Cloudflare is the One Tech Company Still Sticking By Neo-Nazi Websites (qz.com) 549
An anonymous reader shares a report: One company is sticking by The Daily Stormer and other far-right websites: the cloud security and performance service Cloudflare. Cloudflare acts as a shield between websites and the outside world, protecting them from hackers and preserving the anonymity of the sites' owners. But Cloudflare is not a hosting service: It does not store website content on its servers. And that fact, as far as the company is concerned, exempts it from judgment over who its clients are -- even if those clients are literally Nazis. In a statement Cloudflare sent to Quartz and other publications yesterday, the company refused to explicitly say it will continue to do business with sites like The Daily Stormer, but pointed out that the content would exist regardless of what Cloudflare does or doesn't do. "Cloudflare is aware of the concerns that have been raised over some sites that have used our network. We find the content on some of these sites repugnant. While our policy is to not comment on any user specifically, we are cooperating with law enforcement in any investigation. Cloudflare is not the host of any website. Cloudflare is a network that provides performance and security services to more than 10% of all Internet requests. Cloudflare terminating any user would not remove their content from the Internet, it would simply make a site slower and more vulnerable to attack."
UPDATE: The Daily Stormer now says Cloudflare has decided to drop their site after all.
UPDATE: The Daily Stormer now says Cloudflare has decided to drop their site after all.
Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool that someone still stands for freedom of speech.
Most people were brainwashed to think that freedom of speech means "freedom to say anything - as long this are the 'good things'".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you have the right to say it, doesn't mean people have to actually give you the time, place, or attention.
That's true, but saying it on your own website SHOULD be equivalent to saying it on the doorstep of your house.
No intermediary required for you to to get your internet access should be judging you, because FREE and OPEN communication is the primary value of the internet.
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Hear! Hear! They don't call it the "Tyranny of the Majority" for nothing. If what GoDaddy did is how free speech works, then it's likely that the Civil Rights movements would have been dead in its tracks until a majority cared enough to make it visible. That's with everything. This "1984" view of correctness is scary and how it comes from the left as being "say good things or we beat the crap out of you," is even more scary.
Do you really want Nazis working underground? Well, suppressing free speech is how to get Nazis working underground.
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Some choices:
1. Nazis working underground
2. Nazis working in the open
3. Nazis trying to work in the open but finding it exceptionally difficult because people don't want to associate with them or take their money
I'll have a 3 please!
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Your "3" is just your "1", but makes your group an obvious victim of discrimination, and therefore worthy of sympathy. Great plan.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still wondering whatever happened to "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"?
Re: (Score:3)
> You slimy fuck.
Thank you. Nice to meet you, too.
> How is being gay equivalent to choosing to be a Nazi.
This equivalence is posed only by you. You should be ashamed! No wonder you stay anonymous.
I posed an equivalence between being denied services by private companies because they don't like what one does. Whatever that is.
Re: (Score:3)
Cloudflare has made it clear that they will investigate illegal activity and shut people down for it. If by "incitement", you mean its actual legal definition, then you agree with Cloudflare's position. Or is "incitement" is code for "say things I really don't like"?
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom of speech implies that you're allowed a voice. In the Internet era, that means web hosts.
Removing already existing content over ideological dissent is called censorship, no matter how you put it.
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh how naive...
You really think Americans of the time gave a damn about some Jews, Gypsies and fags being slaughtered? Get real!
You fough to smash a developing power block that wasn't particularly friendly to you and started threatening your own power base.
I am convinced that a statistically relevant part of your population thought Hitler was on the right track.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech implies that you're allowed a voice.
No it does not
Yes it does. Just as you can get a phone line, electrical service, run a ham radio, get a driver's license, register to vote, and have the post office carry your mail, all regardless of what you think about wombats.
Re: (Score:3)
No one 'has to' sell services to people, but companies that withdraw services are now acting as a judge of content instead of just being a common carrier and leaving it to courts to rule on such things - you know, the people who can actually define 'racism' or w/e is the term du jour being misused in media and random internet posts.
Companies are quick to overreact based on perceived negative PR, thanks to overzealous media that loves to gang up on anyone who doesn't follow their groupthink. But as this beco
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
No one 'has to' sell services to people
That has yet to be decided [economist.com]. Sometimes the State will compell you to provide services or goods to others, even if you don't like it. I assume all those who denounced the "gay wedding cake baker" will of course denounce the websites dropping this Nazi group, too.
