They're a business, not an internet provider. They can block whatever they please. But you could always give feedback to the management and see if they update allowances made to their security thingy.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You appear to be full of bad analogies tonight. You should read up on how to use that tool.so ....you don't mind being cut off.....
It's your cell phone....after all
Kudos for a constructive solution.They're a business, not an internet provider. They can block whatever they please. But you could always give feedback to the management and see if they update allowances made to their security thingy.
so ....you don't mind being cut off.....
It's your cell phone....after all
so ....you don't mind being cut off.....
It's your cell phone....after all
Bad analogy again. I am sure that Hardee's pays the internet server. But if a restaurant plays local radio they are under no obligation to allow the customers to change the station. Your analogy fails again.It's worth mentioning that in cases of large companies providing anything to enhance the experience at a business they they are subject to certain regulations that anyone else would be even if they don't charge specifically for it. For example if they play even a local radio station they need to pay copyright royalties.
Honestly I think a lot of you would have a different tune if it was your religion that was being censored. I think it's at the very least morally wrong even if it shouldn't necessarily be illegal. However I'm against most forms of censorship.
<GASP!!> That would be outrageousShould churches be allowed to censor gay porn on their WIFIs?
I say yes, they definitely should.
Should churches be allowed to censor gay porn on their WIFIs?
I say yes, they definitely should.
Bad analogy again. I am sure that Hardee's pays the internet server. But if a restaurant plays local radio they are under no obligation to allow the customers to change the station. Your analogy fails again.
It's worth mentioning that in cases of large companies providing anything to enhance the experience at a business they they are subject to certain regulations that anyone else would be even if they don't charge specifically for it. For example if they play even a local radio station they need to pay copyright royalties.
Honestly I think a lot of you would have a different tune if it was your religion that was being censored. I think it's at the very least morally wrong even if it shouldn't necessarily be illegal. However I'm against most forms of censorship.
While it does appear biased, the best you can do is complain to the company.
I took one of our cars to the local auto shop recently, and as I waited in the lounge they were airing Fox News on the TV and 90% of their magazines were conservative rags. Annoying for sure, but they're not legally obligated to offer or give equal time to liberal shows/magazines. I could either settle for what was offered, provide my own news/entertainment in the interim, or take my business elsewhere (which would be rather extreme for the situation.)
I have resisted the urge to own either a cell or smart phone. People can leave me a damn message if I am otherwise occupied.so ....you don't mind being cut off.....
It's your cell phone....after all
No one is denying "mints" to anyone. They are simply telling people they have only one flavor of mints. You want a different flavor of "mint" than the restaurant carries. Your analogy fails again.Also, it's more about the principle than anything else. I absolutely could of just used a VPN to get around it.
The reasons comparisons like this is bull**** is because porn isn't allowed in public due to age restrictions. The site in question was basically PG. No violence, no sex, nothing shocking or objectionable and there is nothing inherently obscene or offensive in something "occult".
You're comparing apples to oranges. There is nothing indecent about talking about the occult in public, so these comparisons to violence and sex being displayed in public are nonsense. The occult usually isn't any more violent or pornographic than the Bible (which literally has an erotic book in the OT along with all the genocide and blood sacrifice).
My analogy doesn't fail because that's whats been ruled in similar cases. And what do you mean "internet server"? Do you mean "service provider"? The restaurant doesn't pay the radio station, they pay the artists on the radio station royalties.
I didn't suggest anyone "change the station" as that's not comparable. What is comparable is that they are using something to enhance the experience, that is generally only allowed when you make a purchase. That makes it part of their service.
No, here's a better analogy. You are giving out free mints after someone finishes a meal, but you choose to deny black people and gay people the free mints.
Now do you get it?
No one is denying "mints" to anyone. They are simply telling people they have only one flavor of mints. You want a different flavor of "mint" than the restaurant carries. Your analogy fails again.
What? This has nothing to do with the topic that we were discussing.Oh right, only the flavor of "acceptable religions" which is probably why all those Christians pamphlets were there and why it specifically blocked the site for being "occult" instead of "religious content".
Pretty much the same "you serve the public, you serve the public" type of argument. If you ban one religious site, you need to ban them all. Or, in reverse, if you allow one you have to allow them all.
As for "it's their wifi," that is true, but just because it's "their building" doesn't mean they can legally discriminate based on a range of items that are legally defined.
What? This has nothing to do with the topic that we were discussing.
Personally, I'm against this sort of censorship but what's stopping you from using TOR or vpn? I mean, they can block that too, but most people don't.
Sure it does. You just proved by analogy that it's religious discrimination. Only some flavors of mints (religion) are allowed. That's why there wasn't a block on the non occult religious sites.