Anything that is not easy one the eyes or easy on the mind is legitimate, rightful, legal.
I hate your ethnicity.
I hate that skin color.
I hate small eyes.
I hate small nose.
I hate self-centered personality.
I hate what wrongful things you did to me.
I hate you stalking me.
I hate you harassing me.
I hate you implanting things to me.
I hate you stealing thoughts from me.
The list keeps going on & on. You can add basically anything. They are all morally valid rightful reasons; they are all legal.
Well, what prompted it was people on the sidelines who seemed put out by the idea that someone wouldn’t date X group, but it’s not really limited to them. If you have an idea about not dating someone because of who they won’t date themselves, feel free to discuss it
No, I won’t date aliens neither. But “anything” that is not easy on your mind or your eyes? It is legitimate, rightful, moral. You should not have to be forced to tolerate such. It’s your entitled right. It’s also legal. The laws don’t enforce you on such. Also, you are not obligated to do or to be anything to them. They are not entitled of anything from you whilst you have moral, rightful, legal reasons to reject them.
Morality has a long history of “I don’t do X. *And *I refuse to associate with or countenance those who do X.”
Today’s era has an interesting mix of aggressive individuality:
“I do Y and I don’t do X and you have no right to judge my choices.”
mixed via social media with a lot of:
“Ewww!! He/She does X!!?! I disapprove of that & hereby shame them publicly and shun them for their choices.”
I take the OP has meaning “You have a friend / acquaintance. Can/should you express public disapproval of his/her reasons behind his/her choice of BF/GF/mate? If so, for what specific reasons?”
IOW, it’s all about the second part of moral sentiment: expressing approval / disapproval of others as a means of social control / influence.
Of course, for the people who can’t think straight, if the rejected girl looks pitiful, they oppress the rejecter for the rejectee. A reverse oppression. They get angry at the rejecter. They can’t think straight. “Come on, what’s wrong with her?”, “do you see how lost she is?”, “you can live with whatever flaws”, “she looks so poor, do something!”, etc. Now, that’s not really fair to the rejecter, is it? He shouldn’t have to do anything “just so that the rejectee can be happy or not sad”. They just can’t think straight, fair to “both” directions.
Focus on what “you” want, completely fulfilled, not what someone else wants. You have no obligation to such. They are not entitled to such. You can reject morally, rightfully, legally. It is legitimate. Simply not easy on the mind or eyes. You are entitled to your preference. You should not have to be “only somewhat satisfied” or “not satisfied at all” just so that someone else can be “not sad”, “happy”, “not angry” or whatever. That is not fair to you at all. You have the right to pursue a complete satisfaction & happiness, not neither the complete unhappiness nor somewhat happiness but “only” the complete satisfaction & happiness" (or as close to it as possible for you).
