TiVo Community Forum Archive 1
READ ONLY ARCHIVES

Welcome to the TiVo Community Forum Archive
This archive covers threads on TiVo Community Forum that have not been posted to from the start until June 30, 2004.  Any thread that has a post made to it between 7/1/04 and 12/31/05, that had not been posted to, will be found in Archive 2.
This is a READ ONLY site.

  Search | ARCHIVE 2 | MAIN SITE

TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 > Off Topic Areas (Non-TiVo) > Happy Hour - General Chit-Chat
>>> Loews Reserved Seating <<<

Pages (5): « Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next »  
Forum Jump:
Search this Thread:
Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread ---> Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
supham is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 02:54 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for supham Find more posts by supham Add supham to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
supham
Slow Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Oxford, MI
Posts: 2851

quote:
Originally posted by Graymalkin
Um, do these squatters actually put up a fight? Do they just leave when you ask politely, or do you need to get the cops involved?

Believe me, if someone's in my $10.25 seat, I'll be bitching to management pronto.



They fall into three categories. 1) People just looking for a closer seat. They get up and move. 2) People that made a mistake, and move on. 3) People that think they are correct and insist they are in the correct seat. We have had the same seat for years but they know better. We usually have to get an usher for those folks.


shannon

POST #21 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

CTLesq is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 02:59 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for CTLesq Find more posts by CTLesq Add CTLesq to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CTLesq
Oppressor

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Baghdad, Iraq
Posts: 512

When they bring it to the Loews on 68th and Broadway, I will gladly pay the extra money.

As for making the movies inaccessable for people under 21, it has been my experience that other adults are the worst offenders. I had to threaten two people in their 40's with getting an usher if they didn't stop talking during Man on Fire.

__________________
This is not an Exit.

POST #22 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

timckelley is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 02:59 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for timckelley Find more posts by timckelley Add timckelley to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
timckelley
No Friends Have TiVo

Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3292

quote:
Originally posted by BOARshevik
I'm against all age-based restrictions. By implementing such a policy, you'd get rid of the troublemakers, but you'd also eliminate the movie experience for many people who want to sit and watch the movie quietly. You'd also not get rid of troublemakers over 21, so the policy would be useless.

A policy like that would also be pretty much the same as implementing one that banned people of a certain race from going to a movie.



I can say from experience that this policy improves the experience for us 21+ers. Here's why: Though there are indeed troublemakers over 21, and there are indeed nice people under 21, there is still a cooelation. i.e. most of the troublemakers (not all) are under 21. So by having this policy you go a long way to improving the experience.

I'm not saying there should be a law banning young people. Let the free enterprise system create separate theaters for each group. That's how it works now, and it's working nicely.

Edit: my experience is admittedly limited. I've only go to a 21+ only theater once.

__________________
Tim
80 hour series 2 TiVo (stand alone, with lifetime sub)
194 hour HDR212 (stand alone, but unsubbed)

Signal source: Time Warner analog cable, no box

POST #23 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BOARshevik is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 03:07 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for BOARshevik Visit BOARshevik's homepage! Find more posts by BOARshevik Add BOARshevik to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
BOARshevik
OINK!

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 85

quote:
Originally posted by timckelley
I can say from experience that this policy improves the experience for us 21+ers. Here's why: Though there are indeed troublemakers over 21, and there are indeed nice people under 21, there is still a cooelation. i.e. most of the troublemakers (not all) are under 21. So by having this policy you go a long way to improving the experience.


However this might improve the experience, it is WRONG. People are restricted from doing activities that other people can do for no good reason other than they've circled the sun fewer times than other people.

quote:
I'm not saying there should be a law banning young people. Let the free enterprise system create separate theaters for each group. That's how it works now, and it's working nicely.


It works because there are very few theaters with such a policy. I haven't seen a single non-pornographic theater that blocked people based on age except for enforcing movie ratings.

I would never give business to a theater with age restrictions (other than rating enforcement).

POST #24 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

gtrogue is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 03:24 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for gtrogue Find more posts by gtrogue Add gtrogue to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
gtrogue
Enormous Member

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: ATL
Posts: 1366

There is nothing wrong with age restrictions. We restrict all types of things by age including movies, driving, drinking alcohol, etc. Young people tend to view going to the movies as a social experience whereas older adults actually go to movies to watch a movie. I see most movies by myself and I like it that way.

That being said, just to try and appease folks like BOARshevik I'd even settle for a "no one under 21 permitted" policy just for R-rated, non-matinee shows.

When you get out of middle school BOARshevik and start having to spend your own money to go to movies you'll understand.

