Conroe brewery pulls out as venue for Kyle Rittenhouse rally against censorship

[Deleted User 1990]

Being acquitted/found not guilty means the government isn’t going to sanction or imprison someone. It doesn’t mean everyone else has to be cool with what he did and not find his actions abhorrent.

If a guy beats up his girlfriend and there are photos of her injured but he’s acquitted because she’s too scared to testify against him at trial, it’s fair that the burden of evidence wasn’t met him court to meet the standard for a guilty verdict. It’s also fair for people he knows to think he’s a piece of shit and no longer want to associate with him.

No, it doesn’t mean anyone has to like him…


But it’s a pretty pivotal question in our society if we are going to decide that discrimination in these cases is ok…

According to the google search I just did, the ACLU wrote There are many states that are now making discrimination against convicted felons illegal in many instances because of the detrimental effect those discrimination allowances were affecting people of color.

If we all now decide that we can discriminate against not guilty people too, what kind of ripple effect could that have through our society?

Will that allow for more instances of discrimination that we might be uneasy with?

I don’t think this is a new development or unique at all to Rittenhouse. OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but never got his endorsements back, for example.

Endorsements are short term contracts, he wasn’t entitled to a resigning to begin with .

OJ still has private parties at restaurants.

[Francee89]

No, it doesn’t mean anyone has to like him…


But it’s a pretty pivotal question in our society if we are going to decide that discrimination in these cases is ok…

According to the google search I just did, the ACLU wrote There are many states that are now making discrimination against convicted felons illegal in many instances because of the detrimental effect those discrimination allowances were affecting people of color.

If we all now decide that we can discriminate against not guilty people too, what kind of ripple effect could that have through our society?

Will that allow for more instances of discrimination that we might be uneasy with?

I don’t think this is a new development or unique at all to Rittenhouse. OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but never got his endorsements back, for example.

Endorsements are short term contracts, he wasn’t entitled to a resigning to begin with .

OJ still has private parties at restaurants.

Does he? Do we know that he’s never turned down for private parties at restaurants? And to make it more analogous to this, does he headline events at restaurants?

He wasn’t entitled to a re-signing, but the fact that he appears to have never re-signed or attracted a new major endorsement deals is evidence companies were “discriminating” against his services as a spokesperson post acquittal.

[SouthernIslander]

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/14 ... ttenhouse/


Just adding to this….

It was local customers asked the owner to cancel and that speaks volumes considering this is a very conservative state, so it’s not just the anti-gun left who finds this kid to be a piece of shit.

[Deleted User 1990]

I don’t think this is a new development or unique at all to Rittenhouse. OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but never got his endorsements back, for example.

Endorsements are short term contracts, he wasn’t entitled to a resigning to begin with .

OJ still has private parties at restaurants.

Does he? Do we know that he’s never turned down for private parties at restaurants? And to make it more analogous to this, does he headline events at restaurants?

He wasn’t entitled to a re-signing, but the fact that he appears to have never re-signed or attracted a new major endorsement deals is evidence companies were “discriminating” against his services as a spokesperson post acquittal.

Did he ask for endorsement deals back?

[jessilin0113]

There’s no reason he would have to go away and live a quiet life. He was found not guilty.

If we have now decided that we aren’t going to stand behind our own justice system that declares people to be innocent until proven guilty, we are opening up the door for so many more instances of discrimination that we will not be ok with seeing, but will have to accept since we set the bar.

Correct, there is no reason for him to go away but I'm allowed to not like him. And I still disagree it's discrimination. He's not a protected class, businesses have the right to decide what kind of public relations they want to have, he's not entitled to a platform, the government isn't stopping him from speaking so it's not actually a free speech or censorship issue. It's called consequences. He can simply find somewhere else. I'm sure there is no shortage of right-wing establishments that would love to have him. Airing petty grievances is kind of their thing.

That’s right… he’s not a “protected class” so discrimination is fully legal.



Someday though… those words are going to be hard to hear when we see others being discriminated against as well for reasons we don’t believe are valid .

I cannot agree that it's discrimination. One company chose not to associate with him. All of his rights are intact. And now he gets to go bitch on FOX about it. This is probably s net positive for him. I simply don't see this as some sort of systematic censorship issue. It's just consequences of his actions. He shot people. Not everybody wants to celebrate that.

[Deleted User 1990]

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/14 ... ttenhouse/


Just adding to this….

It was local customers asked the owner to cancel and that speaks volumes considering this is a very conservative state, so it’s not just the anti-gun left who finds this kid to be a piece of shit.

And in the same area 20 years ago they used to discriminate against Muslims for being possible terrorists… it was allowed.