Re: Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
And therein shows the hypocrisy as Kennedy espoused. The First Amendment was specifically written about political speech and freedom of association, and it's been twisted to demand freedom of everything but those - you can only say what the State dictates, and you must associate with people the State decides.
Now who's the fascist?
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Take that as a weather vane of this country's values. If it's against your grain, leave. Please!
We are taking as a "weather vane" of our countries values. An those values clearly state that you have a right to say, gather peacefully, or hold values no matter how repugnant hey are.
Freedom of speech applies to everyone in this country, every one. Just because you don't like their speech doesn't mean they can't say it. You just don't have to listen to it, like most of us chose not to do.
An if it's against your grain, leave. Please!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true but I wonder how long it will be or even if it should remain that way. Google, Facebook, and Twitter control so much content and how we find it on the internet. All the companies mentioned have all ready shown a willingness to censor speech that doesn't match their agenda or corporate policies. How much longer before google polices decide what we can and can't see? How much longer before companies like Facebook and Twitter decide an election?
It might be time to start thinking about ext
Re: (Score:3)
Freedoms in a virtual world? (Score:2)
The real question is what freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press all mean in the virtual world. I don't agree with what was said, and I certainly don't agree with any form of censorship regarding speech. I really would like to see some of these cases make their way up to the supreme court to reaffirm some of the rights which have been diluted over the past 4-5 decades.
Re: (Score:3)
If it does make it up to the SCOTUS, the outcome is pretty cut and dry. "Congress shall make no law...". Meaning the government can't take any action restricting free speech. In fact the entirety of the Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the government is not allowed to do. For example, the second amendment prohibits the government from restricting your access to firearms, but businesses are 100% in their rights to do so on their premises. A business is equally within their rights to regulate your sp
Re: (Score:3)
If you own the server hosting the site, the ISP providing service, the backbone that ISP connects to, the other peers it connects to... Where does your "only if you own it" argument end? Do you also need to own the domain registrar as well? What about all the root domain servers?
Cloudflare don't own the server hosting the site. They're providing a proxy and cache service.
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly...
If you silence someone and make their speech forbidden, then it will attract people *because* its forbidden.
Hiding information from people is never a solution to anything.
Nazis should be free to express their views, as should everyone else.
If people are reasonably educated then they should be able to draw their own conclusions based on the information available to them.
It's also good to hear all viewpoints before you decide where you stand on an issue. Just because someone's views are commonly held as extreme doesn't mean they don't deserve a fair hearing. Once you've learned about their views then you can make an informed decision as to wether their opinion is bullshit, and if so why.
Saying you are against nazis because "omfg nazis!" is almost as stupid as promoting the common nazi ideals. If you're going to speak against something, you should at least have researched that topic thoroughly first so you understand exactly what you're speaking against.
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
It will also provide people justifications for trying to suppress YOUR speech in the future.
These people are all idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Your previous post is you complaining that people call everyone they disagree with Nazis. Here you are calling everyone you disagree with an idiot.
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Your previous post is you complaining that people call everyone they disagree with Nazis. Here you are calling everyone you disagree with an idiot.
Yeah, but idiots are still allowed a platform.
When you support the silencing of dissent, don't be surprised when your dissent is silenced.
What goes around, comes around.
Re: (Score:3)
"Insightful" my ass. The First Amendment only stops the government from censoring you. Private companies are not bound by it. I can still tell you to shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can't make him shut up.
Re: (Score:3)
And, likewise, no one is smashing down the server room door where The Daily Stormer is hosted.
If someone detroys their server or their network link, that's crossing the line. If someone decides not to do business with them, that's perfectly fine.
You are entitled to exist free from harm or threats; you are not entitled to publicity, social media, or a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thoughts and words are not violence, except in Soviet Russia and (gasp) Nazi Germany.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who defends Free Speech these days is called a Nazi and Racist and their words are called "violent".
Make no mistake, your protestations are not about human decency, they are about a creeping authoritarianism from the left that would allow only approved speech. Guess who the people approving it would be...ya...
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
People keep complaining about being called Nazis, not even listening carefully enough to notice that it's not directed at them. It's directed at the guy with the swastika standing next to them.
