socially acceptable based on the venue and I don't see anything wrong with that.

valeca -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:32:21 AM)
Tru, I'm gonna pick out one aspect of your post [8D] quote: Am I going to be offened in public just so I can hide behind a cloak of making sure no one knows my kink. But not at a dungeon party? And yes this included being two faced.. and a hyprocrite to the innocence that tag along with you... as you look down t them and make all excuses... so you do not dare let them know... you do the same.... but in secret... because you don't want others to know . Not displaying certain aspects of my life (namely BDSM) doesn't necessarily mean I don't want people to know my kinks, or that I'm hiding behind a cloak. It just means I don't feel the need to advertise them. I wouldn't want to be called a hypocrit for practicing a lifestyle but not publically declaring it at every opportunity. I also wouldn't want to be called a hypocrit because I don't tell my children about BDSM. I wouldn't consider it appropriate to take my children to a dungeon so they could know what mommy and daddy do, so I don't feel hypocritical not wanting to expose them to it anywhere else. I'd see that more as consistancy, rather than hypocracy. No, I wouldn't dare let them know, you had that right, but not because of hypocracy. I choose to keep that part of my life separate from my spawnlings because it is an intimate part of my adult relationship between my Husband and myself...and it's not something they are (or ever will be) a part of.

valeca -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 10:39:48 AM)
MI, I live in a small town in Ont, and yes, I've seen women baring their breasts just because they can. I've seen them walking, swimming, boating, driving and walking (oddly enough, never jogging [:D]). It may not be common (and it does cause a stir when it happens), but it does happen.

truesub4u -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 11:02:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: valeca Tru, I'm gonna pick out one aspect of your post [8D] quote: Am I going to be offened in public just so I can hide behind a cloak of making sure no one knows my kink. But not at a dungeon party? And yes this included being two faced.. and a hyprocrite to the innocence that tag along with you... as you look down t them and make all excuses... so you do not dare let them know... you do the same.... but in secret... because you don't want others to know . Not displaying certain aspects of my life (namely BDSM) doesn't necessarily mean I don't want people to know my kinks, or that I'm hiding behind a cloak. It just means I don't feel the need to advertise them. I wouldn't want to be called a hypocrit for practicing a lifestyle but not publically declaring it at every opportunity. I also wouldn't want to be called a hypocrit because I don't tell my children about BDSM. I wouldn't consider it appropriate to take my children to a dungeon so they could know what mommy and daddy do, so I don't feel hypocritical not wanting to expose them to it anywhere else. I'd see that more as consistancy, rather than hypocracy. No, I wouldn't dare let them know, you had that right, but not because of hypocracy. I choose to keep that part of my life separate from my spawnlings because it is an intimate part of my adult relationship between my Husband and myself...and it's not something they are (or ever will be) a part of. Not a problem Valeca.. I can agree with this 100%. I even state in my profile... my kids will not be made to witness my submission to anyone. They will not see me kneel... they will not hear me say Master.... and if serving... depending on the request... and how it's stated.. will not make me move either... (I had this all ready to post and CM logged me out so now I'm having to repost and it may not come out the same as I had planned this Or thought it when first typed up.. LOL.) Valeca... I'm notorious for not wording things right most of the time when trying to post something that i feel deep down.. my wording of scenerios gets all screwed up. For that... to you.. I am sorry.. But I think you was able to understand my thoughts... by your post. I have spent the last week researching something I've heard... others might of as well. Cin... you stated in some of your postings about parades... protestings...curious... of how many of them were locals... and how many were out of towners. During my research.. I found most admitted... that they go OUT OF TOWN... to show off their public displays. To avoid offending... families... friends... fellow employees.... religions.... what ever reason... they will not do such things t home... they will travel an hour... 2-3 hours.. to go out and do this sort of thing. I was actually surprised by how many admitted this. And this is not just internet research... it's finding out that... Being here in Jacksonville NC... that folks travel from New Bern.. Wilmington.... Fayettville ..... each being 50 to 92 miles away. As long as they feel they are outta reach of their own locals. So it amazes me... how SOME will force whatever.. on ones outta their town... and not in their own home towns... if they're trying to make some sort of statement. So I think trying to make statements.. isn't what this is really all about. I just simply think... it's trying to fullfill a kink... a fantsy... whatever you want to call it...

Chaingang -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 12:13:10 PM)
The Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. quote from my previous post is an English restatement of a French proverb that attempts to define an individual's rights. The point being that an individual's freedoms are extremely expansive unless the expression of those rights would harm another. Here are two more versions of that: "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do unto others." -Confucius "An it harm none, do what you will." - pagan proverb I don't know how much simpler I can make it, one of the above needs to sink in or forget it. These ideas are the basis of legal philosophy concerning individual rights. Unless actual harm would occur to another, you are free to do as you please. Other people do not have the option to tell you how to behave just because they aesthetically or philosophically disagree with you - and those freedoms are guaranteed in the U.S. as the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. Anything not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights is still an unwritten freedom guaranteed by the 9th Amendment. Other countries will often have similar kinds of protections. So if one person can wear a cross, another can wear a pentagram. Too bad if the majority don't like it, it's called "minority rights." If one person can wear a wedding ring, another can wear a collar. Too bad if the majority don't like it, it's called "minority rights." What else is there to say here? Do any of you actually want freedom or not? Or do you wish to play favorites and protect only the freedoms and types of expression with which you already agree? What about the right to dissent? The only reason this thread has been long and unwieldy is because some people, sadly, do not understand what freedom actually means.

Phoenixandnika -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 12:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: valeca MI, I live in a small town in Ont, and yes, I've seen women baring their breasts just because they can. I've seen them walking, swimming, boating, driving and walking (oddly enough, never jogging [:D]). It may not be common (and it does cause a stir when it happens), but it does happen. Ouch at the jogging barebreasted. Just ouch. Blessed Be, Phoenix's Nika

truesub4u -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 12:51:36 PM)
Chaingang.... i've noticed... alot through history... people love to talk ..... but we all know actions speak louder.... most.. not all.. but most love to sit and voice their views... pro or con... on certain subjects... but to actually jump up and be active in protecting ones right to protects those feels and or thoughts.... oh hell.. that's too much work involved... Shame... but it's true... thanks for you positive views... of your thoughts... not all agree with you... and that's the very freedom you speak of... the freedom to agree or disagree..

Wolf1020 -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 1:42:21 PM)
Chaingang- A mall is private property. The BOR restricts the government, not private persons. A security guard is an agent for the owner of the property and therefor can ask someone to leave if they are acting in a way that is making other patrons uncomfortable. If something is discrimination goes to average and reasonable. Would an average reasonable person be offended by a wedding ring, no they would not, and that is why in a mall they couldn't ask you to leave for wearing one. Would the average reasonable person be offended simply by you wearing a pentagram, no they wouldn't. Would the average person be offended by a collar? Probably not, most vanilla people probably wouldn't even understand the meaning. However, leading a person around by a leash an average reasonable person could take offense to that act, and the owner or his agent then has the right to ask you to leave. A drunk staggering around the mall bumping into people slurring his ever word could offend the average reasonable person, he can ask you to leave. It isn't discrimination so long as the reasonable average patron could be offended by it. Taking it a step further the reasonable average person changes on your area or the place you are going. If you are going to an anti-marriage club wearing a wedding ring, the average reasonable person there might be offended. If you are going to a gun club with a shirt on advocating the confiscation and banning of privately held arms or one that in some other way is against guns, the reasonable average person there might be offended and they can ask you to leave. If you live in San Francisco the average reasonable person might not find open public displays of homosexuality offensive, but in the bible belt they might, depending on which area they have the right to ask you to leave. It is a bit easier to say when you are talking about a place with a very specific theme such as a club, gun range, gay bar, etc. They all have specific themes and it is easier to guess what the average reasonable person at the place might consider offensive. Malls are a mingling though so more can go on from different ends of the spectrum but the owner has the right to decide what patrons can and can not do in his place of business so long as it remains in reason for the establishment. Would you be against the owner of a gay bar to have the right to toss someone who came up to the bar wearing a god hates fags T-shirt? If one of those rules at the mall is people can't lead others around by a leash he has the right to do so, if his rule is you can't be there intoxicated, he has the right to make that rule. His private property rights trump your rights to expression while you are on his property. If you dislike his rules you are free to shop and hang out on someone else's private property that allows the behavior you want to publicly do.

Proprietrix -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 2:27:12 PM)
The property owner analogy is faulty is in the description of private property. There is a difference between private property (MY HOME) and private property used for public use (The mall). If one wants to speak to property rights, they must first have an understanding of the law of which they speak. The right to arbitrary discrimination does not come with property rights if said property is intended for public use. Public access gaurantees the right to non-discriminatory practice. Many city ordinances are written as such: "Types of discrimination that are prohibited by private owners of land or venues established for public use, excluding public venues in which membership is assigned for participation, include: Any discrimination by reason of race, color, creed, class, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, personal appearance, sexual preference, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, prior arrest or conviction record or source of income." Your city/state may vary in the wording. If the city in NC has a similar ordinance, unless the mall requires a membership for admittance, they cannot legally ask someone to leave based on appearance. It doesn't matter if every single consumer in that building is offended. It doesn't matter if a 99% majority finds it to be unreasonable for the setting. It doesn't matter if there were 1,000 children looking. If they were asked to leave based on any condition covered by the ordinance, it is illegal discrimination.

