or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mstone

I think advertising pays for some of it. Do you remember last year when Time Warner did not renew their contract with ABC because they could not come to terms? I'm not sure how much it was but probably billions not millions. The cable providers have to buy the content from the broadcasters. The cable companies also have local ads too. If the content is streaming from the net they loose eyeballs on their local ads. There are a lot aspects to this and it is live which adds...
I hear you but from a business perspective everyone has to make money. You can't give stuff away for free and stay in business. The actors get paid the auditorium gets paid, the caters get paid, the camera operators get paid... shall I go on? Why do you think it should all be free for the viewers? Well, it is free if you can get it OTA, but that is another thread. I'm not sure why it is only available in the major markets but perhaps it was too expensive for so many...
I think it is related to the fact that the cable companies have already paid the broadcaster for that content and it wouldn't be fair to the cable company or their subscribers for the broadcaster to give the content away for free to non cable subscribers.
When I can get my emergency life saving heart surgery done at a LGBT hospital I'll put them on equal standing with my Catholic hospital.  Christians and Jews may be living in the religious middles ages but they have wonderful health care facilities. 
I'm reading all these idealistic extremist posts but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of gray area in this these scenarios.   I keep trying to make the distinction between a public walk in business and an exclusive clientele business. You can't just say ALL businesses.   Let's just take weddings out of the equation for a moment.   If you have an open door in a public place of business you cannot refuse service or discriminate against any well dressed...
Ok so you make good points but photographers do not take a Hippocratic Oath,
Understood, but if they don't disclose why they refused the offer, there is no case. They just respectfully decline. That is why when ever I put a property up for sale I always say considering offers above x dollars. There are all kinds of people I don't want to sell to and it has nothing to do with race of sexual preference. I don't like like real estate speculators and I don't accept their offers.
Depends on the type of business. If you have a restaurant, you cannot discriminate against a well dressed gay or minority from dining at your establishment but let's say an advertising agency or an architect where you have to be referred by an associate to even be considered, you can pick and choose your clients using any criteria you decide.
Yeah, I addressed that yesterday saying that the local Christian dry cleaners, grocers, and restaurant owners apparently don't have any issue taking gay couples' money because it doesn't directly threaten those Tea Party views of the one man one woman sanctity of marriage deal. They just look the other way and take the cash. But when it comes to a wedding, there is no looking away. They have to put two little same sex figures on top of the cake or when they have to shoot a...
While I agree with you on the discrimination issues, the Fair Housing Act is about rent and lending. A seller can refuse an offer with no reason given.
New Posts  All Forums: