700 Banned
Fox News reports Delta Air Lines Bans Hundreds of People Over Refusal to Wear Masks.
In a memo sent to employees Wednesday, CEO Ed Bastian says that as of this week, the company has put nearly 700 people on the no-fly list for refusing to comply with the mandatory mask policy.
The Absolute Right to Set Terms of Service
Businesses have an absolute right to set terms of service as long as the terms are not discriminatory or in violation of codes. Does anyone disagree?
Right of Refusal
“If you are a business owner, can you refuse service to customers who violate your rules on your property?”
I bet if you asked the 700 people Delta banned that question, all or nearly all of them would say yes.
Yet, these same people insist it is their right not to comply with airlines’ stated terms of service.
Twitter, Google, Facebook
Take my question one step further to social media.
Why is it not the right of Twitter, Facebook, Google and other social media firms to set policy on their platforms?
We can agree or disagree on whether it is good policy for Twitter to decide to police Trump or do fact checking at all.
Those who hate Trump want to shut him up. Those who like Trump want him to be able to say what he wants.
Tale of Two Cases
- The Right believes Twitter is biased against Trump. First, please assume that’s true (whether you really agree or not).
- Next assume the opposite were to happen (Twitter suddenly became biased against the Left). Now the Right would be happy and the Left would be screaming “shut them up”.
Question of the Day
Question of the Day
For the following question assume your rules are not discriminatory and do not violate building codes, or safety standards.
If you are a business owner, should you be able to refuse service to customers who violate your rules on your property?
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) December 9, 2020
We are marching down a slippery slope when government gets involved in these cases.
Ironically, the Trump Lovers and Trump Haters both demand the same thing: Suppression of the rights of business owners to make these decisions for themselves.
New Question of the Day
Will masks and social media change the answers?
Let’s find out.
Should social media companies be able to restrict content and set rules as long as they are not discrimintory?
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) December 11, 2020
Mish
Meanwhile sweden is a basket case and requires help from neighboring countries. Posting here because the site still prohibits new posts
No way corporations have an absolute right to set terms of service. It’s a limited right and the line is constantly being redrawn. They can’t demand customers be white before entering for example.
But apparently the business can demand the customers are heterosexual before they can have a cake at their wedding ? SMH
Or that both parties be human?
In the case you’re referencing the business owner chose not to serve, they didn’t keep the couple from getting a cake from another business or prevent them from having one at their wedding.@shamrock adroitly gave an example on how ‘the line’ is redrawn. 200 years ago their example may have been invalid and you certainly wouldn’t be smacking your head. 200 years from now maybe mine will be valid.
Surly, the wearing of masks is analogous to the passive smoking situation.
Although I may think you are stupid to smoke, all I really want is to not have to inhale the second hand poison that your lungs have spat out or the gently rising smoke from the cancer stick in your hand. It’s not for you to argue the science or the semantics, I have my rights too and that includes my health.
Although I may think you are stupid or selfish not to wear a mask, all I want is to have the minimum chance of you breathing out something that might kill me even quicker than tobacco smoke when you are sitting in the seat next to me. It’s not for you to argue the science or the efficacy of a mask, just get on with it or drive your car from A-B.
I was agreeing that companies can’t make any rule they want and what is demanded of customers is variable over time.
Per your comment, the question of smoking was a non-issue, then there were smoking sections, then it was banned on flights and customers supported this progression. It remains to be seen if wearing a face covering will be lasting, but based on your concern it could be interpreted that you are advocating universal masking for all air travel in perpetuity (as the transmission of illness in commercial aviation has been a long-standing concern in some circles).
You do have your rights, but so does the other person and it seems the point here is how much are you able to assert yours over someone else’s, as in suggesting they drive versus you eschewing air travel in favor of driving yourself. One way that many of us assert our rights over others is when old cell phones/computers/televisions end up in a mountain of electronic waste dumped in an underdeveloped nation to be “recycled” by the locals — much to the detriment of the health of the local population.
In the case of a public health emergency, in a pandemic, reasonable precautions that are aimed at protecting the public have to be allowed. That’s a line that makes sense. No court is going to rule again that.
.
If companies are operating under section 230 and getting protection for free speech, then, NO, they are giving up the right edit content. If they don’t want to operate under section 230 and open themselves up to litigation then, YES, I am all for them setting the rules and letting users decide to use the platform or not.
As far as air travel goes, I’ve been on 3 round trip flights since April. It’s no worse than a trip to the grocery store and makes are a joke considering you’re in an enclosed tube – the ventilation may save the day but not thin cotton fabric.
Such a bunch of snowflakes–triggered by the idea of wearing of masks.
I guess they need a safe space to process their discomfort.
I’ve long said that Twitter, Facebook, etc can do whatever the f they want, it is their platform/property. Barrier to entry is incredibly low, go start your own right/left wing extremist equivalents.
The irony is they did – Parler. Now the “liberals” are upset about that too
Pants?
How long before the “Schrodinger Political Party” is born? Did it already happen? You too can believe that both A and B, directly in opposition to each other factually, can both be true and/or false and you can use both as a cudgel on whatever terms you want. What could possibly go wrong?
George Orwell wrote about “doublethink” in 1984, published in 1949.
“The act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct. … Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.”
I don’t like shoes, and sometimes I really don’t feel like wearing a shirt. Why can’t I eat in restaurants? Isn’t there something in the Constitution about that, “life, liberty, and uncovered toes”?
/sar
Are we talking like bare foot and bare chested or do you need a dress shirt and a closed shoe?
Facial nudity seems not quite part of a threesome.