(03-21-2017 12:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  For me, it comes down to this simply:

- if what you believe in/how you act, has nothing to do with expressing or conveying hatred (ie, being a Muslim, being black, being a jew, being Mexcian, being gay, being transgendered, etc.), then private businesses should not be allowed to deny service to you by law

- if what you believe in/how you act, is based upon expressing or conveying hatred, then you should receive zero protection under the law.



That's my preference , that I would like to see encoded into our laws and enforced by government and the legal system.

Convictions and standards are frequently defined as "hatred" by the left.

(03-21-2017 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  For me, it comes down to this simply:

- if what you believe in/how you act, has nothing to do with expressing or conveying hatred (ie, being a Muslim, being black, being a jew, being Mexcian, being gay, being transgendered, etc.), then private businesses should not be allowed to deny service to you by law

- if what you believe in/how you act, is based upon expressing or conveying hatred, then you should receive zero protection under the law.



That's my preference , that I would like to see encoded into our laws and enforced by government and the legal system.

Convictions and standards are frequently defined as "hatred" by the left.

Yep, no need for freedom of speech either it seems.

I don't follow you. Examples?

No one should be refused service in a restaurant but no business should be allowed to go against their beliefs by being forced to cater an event that they don't believe in. Those two are quite different. If a gay decided to sit next to me if I was offended I would just leave. But it wouldn't bother me in the least. I don't have anything against gays it's between them and God but if one wanted me to attend their wedding I wouldn't go and that's the same case with the baker. Perhaps the baker could just have said, "your cake will be ready at …, come pick it up".

(03-21-2017 12:27 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Perhaps the baker could just have said, "your cake will be ready at …, come pick it up".

Hey look at that!

A very clever response indeed, that would've avoided the entire mess.


The baker doesn't deny service. He simply performs such a poor job that the customer voluntarily seeks service elsewhere. Not discrimination, legally.




But as we all know, that's not good enough to the ideologist warriors.

If I owned a bakery, and someone came in and requested a cake that said "Trump Makes America Great", that's exactly what I would do.

I'd take down the order, quote them a fair price and a completion date.

Then a couple days before the due date, I'd call them up and say "apologies, such and such happened, and I won't be able to complete your order for another week". Then I'd keep doing that, until they went away.

(03-21-2017 12:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:27 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Perhaps the baker could just have said, "your cake will be ready at …, come pick it up".

Hey look at that!

A very clever response indeed, that would've avoided the entire mess.


The baker doesn't deny service. He simply performs such a poor job that the customer voluntarily seeks service elsewhere. Not discrimination, legally.

But as we all know, that's not good enough to the ideologist warriors.

[/quote]

If you think this would be an ok solution for either side then you're less troll and more "bobby hill" not right.

You are still forcing someone to take part in a religious ceremony which cuts against their faith/concious. That is not ok.

Providing shaq service to someone to drive them away because they are gay is not going to be ok with the left. It's the equivalent of "spitting in someones food"

It's also borderline illegal to do that and I would guess that even if you could prevail in court it would come at an amazing cost..

The solution of "give those gay guys shaq service" being an acceptable compromise to you speaks very poorly of your heart in these matters.

(03-21-2017 12:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  You are still forcing someone to take part in a religious ceremony which cuts against their faith/conscious.

As anyone can see, plain as day, this is your fundamental gripe.

And of course, it is fundamentally invalid.

Just as if someone claimed their faith requires them to murder Mexicans, would still go to prison.

(03-21-2017 12:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  It's also borderline illegal to do that and I would guess that even if you could prevail in court it would come at an amazing cost..

Definitely not illegal to give bad service.

If you could prove that the poor service was because the provider wanted to discriminate against you, that's another matter. But how are you going to prove that, so long as the provider keeps his cool and doesn't run his fool mouth?

Look, my SIL bakes wedding cakes as a sideline. When someone asks for a wedding cake she delivers but the deliveries are way before the wedding. They never happen during the affair so in essence even the delivery can be accomplished without you going against your convictions or denying the weirdos their cake. Win-win in both cases. As long as the baker is not forced to remain and cut the cake during the wedding then everyone should be happy. Capich?

