(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought,

ANY manner they see fit?

So, if they saw fit, they could put up swastika decorations?

I thought not.

Stop protecting the students from chicken sandwiches made by people with different beliefs. Start procuring chicken sandwiches of good quality and reasonable price.

If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought,

ANY manner they see fit?

So, if they saw fit, they could put up swastika decorations?

I thought not.

Stop protecting the students from chicken sandwiches made by people with different beliefs. Start procuring chicken sandwiches of good quality and reasonable price.

If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

And so long as a business is not discriminating, then yes, they can run a business in any manner they see fit. They are not no longer purchasing Chick-fil-a because it is a Christian company, but because of the actions they take as a company (apparently by donating to specific organizations). That method of decision making has historical precedent with things like the South African divestment due to apartheid.

Your logic seems to be severely lacking here - you want students who run the business to be forced to buy a product from a company so that students buying a product from the student business have the option to buy the product the SRB doesn’t want to purchase. Are you going to make it compulsory that students who go to the Hoot but Chick-Fil-a sandwiches too? And does the Hoot not have the ability to ever drop a product from their catalog?

I think they’re making a stupid decision, but what products they carry is their decision. And as long as they are not discriminating, I see no reason why they shouldn’t do it (outside of possibly losing business).

And to your swastika hypothetical - the Hoot can try, but I would support the university canceling their lease/pulling their space for publicly displaying a swastika in such a manner. The Hoot can do it, but would face consequences for those actions.

(04-24-2019 05:11 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Mayor Pete has been pretty forthcoming that in a Mayor Pete administration one will be forced by law to bake the cake for the marriage, since he is an ardent opponent of various religious freedom laws.

Has he said he will ban those businesses? Or are you extrapolating from his position that a business can't discriminate on who it serves?

He has voiced his explicit opposition to a state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and been an ardent critic of the Federal RFRA act and various other religious freedom acts over the last number of years.

Buttigieg is also an outspoken advocate of the Equality Act.

It would strike down religious freedom protections for private citizens if they exercised their consciences in running their own businesses. It is seemingly designed to explicitly trump Religious Freedom Restoration Acts at the state and federal level, and also to explicitly overturn Hobby Lobby and a raft of other court cases on RFRA.

So yes, Mayor Pete is seemingly on the 'force the bakers to bake a cake' train.

The comment including Mayor Pete in this discussion is fairly on point, especially considering the San Antonio city council decision to bar CFA from the airport solely on grounds wholly at odds with the 1st Amendment.

The Hoot is a ostensibly a private entity, not subject to the First Amendment restrictions on their conduct and speech, and can (and should) be able to do business with whomever they wish on whatever terms they wish.

You know, those same principles not afforded to Masterpiece Bakery. Or the New Mexico photographer..... etc., etc., etc.

And I too wish to stop the virtue signalling/ deplorable train in its tracks by noting that I am probably one of the very few people on this board to actually have a chance to vote on gay marriage provision, and voted against a state constitutional amendment to bar it. But probably for far too nuanced of a rationale.....

There are limits to that First Amendment rights of the Hoot - they cannot discriminate against customers because of their race. You're looking at the issue incorrectly here, because the Hoot is procuring a service in this instance, and not providing one. So that baker comparison isn't quite right, because the bakery was trying to limit who they served (just like how a hotel could not discriminate from housing a person of color for the night).

I do agree that the Hoot should be 100% able to procure services from whoever they feel they should, and reap the consequences of those actions, and am very much opposed to OO's idea about what the Hoot's job is to do. They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought, in fact, their decision to remove Chick-fil-A from their inventory creates an opportunity for other students to open up a competitive business, if they would like, that serves Chick-fil-A late at night.

On a similar note, do protected classes such as race have any impact on who a company procures business from? As in, have there been lawsuits won by people who said that someone did not do business with them because they were of a protected class?