Wolf1020 -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 2:48:09 PM)
Prop, that is why I said several times reasonable average person. If someone is doing something that would offend a reasonable average person that visits their business they have every right to kick you out. At a restaurant talking so loud everyone can hear you and cussing every other word? Guess what, they can throw you out. Doesn't mean foul mouthed people are being discriminated against. At the same restaurant and your kid is screaming his head off disturbing others? Guess what, they can throw you out. Doesn't mean people with children are being discriminated against. Walk into Wal-Mart with an offensive shirt on? Something with a racial slur or something? Yep, you guessed it, they can throw you out. And it isn't discrimination against people who wear T-shirts. Throwing someone out for actions that offend the reasonable average person visiting their establishment a private property owner, even one owning an establishment intended for public use, can throw you out. And it isn't discrimination.

agirl -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 3:17:46 PM)
This also isn't in reply to any particular post but a thought or two from reading on through the thread. People can make a stand quietly and without great trumpeting..... I am always quite surprised why so many people feel the need to keep their alternative relationships so closeted from their children. I am not speaking about the sexual aspects, or some of the physical activities that may take place, ( not many of us would discuss details of our sex lives with our children even in vanilla). But....what is so radical about this chosen way of relating to a significant other?....A TPE relationship is good news, isn't it?....It's nurturing, it's respectful, it has a quiet calm and dignity about it. It's a valid and positive way of relating to another person in a relationship. Why would I feel that something that I regard as an incredibly positive way of life should be shielded from my children ?..... They will be the ones who will quietly put their friend's misconceptions right in the future ( and already do) Regards, agirl

MistressLorelei -> RE: Discrimination in Public Places.... (5/6/2006 4:04:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang The Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. quote from my previous post is an English restatement of a French proverb that attempts to define an individual's rights. The point being that an individual's freedoms are extremely expansive unless the expression of those rights would harm another. Here are two more versions of that: "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do unto others." -Confucius "An it harm none, do what you will." - pagan proverb I don't know how much simpler I can make it, one of the above needs to sink in or forget it. These ideas are the basis of legal philosophy concerning individual rights. Unless actual harm would occur to another, you are free to do as you please. Other people do not have the option to tell you how to behave just because they aesthetically or philosophically disagree with you - and those freedoms are guaranteed in the U.S. as the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. Anything not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights is still an unwritten freedom guaranteed by the 9th Amendment. Other countries will often have similar kinds of protections. So if one person can wear a cross, another can wear a pentagram. Too bad if the majority don't like it, it's called "minority rights." If one person can wear a wedding ring, another can wear a collar. Too bad if the majority don't like it, it's called "minority rights." What else is there to say here? Do any of you actually want freedom or not? Or do you wish to play favorites and protect only the freedoms and types of expression with which you already agree? What about the right to dissent? The only reason this thread has been long and unwieldy is because some people, sadly, do not understand what freedom actually means. Aside from the fact that the definition of freedom hardly allows the right for anyone to take their slave for a walk.... We all understand the Master/slave dynamic, the society we chose to live in does not. Personal appearance is the way someone looks not an act of doing.... like walking another member of society on a leash. So we must be protecting our rights to not be discriminated against based on sexual preference? The mall will allow anyone who is kinky to enter... just as they will allow those who enjoy vanilla sex. When the kinky act or the vanilla sex acts cross the line of what is acceptable in society, they will be asked to leave. If our sexual preference is not what we are standing up for... then what right is it that needs protecting at the mall? I am sure the mall would have asked the people in question to leave regardless of the gender, color, religion, etc. Why is it too much to ask for everyone to respect the public places which belong to all of us, or hang out elsewhere? The mall doesn't prohibit our presence for chosing a kinky lifestyle... No kinky people allowed? If you like bondage get out? Anyone wearing a butt plug report to security immediately? It's the way that a kinky person (or ANY) person handles themselves in a public situation that is in question. As a society we do have to accept that everyone has their own view of what is right and wrong, and we do make room for everyone's way of life. Some of this room is in prisons around the world. Everything everyone wants to do is not okay. Having the right to live your life as you see fit is always an option, until it infringes upon the rights of others. No shirt, no shoes, no service? But it's my right to be barefoot... but if I want to go to the mall... I will go in shoes. If I was the only one banned for being shoeless... then I'd have a case.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625