It's a warning that the mainstream right is being infiltrated and subsumed by the far right. Trump, the guy at the very top, took 60 hours to give a half assed condemnation of those guys. That should worry you.
Huh? What the bleep are you talking about (Score:4)
If they wanted to advocate for something peaceful they could do so without flying Swastikas. By calling themselves Nazis and flying their colors they automatically imply their intention to act violently because _Nazis_solve_their_problems_with_violence_! This is not up for debate. You might just as well argue grass is blue and the sky green. Hell, you'd have a better chance of proving that because at least color on some level is subjective. The only way you can argue that Nazis are non-violent is if you're arguing against facts from the get go.
Also, when the hell has the left ever argued against free speech? Go Daddy not doing business with Nazis is as much a freedom issue for them as it is for the Nazis. It only becomes a free speech issue when access to _government_ services is denied. And so far as I know it has not.
You and your goofy sig have been on
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
So...quash Free Speech to protect Free Speech.
Orwell Called, he says you can write the Sequel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your definitions of these? Are they the exact same definitions everyone else uses to rant about anyone they don't like? Esp. with 'racism', its become a good excuse to get upset for a lot of people who have no understanding of the actual meaning of the term.
So, how're you going to stop what you say are 'assaults on human beings' (somehow conducted thru the net - what is it, e-terrorism for the couch terrorists?) without affecting all the other people getting accused unfairly? If you or major internet
Re: (Score:3)
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Talking about nazism and racism, even promoting such views is free speech. It's not an assault on anyone, it's only words. If someone is promoting such views then at least you know where they stand and can decide wether to have dealings with them or not. Which is better than them holding such views in secret.
Would you want to do business with someone who secretly hates you and thinks you have no right to live? I certainly wouldn't. I would ch
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Talking about nazism and racism, even promoting such views is free speech. It's not an assault on anyone, it's only words. If someone is promoting such views then at least you know where they stand and can decide wether to have dealings with them or not. Which is better than them holding such views in secret. Would you want to do business with someone who secretly hates you and thinks you have no right to live? I certainly wouldn't. I would choose to take my business elsewhere if i knew someone to be a nazi or hold any other such extremist views.
Anti-nazi speech should similarly be protected, and people should be just as free to tell nazis (and any other groups) exactly what they think of them.
Speech should be protected, draw the line at actual physical violence.
come back at me the next time you've had someone call you a "chink" and tell you to "go back home" when you already are.
better yet, come back at me when you can explain why Heather Heyer had to *die*
Re:Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Heather Heyer didn't have to die. She was murdered by individual with disgusting views. That individual is in custody, he will be charged with his crime, and he will be punished for it. At the trial his political views will be taken into account. What more would you want?
As you being called a a 'chink' and told to 'go back home.' Try being called a 'cracker' and told to go back to Europe, or being told the world is better off if you where dead. There are people with little minds in this world. You will not stamp out racism, bigotry, and hatred by simply sweeping it under a rug.
Re: (Score:3)
I have heard that it might turn into a self-defense trial. I could see that happening if he was truly running for his life. I think over the next few days we are going to find out some ugly truths about both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
It wouldn't be the first time that klan (I refuse to capitalize it) has turned violent only to find out the klan was defending themselves. I've been reading up on events for the last 30 years and it seems that in most of the cases where violence breaks out it usually starts with counter protesters.
Of course if you read between the lines you find out this exactly what the klan wants to happen. They show up, do their little song and dance while hiding behind free speech and police barricades. Then when
Re: (Score:3)
Yes he was, a few miles from where I'm sitting. I would suggest you take the time and go down to where it happened. Damn powerful feeling just standing there at a key point where history changed.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, that's not what happened. he barreled down an empty street TOWARDS A CROWD, backed up, and then SPED AT THEM AGAIN. he's been charged with MURDER. you're a fool.
From what you have posted in this thread, sounds to me like you are just as full of hate as the people in the videos. At least they are honest in their hatred.
Re: Cool that someone still stands for freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, reminds me of Voltaire's famous quote:
"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to never say it again, I'm going to attack all the web hosts so no one can hear you".
Re: (Score:3)
Was it around November that he lost his mind?