Actually, what's needed here is a little nuance : the bakery (Masterpiece Cakeshop) actually was not trying to limit who they served, they were trying to limit what they served. LGBTQ customers were/are free to buy cakes off the shelf (even ones that say Just Married or Happy Anniversary or some such), and were/are free to contract for the making of custom cakes celebrating birthdays, promotions, softball league championships and any and every occasion under the sun except the one that the owner had/has a religious objection to. I hope you would agree that "nuance" actually makes all the difference in the world.

That is actually a very good point, and one I misrepresented.

This is a perfect example of why bulldozer comments don’t often help. Even when you aren’t trying to, mistakes can be made that make significant differences in context.

(04-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought,

ANY manner they see fit?
So, if they saw fit, they could put up swastika decorations?
I thought not.
Stop protecting the students from chicken sandwiches made by people with different beliefs. Start procuring chicken sandwiches of good quality and reasonable price.
If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?
And so long as a business is not discriminating, then yes, they can run a business in any manner they see fit. They are not no longer purchasing Chick-fil-a because it is a Christian company, but because of the actions they take as a company (apparently by donating to specific organizations). That method of decision making has historical precedent with things like the South African divestment due to apartheid.
Your logic seems to be severely lacking here - you want students who run the business to be forced to buy a product from a company so that students buying a product from the student business have the option to buy the product the SRB doesn’t want to purchase. Are you going to make it compulsory that students who go to the Hoot but Chick-Fil-a sandwiches too? And does the Hoot not have the ability to ever drop a product from their catalog?
I think they’re making a stupid decision, but what products they carry is their decision. And as long as they are not discriminating, I see no reason why they shouldn’t do it (outside of possibly losing business).
And to your swastika hypothetical - the Hoot can try, but I would support the university canceling their lease/pulling their space for publicly displaying a swastika in such a manner. The Hoot can do it, but would face consequences for those actions.

A big factor is public versus private entity. At a public university or in any public facility, you risk running afoul of religious discrimination issues. At a private university, not so much so.

I teach at a public university. We have CFA as one of our dining options. The line is always longer there than anywhere else.

(04-24-2019 05:11 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Mayor Pete has been pretty forthcoming that in a Mayor Pete administration one will be forced by law to bake the cake for the marriage, since he is an ardent opponent of various religious freedom laws.

Has he said he will ban those businesses? Or are you extrapolating from his position that a business can't discriminate on who it serves?

He has voiced his explicit opposition to a state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and been an ardent critic of the Federal RFRA act and various other religious freedom acts over the last number of years.

Buttigieg is also an outspoken advocate of the Equality Act.

It would strike down religious freedom protections for private citizens if they exercised their consciences in running their own businesses. It is seemingly designed to explicitly trump Religious Freedom Restoration Acts at the state and federal level, and also to explicitly overturn Hobby Lobby and a raft of other court cases on RFRA.

So yes, Mayor Pete is seemingly on the 'force the bakers to bake a cake' train.

The comment including Mayor Pete in this discussion is fairly on point, especially considering the San Antonio city council decision to bar CFA from the airport solely on grounds wholly at odds with the 1st Amendment.

The Hoot is a ostensibly a private entity, not subject to the First Amendment restrictions on their conduct and speech, and can (and should) be able to do business with whomever they wish on whatever terms they wish.

You know, those same principles not afforded to Masterpiece Bakery. Or the New Mexico photographer..... etc., etc., etc.

And I too wish to stop the virtue signalling/ deplorable train in its tracks by noting that I am probably one of the very few people on this board to actually have a chance to vote on gay marriage provision, and voted against a state constitutional amendment to bar it. But probably for far too nuanced of a rationale.....

There are limits to that First Amendment rights of the Hoot - they cannot discriminate against customers because of their race. You're looking at the issue incorrectly here, because the Hoot is procuring a service in this instance, and not providing one. So that baker comparison isn't quite right, because the bakery was trying to limit who they served (just like how a hotel could not discriminate from housing a person of color for the night).