__________________
Signature

POST #25 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

timckelley is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 03:27 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for timckelley Find more posts by timckelley Add timckelley to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
timckelley
No Friends Have TiVo

Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3292

There's nothing wrong if a moviehouse owner wants to restrict based on age. In fact, it would be wrong to prevent him from imposing his own rules on his own house. Why should the government tell him how to run his own business?

__________________
Tim
80 hour series 2 TiVo (stand alone, with lifetime sub)
194 hour HDR212 (stand alone, but unsubbed)

Signal source: Time Warner analog cable, no box

POST #26 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BOARshevik is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 03:36 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for BOARshevik Visit BOARshevik's homepage! Find more posts by BOARshevik Add BOARshevik to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
BOARshevik
OINK!

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 85

quote:
Originally posted by gtrogue
There is nothing wrong with age restrictions. We restrict all types of things by age including movies, driving, drinking alcohol, etc. Young people tend to view going to the movies as a social experience whereas older adults actually go to movies to watch a movie. I see most movies by myself and I like it that way.


None of that is a valid reason for age restrictions.

quote:
When you get out of middle school BOARshevik and start having to spend your own money to go to movies you'll understand.


When at first you don't succeed, resort to ad hominem attacks.

When I actually was in middle school, people told me that when I was old enough that the various age restrictions wouldn't apply to me anymore, I'd stop caring. I'm glad they were wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by timckelley
There's nothing wrong if a moviehouse owner wants to restrict based on age. In fact, it would be wrong to prevent him from imposing his own rules on his own house. Why should the government tell him how to run his own business?


So it should be OK for a moviehouse owner to restrict based on race and religion too?

POST #27 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

smak is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 06:21 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for smak Find more posts by smak Add smak to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
smak
new glossy edition

Registered: Feb 2000
Location: Studio City, CA USA
Posts: 4610

Here's a good reason the theater owner can restrict to over 21...

He feels like it.

That's the only reason he needs.

If you're offended by the policy, don't do business there.

They serve alcohol, and people under 21 aren't allowed. It's no different then a bar.

As for the assigned seating for $5 more, it's absolutely essential if you want to see a major movie opening weekend. I wouldn't want to see Spider-Man 2 in a prime viewing time without it. It's certainly worth $5 so I can get there 10 minutes before and be in a great seat, then have to get their 90 minutes before for a bad seat.

-smak-

__________________
New Tivo owner checklist:

1. Buy
2. Complain
3. Research
4. Apologize

Come visit us at TC Poker Community

www.tcpokercommunity.com

POST #28 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

RegBarc is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 06:30 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for RegBarc Visit RegBarc's homepage! Find more posts by RegBarc Add RegBarc to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
RegBarc
Member-at-Large

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1448

I wouldn't mind seeing under 21 restrictions, but not everywhere. There can be certain theaters geared towards people over 21, then those geared towards everybody. Every single time I have had roundy people, or anyone at all that detracted from the movie experience, it has been 13-19 year old boys and girls. Immaturity runs rampid there, especially when they are seated in groups.

It's the owners right to restrict. Having their testicles chewed off by a rabid dog, Boar's own ad hominem suggestion, just defeats the perogative of movie-goers to actually enjoy the movie without the overtly loud "shh's" and throwing crap all over the place.

__________________
James M. Mack, Jr.
jmm75@drexel.edu

The Triangle - Ed-Op Editor

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine

POST #29 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

gtrogue is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 08:44 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for gtrogue Find more posts by gtrogue Add gtrogue to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
gtrogue
Enormous Member

Registered: Jun 2001
Location: ATL
Posts: 1366

Age based restrictions are common and accepted in our society. BOARshevik since your so gung ho for not having any lets go ahead and let 8 year olds get drivers licenses and let them have booze in their bottles. Oh yeah lets get rid of all the movie and TV ratings. While we're at it let's let the kiddies into strip joints too. Don't forget about the cigarette laws, get rid of 'em.

Dude your right, age based restrictions are terrible. Think how much better off we'd be without them.

__________________
Signature

POST #30 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

landrumdh is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 08:58 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for landrumdh Visit landrumdh's homepage! Find more posts by landrumdh Add landrumdh to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
landrumdh
Planning a Roadtrip!

Registered: Oct 2003
Location: In the aimless void called CT
Posts: 2452

quote:
Originally posted by supham
They fall into three categories. 1) People just looking for a closer seat. They get up and move. 2) People that made a mistake, and move on. 3) People that think they are correct and insist they are in the correct seat. We have had the same seat for years but they know better. We usually have to get an usher for those folks.


shannon



I love the number 3 people. I was at a concert with people in our seats and they were arguing tooth and nail that they were in their seats. When we got an usher to come over and move them they actually had BETTER seats than we did! I still get a kick out of that one.