Re: (Score:2)
I am amazed by how dumb some defenders of free speech are. Free speech is the ability to say what you want without the government stopping you by force. It doesn't provide you with immunity from others acting in response to your words, including trying to shout you down, get you fired, shun you, mock you, boycott you, get you kicked off your hosting service etc etc. If you want them not to be able to protest in this way, it is *you* that is anti-free speech. And you yourself may one day wish to protest in e
Somebody has to (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech means nothing if it's not applied to everyone, including the most odious. For there is always something you would like that someone else would consider obscene and block.
Let it all through. Let people choose and find their own way.
Re:Somebody has to (Score:5, Insightful)
yar.. if there's one thing worse than this kind of repugnant bullshit, it's censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And that should be dealt with via the law, not private companies trying to smooth over their recent bad PR.
Re:Somebody has to (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, unless the speech can be judged as intending to immediately incite people to violence, it probably is protected.
People (myself included, in the past) love to quote Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes statement "[T]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". Thing is, that ruling was subsequently significantly narrowed [wikipedia.org] some years afterward... it's all about whether your intent is to get people to become violent right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Communism advocates class struggle (i.e. line up the property owners and intellectuals against the wall). Islam advocates violence against infidels, Jews most of all. Feminism advocates free and freely available abortions (i.e. killing certain unborn persons). We can go on and on.
So who's free speech do you want to ban?
Re: (Score:3)
Various religious books also promote violence against certain people, and yet they are protected...
The key to everything is education.
If people are stupid and poorly educated, then they will be easily influenced by others.
People who are smart and well educated will not be easily swayed irrespective of how much propaganda they read.
Of course the powers that be actually prefer the former group of people, as it is easier for them to control through the mass media. But in order for that to work, you need to ens
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, incitement of violence is protected speech in the United States. There's a very limited subcategory of incitement that's not protected, but it's not nearly as broad as you are implying. One can, for example, say "All left handed people should be killed as soon as we know they're left handed" and that is not incitement. On the other hand, if you're surrounded by a mob of people who are likely to kill left handed people, you cannot shout, "That guy in the blue hat is left handed, get him!"
Re: (Score:3)
everyone you dont like is a nazi
Or maybe just the ones that put on the uniforms, and carry the flags, and call themselves Nazis. (I mean, they are pretty easy to pick out in a crowd.)
here's my mainstream article about why violence against nazis is ok
Don't see anything in his comment about beating up Nazis. Or any links to articles for that matter.
but everyone i dont like shouldn't be able to speak because thats violence
Or it could just be that he's pointing out inciting violence isn't protected by free speech laws. But what the hell do I know, I'm just a guy that can read a sentence for what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
How nice for them. (Score:2)
All publicity is good publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
The Shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Damore has come out against the Alt-right.
Re:The Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Damore has come out against the Alt-right.
You sound surprised. You do understand that it's possible to be both against the alt-right, and against the hard-left?
After all, the nazis and antifa have more in common than they differ. However, only one of them is any serious threat, and it's not the one that everyone regards as a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Offensive speech is the type that needs protection (Score:5, Insightful)
"The First Amendment really was designed to protect a debate at the fringes. You don't need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable or outrageous or offensive - because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress, and we have a First Amendment to prevent the government from doing that."
- ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro
It's true that companies are not limited by the First Amendment, but it's refreshing when one acts as if they were.
Re: (Score:3)
>It's true that companies are not limited by the First Amendment, but it's refreshing when one acts as if they were.
There seems to be some limits. We don't want companies refusing services to gays or muslims or minorities.
There is also limits on companies firing employees who try to unionize or talk about working conditions.
And we don't want them firing pregnant workers or disabled people for no reasons.
Most americans wants some limits to protect people, this includes people who dont agree with.
Pastor M
Re: (Score:3)
Quick question (Score:5, Informative)
What about those dastardly ACLU guys? (Score:3)
Free Speech isn't optional (Score:5, Insightful)
the company refused to explicitly say it will continue to do business with sites like The Daily Stormer, but pointed out that the content would exist regardless of what Cloudflare does or doesn't do.
While I and probably most of us find the content disgusting and repulsive, I for one am glad Cloudflare is standing up for free speech even they disagree with. This takes real balls. And it's a good thing. Free speech isn't optional. Only listening is optional.
Re: (Score:2)
This takes real balls.
It takes greed. CloudFlare is a big business, and any moralizing should be assumed disingenuous until proven otherwise.