I do agree that the Hoot should be 100% able to procure services from whoever they feel they should, and reap the consequences of those actions, and am very much opposed to OO's idea about what the Hoot's job is to do. They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought, in fact, their decision to remove Chick-fil-A from their inventory creates an opportunity for other students to open up a competitive business, if they would like, that serves Chick-fil-A late at night.

On a similar note, do protected classes such as race have any impact on who a company procures business from? As in, have there been lawsuits won by people who said that someone did not do business with them because they were of a protected class?

Actually, what's needed here is a little nuance : the bakery (Masterpiece Cakeshop) actually was not trying to limit who they served, they were trying to limit what they served. LGBTQ customers were/are free to buy cakes off the shelf (even ones that say Just Married or Happy Anniversary or some such), and were/are free to contract for the making of custom cakes celebrating birthdays, promotions, softball league championships and any and every occasion under the sun except the one that the owner had/has a religious objection to. I hope you would agree that "nuance" actually makes all the difference in the world.

I am sure that that nuance may not be appreciated by those of us more on one side of the 'value flagging' side of things. For those further down that track than myself, I am sure it is just as evil not to *make* or *decorate* cakes than to discriminate against 'whom'.

But, you are absolutely correct about MB.

(04-24-2019 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought,

ANY manner they see fit?
So, if they saw fit, they could put up swastika decorations?
I thought not.
Stop protecting the students from chicken sandwiches made by people with different beliefs. Start procuring chicken sandwiches of good quality and reasonable price.
If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?
And so long as a business is not discriminating, then yes, they can run a business in any manner they see fit. They are not no longer purchasing Chick-fil-a because it is a Christian company, but because of the actions they take as a company (apparently by donating to specific organizations). That method of decision making has historical precedent with things like the South African divestment due to apartheid.
Your logic seems to be severely lacking here - you want students who run the business to be forced to buy a product from a company so that students buying a product from the student business have the option to buy the product the SRB doesn’t want to purchase. Are you going to make it compulsory that students who go to the Hoot but Chick-Fil-a sandwiches too? And does the Hoot not have the ability to ever drop a product from their catalog?
I think they’re making a stupid decision, but what products they carry is their decision. And as long as they are not discriminating, I see no reason why they shouldn’t do it (outside of possibly losing business).
And to your swastika hypothetical - the Hoot can try, but I would support the university canceling their lease/pulling their space for publicly displaying a swastika in such a manner. The Hoot can do it, but would face consequences for those actions.

A big factor is public versus private entity. At a public university or in any public facility, you risk running afoul of religious discrimination issues. At a private university, not so much so.

I teach at a public university. We have CFA as one of our dining options. The line is always longer there than anywhere else.

The Hoot is likely a separate entity from Rice like Valhalla and Pub are.

(04-24-2019 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought,

ANY manner they see fit?
So, if they saw fit, they could put up swastika decorations?
I thought not.
Stop protecting the students from chicken sandwiches made by people with different beliefs. Start procuring chicken sandwiches of good quality and reasonable price.
If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?
And so long as a business is not discriminating, then yes, they can run a business in any manner they see fit. They are not no longer purchasing Chick-fil-a because it is a Christian company, but because of the actions they take as a company (apparently by donating to specific organizations). That method of decision making has historical precedent with things like the South African divestment due to apartheid.
Your logic seems to be severely lacking here - you want students who run the business to be forced to buy a product from a company so that students buying a product from the student business have the option to buy the product the SRB doesn’t want to purchase. Are you going to make it compulsory that students who go to the Hoot but Chick-Fil-a sandwiches too? And does the Hoot not have the ability to ever drop a product from their catalog?
I think they’re making a stupid decision, but what products they carry is their decision. And as long as they are not discriminating, I see no reason why they shouldn’t do it (outside of possibly losing business).
And to your swastika hypothetical - the Hoot can try, but I would support the university canceling their lease/pulling their space for publicly displaying a swastika in such a manner. The Hoot can do it, but would face consequences for those actions.

A big factor is public versus private entity. At a public university or in any public facility, you risk running afoul of religious discrimination issues. At a private university, not so much so.
I teach at a public university. We have CFA as one of our dining options. The line is always longer there than anywhere else.