As for the age thing I would love to have 21+ only movies. I'm not saying exclusively maybe just 1 showing a night for each movie or something. But I'm tired of having to deal with whiney 16yr old giggling and chatting kids. Sometimes there are adults, but I'd say 95% of the time it's kids. Infact I REFUSE to go the closest movie theater in the area because of the fact it's generally the local middle school crowd that goes to it since it's in the mall and they just TALK THROUGH THE WHOLE MOVIE! It's actually pretty bad because that is a much nicer theater.

I goto the movie to enjoy the story so shut the heck up!

I haven't looked into this reserved seating feature yet, don't think my local Lowes offers it yet b/c I haven't seen any advert yet for it.

*edit* wow my grammer really sucks when I'm tired

__________________
-David
TCF Lose 2005 in 2005
"What is gum, anyway? I looked at the ingredients and the only gum related item I could see was called "gum base." Is that a real thing? Is that the smallest most elemental form of the gum? Or is that like looking at the ingredients for spaghetti and meatballs and seeing "meatballs" listed?" - hefe

POST #31 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

StanSimmons is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 09:05 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for StanSimmons Find more posts by StanSimmons Add StanSimmons to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
StanSimmons
Senior Moment Member

Registered: Jun 2000
Location: Flower Mound, TX, USA
Posts: 1291

quote:
Originally posted by BOARshevik
I'm against all age-based restrictions. By implementing such a policy, you'd get rid of the troublemakers, but you'd also eliminate the movie experience for many people who want to sit and watch the movie quietly. You'd also not get rid of troublemakers over 21, so the policy would be useless.

A policy like that would also be pretty much the same as implementing one that banned people of a certain race from going to a movie.




Bs,

Are you against age based restrictions on EVERYTHING? How about smoking, drinking, getting drafted? How about driving, getting married, going to adult jail instead of juvie?

__________________
Stan

"easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841"
Ask me about Vonage.

POST #32 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

StanSimmons is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 09:06 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for StanSimmons Find more posts by StanSimmons Add StanSimmons to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
StanSimmons
Senior Moment Member

Registered: Jun 2000
Location: Flower Mound, TX, USA
Posts: 1291

quote:
Originally posted by BOARshevik
I would never give business to a theater with age restrictions (other than rating enforcement).


Good.

__________________
Stan

"easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841"
Ask me about Vonage.

POST #33 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BOARshevik is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 09:39 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for BOARshevik Visit BOARshevik's homepage! Find more posts by BOARshevik Add BOARshevik to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
BOARshevik
OINK!

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 85

quote:
Originally posted by gtrogue
Age based restrictions are common and accepted in our society. BOARshevik since your so gung ho for not having any lets go ahead and let 8 year olds get drivers licenses


The driving age is always the first age restriction that people mention as leading to chaos if it was eliminated. The driving age is the easiest one to eliminate. You need to take a test to drive. If an 8 year old can pass the driving test, then that eight year old is qualified and deserves to drive. If unqualified kids can pass the test, then it's the test that's the problem.

quote:
and let them have booze in their bottles.


Portugal doesn't have a drinking age. It doesn't cause any problems there. Drinking ages in the US were uncommon before prohibition. They were passed as a concession to get it lifted. The US has some of the most extreme liquor control laws among non-Muslim countries.

quote:
Oh yeah lets get rid of all the movie and TV ratings.


There were no TV ratings until 1997. And until a few years ago, movie theaters rarely enforced the age limits on movie ratings. This has to be the weakest of your points.

quote:
While we're at it let's let the kiddies into strip joints too.


Why not. I've never seen any actual evidence that children are corrupted by nudity. The stuff that happens in a strip joint is mild. How many people do you know who hadn't seen a porno mag at least once as a child?

quote:
Don't forget about the cigarette laws, get rid of 'em.


Apparently since most people start smoking as teens, the cigarette laws are pretty useless.

POST #34 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BOARshevik is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 10:00 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for BOARshevik Visit BOARshevik's homepage! Find more posts by BOARshevik Add BOARshevik to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
BOARshevik
OINK!

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 85

quote:
Originally posted by StanSimmons
Are you against age based restrictions on EVERYTHING?


Yes

quote:
How about smoking, drinking, getting drafted? How about driving, getting married, going to adult jail instead of juvie?


Yup, all of those.