You can certainly judge a company by who they serve and how, but don't pretend morality enters the picture. GoDaddy, Google, and CloudFlare are all taking political stances to appeal to potential clients.
Free speech isn't optional. Only listening is optional.
The right to speak is protected, but access to technology isn't.
A man has the right to stand on a street corner and speak his mind. But just as no one is obligated to listen to him, neither
Re: (Score:3)
And nobody is obligated to do background checks on everyone they sell a megaphone to and determine how worthy their speech is prior to the sale of said megaphone.
If you don't like the free speech, don't listen. Alternatively, engage in free speech of your own to educate people on the opposing viewpoint.
But targeting and shaming everyone who's ever done business with someone just because that person said something you disagree with? That in itself is shameful.
Someday it could be you with the unpopular viewpo
Godwin's law (Score:2)
Article has already "Nazi" in the title. What are we supposed to further trol^H^H^H^Hsay about Cloudflare ?
Re: (Score:2)
http://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-g... [gizmodo.com]
Cloudflare has supported us all - a long time now (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I looked thepiratebay.org only had one ISP https://www.robtex.com/dns-loo... [robtex.com] one of many that we have a right to.
A post rather than a reply - an attempt at a shot out to cloudflare and a thank you for your service.
"sticking by" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe they have very strict guidelines on ethics and don't bend them just because they "don't like somebody". It could be they believe in not interfering with free speech, no matter how repugnant. A consistent view point in this world of hypocrites is a breath a fresh air.
Re: (Score:2)
The Swiss banks tried to hide behind that for years... "Oh you see, our confidentiality rules are so verrrryy ethical."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the contrary, they are the only ones with ethics.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
When you prevent people from speaking, you led everyone down a slipperly slope of fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Is entirely separate from, "I disapprove of what you say, but for $X I will actively carry around a placard saying it for you. I'll print your copies for you, and I'll even pound the pavement to deliver your flyers for you."
I'm not sure why you think believing in free speech, and defending free speech requires me to actively engage as a participant in spreading their crap around?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly
Re: (Score:3)
It seems far more ethical to respect that you should not have the power to decide whom is and whom isn't allowed on the internet. I also like how you put it all down on the money, pretending like Google would care in the slightest if they didn't need some positive PR to take eyes and ears off the Damore storm.
Oh, and Cloudflare also noted they are cooperating with law enforcement, assuming there was anything they could do. You know, that stuff that isn't just virtue signalling. Seems like a respectable line
Re: (Score:2)
No. Cloudfare protects the right of people to say unpopular things.
If we allow censorship of racists now, it will be censorship of everyone in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
Rights can be in conflict. Which was more important? Hitler's right to free speech or a million Jews and their right to life?
Re: (Score:2)
Giving a speech gassing anyone.
Why can't you morons discern between speech and actions?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Hitler nor anyone else has a Right to murder anyone.
Hitler does have a right to express his views and the views he placed forth in Mein Kampf were banal. Just another ranting cafe revolutionary speaking against the evils of big business and banking cartels.
The issue is Freedom of Speech, not Freedom to Kill others. By your standards we should prevent Muslims from preaching Sharia Law (Koran plus Sunnah) after all it preaches the killing of non-muslims and promotes sla
Re: (Score:2)
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, if protestors hadn't protested against the KKK and Nazis, the KKK and Nazis would have been emboldened and run bigger marches next time round. You cannot be sure that not protesting is more effective than protesting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
yes, let's just let the KKK and Nazis go unchallenged that'll show them.
OT - Prism Break is a good site for alternatives (Score:2)
https://prism-break.org/en/
Came across this link ages back and bookmarked it - reading your comment, I figured you may find it useful for alternatives to the tech goliaths that everyone uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. It would be like Staples being able to refuse to sell you paper because they don't like what you're writing on the paper. Or Dell refusing to sell you a computer for what you write.
and Staples and Dell would be in their rights to do so. it's called the free market. why do you hate the free market?
Re: (Score:3)
We used to have many free speech TLDs, like .com .net .org .edu and all the country level domains.
Unfortunately many people think that the only speech that should be free is speech they agree with.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you prefer if every company kept a random list of who they would and would not take money from? Wouldn't it be great if you went grocery shopping and were told "we don't serve your kind here"? No need to justify it, after all, they're a private business.
Or is it only ok when it happens to people you dislike?