The Hoot is likely a separate entity from Rice like Valhalla and Pub are.

That is probably the case, for legal and liability reasons. But if the university has any oversight, then the public v. private issue comes into play.

(04-24-2019 06:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ANY manner they see fit?
So, if they saw fit, they could put up swastika decorations?
I thought not.
Stop protecting the students from chicken sandwiches made by people with different beliefs. Start procuring chicken sandwiches of good quality and reasonable price.
If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?
And so long as a business is not discriminating, then yes, they can run a business in any manner they see fit. They are not no longer purchasing Chick-fil-a because it is a Christian company, but because of the actions they take as a company (apparently by donating to specific organizations). That method of decision making has historical precedent with things like the South African divestment due to apartheid.
Your logic seems to be severely lacking here - you want students who run the business to be forced to buy a product from a company so that students buying a product from the student business have the option to buy the product the SRB doesn’t want to purchase. Are you going to make it compulsory that students who go to the Hoot but Chick-Fil-a sandwiches too? And does the Hoot not have the ability to ever drop a product from their catalog?
I think they’re making a stupid decision, but what products they carry is their decision. And as long as they are not discriminating, I see no reason why they shouldn’t do it (outside of possibly losing business).
And to your swastika hypothetical - the Hoot can try, but I would support the university canceling their lease/pulling their space for publicly displaying a swastika in such a manner. The Hoot can do it, but would face consequences for those actions.

A big factor is public versus private entity. At a public university or in any public facility, you risk running afoul of religious discrimination issues. At a private university, not so much so.
I teach at a public university. We have CFA as one of our dining options. The line is always longer there than anywhere else.

The Hoot is likely a separate entity from Rice like Valhalla and Pub are.

That is probably the case, for legal and liability reasons. But if the university has any oversight, then the public v. private issue comes into play.

When The Hoot was started, the only “oversight” was an advisor who was a student center employee. But that employee was just an advisor and did not make any decisions regarding how that SRB operated.

My guess would be that this hasn’t changed in a way that has lead to more university involvement or oversight given that they do not serve alcohol. Rice was more involved with Pub because of the whole undergrads selling beer thing.

Another case of sanctimonious behavior. If The Hoot tried hard enough, I'm sure they could indirectly/directly link any food product that they serve to some sort of less-than-desirable behavior. For instance, when I was there, I believed they served Domino's pizza, which happens to be my favorite mega pizza chain. But, lo and behold, a cursory Google search of "dominos pizza wrongdoing" shows that Domino's was sued for wage theft by the NY attorney general just a few years ago. Guess The Hoot needs to go ahead and stop serving Domino's.

http://gothamist.com/2016/05/24/dominos_..._theft.php

(04-24-2019 06:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When The Hoot was started, the only “oversight” was an advisor who was a student center employee. But that employee was just an advisor and did not make any decisions regarding how that SRB operated.

That'e enough to be sufficient nexus.

But again, Rice is private, so due process and equal protection would not apply in the same way as for a state university.

(04-24-2019 06:48 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Another case of sanctimonious behavior. If The Hoot tried hard enough, I'm sure they could indirectly/directly link any food product that they serve to some sort of less-than-desirable behavior. For instance, when I was there, I believed they served Domino's pizza, which happens to be my favorite mega pizza chain. But, lo and behold, a cursory Google search of "dominos pizza wrongdoing" shows that Domino's was sued for wage theft by the NY attorney general just a few years ago. Guess The Hoot needs to go ahead and stop serving Domino's.

http://gothamist.com/2016/05/24/dominos_..._theft.php

The issue isnt the 'legality' of 'stopping service' due to social virtue signalling; for this issue I am amongst the absolutists --- Hoot should have every right to do business in any form with whomever they choose (or choose to exclude). Much as Masterpiece should have.

Now if either want to start a 'virtue signal' campaign -- go for it.