POST #35 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

RegBarc is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 10:19 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for RegBarc Visit RegBarc's homepage! Find more posts by RegBarc Add RegBarc to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
RegBarc
Member-at-Large

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1448

quote:
Originally posted by BOARshevik
Yes



Yup, all of those.

You're an uber-Libertarian.

Eh, I don't know. I think that people under the age of 18 should be treated as children to an extent. The brain requires a certain amount of years of experience and maturity in order for you to be a fully productive member of society capable of little undue discomfort to those around you. A bunch of 16 year old boys who thinks its cool to scream during movies and through crap is a great example on why movie theater owners should be allowed, not required, to place age restrictions.

And as for your comment on no age restrictions on driving? Well, you're just plain nuts.

The younger you are in teenage years when driving, the more of a danger you are, guarenteed.

__________________
James M. Mack, Jr.
jmm75@drexel.edu

The Triangle - Ed-Op Editor

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine

POST #36 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BOARshevik is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 10:45 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for BOARshevik Visit BOARshevik's homepage! Find more posts by BOARshevik Add BOARshevik to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
BOARshevik
OINK!

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 85

quote:
Originally posted by RegBarc
You're an uber-Libertarian.


That has nothing to do with it. I'm simply against this form of oppression.

quote:
Eh, I don't know. I think that people under the age of 18 should be treated as children to an extent.


I'm not against treating children as children, however I am against the use of an arbitrary age to determine competence. Even if one is necessary, the current age is way too high for many things. For one thing, the age of 21 for anything is an abomination, and should be eliminated. The drinking age and all other things that are currently 21 should be lowered to the age of majority, whatever that is (I think if we keep the current system of a magic age, it should be 16 rather than 18). So you see, if the poster that said there should be an age of 21 rather than one of 18, I wouldn't have made as angry a response, or maybe not one at all.

quote:
The brain requires a certain amount of years of experience and maturity
in order for you to be a fully productive member of society capable of little undue discomfort to those around you.



Many younger people are well behaved and can sit quietly in a movie theater. If someone is being caused undue discomfort just by being near younger people, they're the one's whose brains are not in order.

quote:
A bunch of 16 year old boys who thinks its cool to scream during movies and through crap is a great example on why movie theater owners should be allowed, not required, to place age restrictions.


By your logic, a bunch of [insert ethnicity here] people who scream during movies is reason to allow the ban of that ethnicity. And at one point, there were studies by well-respected researchers in well-respected journals about how black people and certain foreigners and women and common folk were inferior to land-owning white men. All of these have been discredited. I'm not saying that at some point it will be commonly accepted that babies should fend for themselves, but clearly a lot of the restrictions currently in place are only there because of fear, and/or the desire for power, among other bad reasons.

quote:
And as for your comment on no age restrictions on driving? Well, you're just plain nuts.

The younger you are in teenage years when driving, the more of a danger you are, guarenteed.



As I've said, the driving age is the easiest of all age restrictions to eliminate. There is a test. Unqualified applicants will fail the test and not get their license. If the test is passing unqualified applicants, then it is the test that needs to be changed.

POST #37 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

RegBarc is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 10:58 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for RegBarc Visit RegBarc's homepage! Find more posts by RegBarc Add RegBarc to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
RegBarc
Member-at-Large

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1448

quote:
Originally posted by BOARshevik
By your logic, a bunch of [insert ethnicity here] people who scream during movies is reason to allow the ban of that ethnicity. And at one point, there were studies by well-respected researchers in well-respected journals about how black people and certain foreigners and women and common folk were inferior to land-owning white men. All of these have been discredited. I'm not saying that at some point it will be commonly accepted that babies should fend for themselves, but clearly a lot of the restrictions currently in place are only there because of fear, and/or the desire for power, among other bad reasons.
Thanks for implying I am a racist. Excellent.

There are laws restricting activities based on age for a very specific reason, and good cause at that. All courts in this nation have established that there is just cause enough to restrict based on age based on prior performance. On top of all of this, it's not the government that bans the group, it's a private group, and private groups and businesses have unalienable rights to put forth their own rules in their own establishment, as long as they abide by federal, state, and local criminal law. For instance, I may want to carry my licensed carry firearm everywhere I want, but if a movie theater in, say, Texas, posts a 30.06 sign out front, then I can't carry in there. Here in PA, even without the 30.06 law, if the theater doesn't want my patronage because of my weapon, then they can ban me based on the group I belong to (legal gun carriers). I may not like it, but it's their property, not mine.

