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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should a business be allowed to censor wifi on a religious basis?
- Thread starter Kapalika
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You appear to be full of bad analogies tonight. You should read up on how to use that tool.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
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.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's like complaining about a magazine in the waiting room of a dentist office because it doesn't have a centerfold.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Again, Hardee's sells fast food and offers wifi as a free courtesy. It's not something they're obligated to do. If you have a cell phone, you could always use your carrier's service instead.
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.
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.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
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.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
<GASP!!> That would be outrageous
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?
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?
I want all you naysayers to give me a real answer to either the mint or popcorn examples;
If you are giving out free mints after someone finishes a meal, should you be able to choose to deny black people and gay people the mints?
If a movie theater gave out popcorn to movie goers with no extra charge, should they be allowed to deny popcorn on the basis of race or religion?
If you think either situation is wrong, please tell me how then they are different from denying access to only specific types of religious sites when it's in a service, like the mints or popcorn, that are being denied?
This isn't about porn, or violence, or anything obscene. They are not comparable when the content is not objectionable in terms of content.
If you are giving out free mints after someone finishes a meal, should you be able to choose to deny black people and gay people the mints?
If a movie theater gave out popcorn to movie goers with no extra charge, should they be allowed to deny popcorn on the basis of race or religion?
If you think either situation is wrong, please tell me how then they are different from denying access to only specific types of religious sites when it's in a service, like the mints or popcorn, that are being denied?
This isn't about porn, or violence, or anything obscene. They are not comparable when the content is not objectionable in terms of content.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
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, complain, or take my business elsewhere (the latter two would've been rather extreme for the situation.)
That would be kinda awkward but I think they could just change the channel if someone asked. If they don't that's a little different as it's something you are being annoyed with. I know places here that put on tv stations, tend to put 2 or 3 major ones and usually have them muted so people who don't want to hear it can ignore them.
In any case I think my main point really in all of this is to point out the bias. People here are assuming I'm on some crusade. Sure I think it's wrong but it's not like it really hurts me since I can literally just get around it or go somewhere else (I did the latter). All I've actually done and really plan to do is send a message to one of their online things to what their policy is on blocking sites in regards to on the basis of religious content.
I think I'm also surprised by what people think about this (I posted about this a couple of other places too), and I get the feeling that because it's the internet people's standards are different. From what I know though of the law on this kind of thing, it's probably not against any regulation or freedom of religion thing but would have some precedence to be declared as such.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
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.
In regards to the OP: Ah, the pity party of victimhood.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
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.
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".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? This has nothing to do with the topic that we were discussing.
If they're actually taking specific actions to ban you. They're not. They just have the safety setting of their network security device set to maximum. This setting would be common with schools, businesses, etc., to mostly to avoid lawsuits by accidentally allowing some kid with a tablet to see something deemed "bad" by society. Actually, you should be happy your little Hardee's has a Cisco Meraki sitting there (expensive hardware, honestly) - it means when you use their wireless network your chance of getting hacked by malware is virtually zero.
It is unlikely that the ban list is a product of their network administrators, but rather it is whatever block list that Cisco is relying on to secure their network products. But, that being said, the site he was accessing was "Occult" and chances that you are getting off that ban list are virtually zero. 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.
Well ya it could just be that, but I don't really know, other than I know that some businesses here do **** like shove Christianity in your face and this one had put up pamplets and stuff before and I know some other store chain owners are super Christian for some bizarre reason and put Bibles and Bible quotes everywhere in their business. Most places around here aren't like that but some are.
Ya I could use a VPN, but the fact that "occult" at all is on a list is the issue I'm taking since it makes no sense since there are much more violent things in the Bible.
Some people brought up them getting sued for not blocking them but that doesn't make any sense, since you have to intentionally connect to a server to access any site. It's not like people accidentally type in the address for a very specific site then blame it on someone else. Doesn't really make sense.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They have a one size fits all mint. They are not even aware of your particular "mint". You are taking personal offense at something that was not personal. If you don't like the flavor of mint you do not have to go there.
Your beliefs are rather obscure to say the least. I had to look up "LHP" to find what you were even talking about and it was nowhere near the first acronym that came up with Google. @SomeRandom gave you a possible solution. Since there was nothing personal I am betting that solution will not work I am not suggesting that you change religion, but it is unreasonable to expect others to accommodate every religion in the world in a non-religious setting. You are probably going to get as much traction as a Hindu would that complained that they were serving beef.