But, that would lead me, as a private citizen, to use them (or not) based on their own godforsaken virtue signalling.

What Hoot is doing is the exact same thing that those horrible people at Masterpiece did in a very broad sense -- each chose whom to exclude from certain facets of their business based very broadly on their own views on religious rights and their own views on the religious views of others.

No stinking difference at all between the two.

The funny thing is that Masterpiece is reviled by the left, while 'anti- Chik-Fil-A' actions are lauded. And to a good amount the vice versa is true.

yet neither set of stalwarts will ever decide to view the Hoot-style actions and Masterpiece as mirror images of each other -- and the tap dancing will continue ad infinitum to show that 'really Masterpiece is bad' and 'Hoots is okay' (and the mirror image).

But in the ethos of free speech, freedom of religion, *and* freedom of association, for all the tap dancing to distinguish the 'good world Mr Spock' from 'evil universe Mr Spock' actor, each of the proponents and opponents of each steadfastly refuse to look at the situation through the ethos of those freedoms. They choose instead to vent on them through the ethos of their own virtue morality. Really kind of grotesque at the end of it all.

Danny gets a Sunday delivery

Thank Goodness Rice students are protected from these horrible people.

Can students use other food delivery services, like Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, etc.? I know Grub Hub is connected with Chick-Fil-A.

(04-26-2019 06:08 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Can students use other food delivery services, like Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grub Hub, etc.? I know Grub Hub is connected with Chick-Fil-A.

Don’t know why they would be. They also have their own personal vehicles, public transportation, etc.

No one is stopping students from eating Chick-fil-a or protecting them from it. A business, run entirely by student’s mind you, has decided they do not want to procure supplies from a vendor because of the past actions of said vendor.

Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

You sound more and more conservative all the time.

(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

That is the way it should be.

In prior cases, the market they serve has reacted extremely positively to their social stance. I would expect the same in this case and in the future.

(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

You sound more and more conservative all the time.

But the issue really isnt the 'market' response to a 'refusal to do business' -- the key takeaway is how the government deems to be involved in that transaction.

Hoots should face the market response for their 'refusal to do business' -- no doubt. Much as Masterpiece Bakery should for theirs.

But, I would like to see if lad treats them the same way re: government intervention.

My stance is that the government should, in no way, get involved with, say Hoots, for making a private decision *not* to do business in a manner that they do not support socially, or politically.

My stance is that the government should, similarly, in no way get involved with Masterpiece Bakery for making an absolutely similar private decision *not* to do business in a manner that they do not support socially, or politically.

The key differentiator for those whom state that the outcomes should be dissimilar always seems to pivot on political affiliation.

Most libertarians view it exactly as I do -- the key is in the action itself.

Most conservatives also hold libertarian commercial viewpoints -- thus the conservatives that would tend to state 'let Hoots be' also realize that a private decision not to do business is just that and would also support the right and ability of Masterpiece Bakery to 'not do business' without government intervention is equivalent.

I am not sure that progressives would be so keen to hold that.

As a non-scientific 'proof by example' (very weak) I had this discussion last night with my (very progressive) neighbors over wine last night. To a tee, they supported the absolute right of someone like Hoots 'not to do business', but were adamantly for government intervention against the (non) actions of Masterpiece Bakery. The key, was that one stance was 'justifiable' and that the other was 'hateful' or 'horrid'.

So, they based their view on government intervention almost solely on the subjective feeling of the appropriateness or 'correctness' of the message. Which, as a libertarian, makes me shudder.

So lad, just as an exercise in collecting data points, what say you on treating Masterpiece and Hoots equivalently re: the use of government intervention on each of their decisions to 'not do business'?

You are solidly for the 'commercial aspect' on one polarity (i.e. Hoots should only be subject to commercial ramifications), but do you think similarly that that should be the sole ramification for Masterpiece Bakery?

(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

You sound more and more conservative all the time.

Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.

(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

You sound more and more conservative all the time.

Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.

The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.

(04-26-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

You sound more and more conservative all the time.

Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.

The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.

Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.