I am the new Solomon.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why anyone would order a wedding cake with words piped on it. Isn't that reserved for cheap sheet cakes?

Do you think we had this problem back in the 1950's with mixed marriages?

(03-21-2017 12:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  You are still forcing someone to take part in a religious ceremony which cuts against their faith/conscious.

As anyone can see, plain as day, this is your fundamental gripe.

Have I ever said otherwise? My gripe is that people should not be forced to participate in religious events which run in opposition of their faith. I extend that to philosophy for those who hold their "atheism" or political stances tightly.

Quote:And of course, it is fundamentally invalid.

I look forward to a ell thought out proven response as to why.

Quote:Just as if someone claimed their faith requires them to murder Mexicans, would still go to prison.

Ohhh it's only a non-sequitur... hamburgers...

Quote:

(03-21-2017 12:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  It's also borderline illegal to do that and I would guess that even if you could prevail in court it would come at an amazing cost..

Definitely not illegal to give bad service.

I never said it was clearly illegal. I said you could get ruined in court trying to defend yourself for it. If I spit in your food, because you're short, I'm going to have trouble on my hands.

But since you have a shovel, and seem intent on digging yourself into a hole.

Quote:http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12...rimination The Washington, D.C., law firm that two years ago joined the NAACP in alleging racial discrimination against black employees at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurants on Thursday filed a $100 million lawsuit accusing the restaurant chain of widespread discrimination against black customers. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Rome, Ga., and seeks class-action status.

Cracker Barrel restaurants are accused of providing black customers with poor service, "segregating" them from white customers and giving them food taken from the trash in a lawsuit filed by Gordon, Silberman, Wiggin & Childs on behalf of 21 customers, 19 of them blacks and two whites.

Quote:If you could prove that the poor service was because the provider wanted to discriminate against you, that's another matter.

So yo're ok with this as a wink-wink nudge-nudge compromise... Says a lot about your character.

Quote:But how are you going to prove that, so long as the provider keeps his cool and doesn't run his fool mouth?

You are aware that civil suits don't require beyond a reasonable doubt right?

(03-21-2017 12:56 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why anyone would order a wedding cake with words piped on it. Isn't that reserved for cheap sheet cakes?

Do you think we had this problem back in the 1950's with mixed marriages?

We probably did but in the Bible God never said mixed marriages were wrong. Remember, Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. It was a human bias.

(03-21-2017 12:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If I owned a bakery, and someone came in and requested a cake that said "Trump Makes America Great", that's exactly what I would do.

I'd take down the order, quote them a fair price and a completion date.

Then a couple days before the due date, I'd call them up and say "apologies, such and such happened, and I won't be able to complete your order for another week". Then I'd keep doing that, until they went away.

That's an *******'s way to do it.

(03-21-2017 12:56 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why anyone would order a wedding cake with words piped on it. Isn't that reserved for cheap sheet cakes?

Do you think we had this problem back in the 1950's with mixed marriages?

Probably if they wanted a white and black couple.

(03-21-2017 01:10 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:56 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why anyone would order a wedding cake with words piped on it. Isn't that reserved for cheap sheet cakes?

Do you think we had this problem back in the 1950's with mixed marriages?

We probably did but in the Bible God never said mixed marriages were wrong. Remember, Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. It was a human bias.

I thought that was Little Richard?

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  My gripe is that people should not be forced to participate in religious events which run in opposition of their faith. I extend that to philosophy for those who hold their "atheism" or political stances tightly.

Well then, I guess they shouldn't voluntarily put themselves in a position whereby they'll need to commit a crime (discrimination) to avoid having to tangentially be apart of an event that runs opposite of their faith.

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  If I spit in your food, because you're short, I'm going to have trouble on my hands.

That's a separate crime.

The equivalent analogy would be that you keep coming back to the table and saying "jeez guys, sorry, we must have lost your order ... let me put a new one in for you, what was it again?" until they went away.

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  You are aware that civil suits don't require beyond a reasonable doubt right?

This is a fair, and good point.

Nonetheless, it would be difficult to prove.

(03-21-2017 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's an *******'s way to do it.