You may be against age based discrimination, but your alternative is to force every single person and entity to government standards (or in your case, force them to not adopt their own ideas but the ideas of the government)...more dangerous than any age restrictions ever can be

__________________
James M. Mack, Jr.
jmm75@drexel.edu

The Triangle - Ed-Op Editor

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine

POST #38 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BOARshevik is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 11:20 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for BOARshevik Visit BOARshevik's homepage! Find more posts by BOARshevik Add BOARshevik to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
BOARshevik
OINK!

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 85

quote:
Originally posted by RegBarc
Thanks for implying I am a racist. Excellent.


You're completely missing the point. I wasn't implying that you were a racist, I was simply pointing out that prejudices against young people are as bad as racism.

quote:
There are laws restricting activities based on age for a very specific reason, and good cause at that. All courts in this nation have established that there is just cause enough to restrict based on age based on prior performance.


Not everything that courts rule is right. See Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson among others.

quote:
On top of all of this, it's not the government that bans the group, it's a private group, and private groups and businesses have unalienable rights to put forth their own rules in their own establishment, as long as they abide by federal, state, and local criminal law.


So then a private establishment can put up a sign that says NO BLACKS or NO JEWS and enforces that policy should be allowed to that? There are anti-discrimination laws for a reason and there should be anti-discrimination laws against this. Your argument about free enterprise is exactly the same one used against eliminating segregation in the 1960s.

quote:
For instance, I may want to carry my licensed carry firearm everywhere I want, but if a movie theater in, say, Texas, posts a 30.06 sign out front, then I can't carry in there. Here in PA, even without the 30.06 law, if the theater doesn't want my patronage because of my weapon, then they can ban me based on the group I belong to (legal gun carriers). I may not like it, but it's their property, not mine.


Bad analogy. Your firearm is not a citizen of the United States nor even a person. You yourself are free to enter an establishment that doesn't allow guns.

quote:
You may be against age based discrimination, but your alternative is to force every single person and entity to government standards (or in your case, force them to not adopt their own ideas but the ideas of the government)...more dangerous than any age restrictions ever can be


The government did this in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, and the country is better off for that reason.

edit: Corrected spelling, removed excess tag

Last edited by BOARshevik on 06-29-2004 at 11:34 AM

POST #39 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

RegBarc is offline Old Post 06-29-2004 12:33 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for RegBarc Visit RegBarc's homepage! Find more posts by RegBarc Add RegBarc to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
RegBarc
Member-at-Large

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1448

My whole argument isn't that based on race, ethnicity, color, religion, etc., but on age specifically. Youthful age, and in my case, gun ownership, are not covered by the Civil Rights act of 1964. Therefor, it is something that is discriminable.

As far as your comments on gun ownership, and carrier of a concealed weapon and constitutional scholar alike know that a weapon is a necessity to the user when carried for self defense, like my case. Just because I have the physical ability to NOT carry the weapon, doesn't mean I shouldn't. It is prudent, and dangerous to my liberties as a person and as a citizen to not carry my firearm because someone doesn't like it. If I go to a theater that says I cannot carry, and there are no 30.06 laws, I still carry because it is concealed anyway. If it is a 30.06 state, then I obey the law and I do not even go there. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

You have misconstrued me when saying I am for illegal discrimination and I even said that the establishment has to abide by the law of the land. From Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

TITLE II -- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

"Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin"

And age is where? The only age based discrimination that I see is for the other end of the spectrum in employer hiring practices for those over a certain age, not under.

You have to understand, I am arguing on the side of the law and the law allows private businesses to say that people are too young to enter an establishment. I never said any other type of discrimination was right or just, and misconstruing my statements to make it look like I am arguing against the CRA of 1964 is kind of insulting. It is as if you are trying to make me sound less credible by creating lies about my argument itself.

Another big point that you may have overlooked is the fact kids that are 13, 14, whatever, are alone, without parental supervision or guardian. If anything, the private establishment is protecting itself from a whole lot of civil lawsuits by not allowing them in unaccompanied.

Any discrimination that is illegal is wrong and we the people should put a stop to it. But, to put it bluntly, telling kids they are too young to enter is perfectly allowable by law.

__________________
James M. Mack, Jr.
jmm75@drexel.edu

The Triangle - Ed-Op Editor

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine

POST #40 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 PM. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (5): « Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next »   Last Thread   Next Thread
>>> Loews Reserved Seating <<<

TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 > Off Topic Areas (Non-TiVo) > Happy Hour - General Chit-Chat
Search The Internet
 
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this thread

Forum Jump:
 
Search this Thread:

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.8
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
(C)opyright - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not affiliated with TiVo Inc.
Page generated in 0.08655405 seconds (88.84% PHP - 11.16% MySQL) with 20 queries.


Spider History Index