In the same area 80 years ago they used to discriminate against anyone non white for being a possible danger… it was allowed


We make discrimination laws because it’s unethical to allow, not because the people in the area have a problem with the discrimination. Most of the time the people will defend the discrimination tooth and nail…

[Deleted User 1990]

Correct, there is no reason for him to go away but I'm allowed to not like him. And I still disagree it's discrimination. He's not a protected class, businesses have the right to decide what kind of public relations they want to have, he's not entitled to a platform, the government isn't stopping him from speaking so it's not actually a free speech or censorship issue. It's called consequences. He can simply find somewhere else. I'm sure there is no shortage of right-wing establishments that would love to have him. Airing petty grievances is kind of their thing.

That’s right… he’s not a “protected class” so discrimination is fully legal.



Someday though… those words are going to be hard to hear when we see others being discriminated against as well for reasons we don’t believe are valid .

I cannot agree that it's discrimination. One company chose not to associate with him. All of his rights are intact. And now he gets to go bitch on FOX about it. This is probably s net positive for him. I simply don't see this as some sort of systematic censorship issue. It's just consequences of his actions. He shot people. Not everybody wants to celebrate that.

The one company that chose not to associate with him did so for a discriminatory reason. A fully legal, non protected class, discriminatory reason…

I totally get the hatred for this kid… but that’s kind of not a good enough reason to ignore ethics in business practices. It opens too many doors.

[SouthernIslander]

I suppose we’re fully realizing what rights we have…


When I was younger, discrimination was not legal, as far as I knew. I thought if you ran a business, you needed to treat people equally…

Then I grew up and realized you can discriminate against people. It was only race and S*x that mattered. Everything else was fair game…


You can discriminate against them for who they want to marry, you can discriminate against them for what gender they choose to live, you can discriminate against them for their beliefs, you can discriminate against them for their politics… thousands of things really.

And that’s part of the free speech rights of whoever wants to discriminate against you…

The business serves beer. Mr. Rittenhouse is able to go in and purchase beer the same as anyone else. I don't see the discrimination.

If the business does not want a political event held there, they can choose not to host it. They are not a political event venue.

The business is a venue… they choose who is allowed to rent or not based on their political views.

If the business is a bakery, they can choose who to bake a cake for based on what kind of wedding it is…

If the business is a bar, they can deny party rooms to a gender coming out party…



That’s what discrimination is. I’m not denying that it’s fully legal… it is. But it definitely makes the person being denied the service feel discriminated against.

I think Rittenhouse was turned down because Texans didn’t want to be bothered with his drama and the chaos isn’t good for business.

I personally think it’s horrible to feel entitled to put a business in that position to begin with.

[jessilin0113]

That’s right… he’s not a “protected class” so discrimination is fully legal.



Someday though… those words are going to be hard to hear when we see others being discriminated against as well for reasons we don’t believe are valid .

I cannot agree that it's discrimination. One company chose not to associate with him. All of his rights are intact. And now he gets to go bitch on FOX about it. This is probably s net positive for him. I simply don't see this as some sort of systematic censorship issue. It's just consequences of his actions. He shot people. Not everybody wants to celebrate that.

The one company that chose not to associate with him did so for a discriminatory reason. A fully legal, non protected class, discriminatory reason…

I totally get the hatred for this kid… but that’s kind of not a good enough reason to ignore ethics in business practices. It opens too many doors.

I feel like we are talking about similar, adjacent issues, but not exactly the same issue. Businesses "discriminate" all the time. They can refuse unruly customers, they can refuse customers that harass others, they can refuse customers that don't wear shoes. We had a business refuse to host a democratic party because they were republicans. But we could still meet, we could still vote, we could still talk about issues, we just couldn't do it at that location. That was a business decision, not widespread discrimination. People don't have to like everything you do and they don't have to provide a platform for it. Again, it's a consequence of his actions, not generalized discriminations of a specific class of people. He still continues to have all his rights and he is more than welcome to frequent that business as a legit customer. They just don't want to be a megaphone for him. They don't have to.

[SouthernIslander]

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/14 ... ttenhouse/


Just adding to this….

It was local customers asked the owner to cancel and that speaks volumes considering this is a very conservative state, so it’s not just the anti-gun left who finds this kid to be a piece of shit.

And in the same area 20 years ago they used to discriminate against Muslims for being possible terrorists… it was allowed.


In the same area 80 years ago they used to discriminate against anyone non white for being a possible danger… it was allowed


We make discrimination laws because it’s unethical to allow, not because the people in the area have a problem with the discrimination. Most of the time the people will defend the discrimination tooth and nail…

A restaurant refusing to allow a customer to troll on their time is not comparable.

You just can’t go in someone’s business doing whatever the tell you want and expect the restaurant to suffer the consequences.

It’s not discrimination to kick someone out because they are an asshole or an agent of chaos.

It’s not illegal because you (general) have no right to do that to a business or their customers.