Ah yes, you're right -- I should just commit a direct crime (discrimination) instead. Maybe hold them up at gunpoint, for their wallet, to boot?

(03-21-2017 10:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's an *******'s way to do it.

Ah yes, you're right -- I should just commit a direct crime (discrimination) instead. Maybe hold them up at gunpoint, for their wallet, to boot?

What you're saying is the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law.

So had you lived in the south in the 60's you would have been on the side of jim crow...

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." - Theodore Roosevelt

(03-20-2017 10:41 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

You just have to love those tolerant libs these days. This guy is lucky he got out of NY alive...

Quote:Bartenders at a West Village hot spot served up discrimination — with a liberal twist — refusing to serve a customer because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, according to a lawsuit.

Greg Piatek, 30, an accountant from Philadelphia, claims he was snubbed and eventually 86’d by workers at The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street over his conservative fashion statement, popularized by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, he told The Post.

“Anyone who supports Trump — or believes what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims he was told as he was shown the door by a manager.

The shake-up started when Piatek and two pals, after a visit to the 9/11 Memorial, ordered drinks at the posh tavern around 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 28.

A female bartender served Piatek a $15 jalapeño margarita and his pals beers. But when he tried to order a second round, a male bartender noticed his hat — and skipped them, he said.

One of Piatek’s pals pointed out it was their turn to be served, but the bartender scoffed. “Is that hat a joke?” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims.[…]

A manager said he spoke to the bar owner, and was told, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” according to the suit.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/19/guy-wearing...serve-him/

He's just a guy looking for publicity. The bar can serve whom they like. Non story

(03-21-2017 10:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  My gripe is that people should not be forced to participate in religious events which run in opposition of their faith. I extend that to philosophy for those who hold their "atheism" or political stances tightly.

Well then, I guess they shouldn't voluntarily put themselves in a position whereby they'll need to commit a crime (discrimination) to avoid having to tangentially be apart of an event that runs opposite of their faith.

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  If I spit in your food, because you're short, I'm going to have trouble on my hands.

That's a separate crime.

The equivalent analogy would be that you keep coming back to the table and saying "jeez guys, sorry, we must have lost your order ... let me put a new one in for you, what was it again?" until they went away.

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  You are aware that civil suits don't require beyond a reasonable doubt right?

This is a fair, and good point.

Nonetheless, it would be difficult to prove.

(03-21-2017 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's an *******'s way to do it.

Ah yes, you're right -- I should just commit a direct crime (discrimination) instead. Maybe hold them up at gunpoint, for their wallet, to boot?

You are making it impossible for them to get what they want instead of being honest. So you refuse service in a way that they can't get an alternative. Its being a passive-aggressive jerk. People like that are poison in the workplace. I do my best to try to get rid of them.

(03-22-2017 06:34 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:41 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

You just have to love those tolerant libs these days. This guy is lucky he got out of NY alive...

Quote:Bartenders at a West Village hot spot served up discrimination — with a liberal twist — refusing to serve a customer because he was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, according to a lawsuit.

Greg Piatek, 30, an accountant from Philadelphia, claims he was snubbed and eventually 86’d by workers at The Happiest Hour on West 10th Street over his conservative fashion statement, popularized by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, he told The Post.

“Anyone who supports Trump — or believes what you believe — is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” Piatek claims he was told as he was shown the door by a manager.

The shake-up started when Piatek and two pals, after a visit to the 9/11 Memorial, ordered drinks at the posh tavern around 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 28.

A female bartender served Piatek a $15 jalapeño margarita and his pals beers. But when he tried to order a second round, a male bartender noticed his hat — and skipped them, he said.

One of Piatek’s pals pointed out it was their turn to be served, but the bartender scoffed. “Is that hat a joke?” the Manhattan Supreme Court suit claims.[…]

A manager said he spoke to the bar owner, and was told, “Anyone who supports Trump or believes what you believe is not welcome here. And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!” according to the suit.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/19/guy-wearing...serve-him/

He's just a guy looking for publicity. The bar can serve whom they like. Non story

He's seeking publicity of the fact that the bar is run by bigoted jerks. Hopefully it costs them business.