(06-25-2018 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:49 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:39 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

There isn't a large amount of 'butthurt' from republicans. I think most people can draw a distinction between potentially forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs and not serving someone simply because you don't like them or who they work for. To me that is the difference in this case, but overall I think any business should be able to refuse service for any reason.

What you are seeing is republicans and conservatives laughing at that inability of liberals to recognize their hypocrisy.

The name if this thread is "harassment of conservatives" in which there are links to instances where conservatives are mad they aren't welcome at some establishments because of the vague wording in the religious freedom policies and laws that they themselves are proponents of, but the left are the hypocrites...cool....

Its about an America where people are free to disagree. Its about an effort to destroy the 1st amendment. And the question is where it stops. Violence? Even more concerning is employment discrimination.

The restaurant owners have a right to refuse service to anyone. But its stupid.
People don't have a right to go harrass people like they did the DHS Secretary. And its pretty pathetic that they are calling their friends to go harrass someone. Its concerning that so many people are so filled with hatred.

That's the part that is perplexing.

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

Errrrr,

What laws are those? That “conservatives passed”?

Linky?

I guess you identity folks can keep working to further Balkanize the public, but I think it’s a shame, we’d been making such progress the last 30 or so years.

I’d think the 3% would want to be included in stuff, not just relegated to hanging with their “own”.

But, alas, lunatic fringe gonna lunatic.

*sigh*

(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)450bench Wrote:  Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.


What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Therefore, having prominent political officials dine at your restaurant could attract unwanted attention and possible protests and discourse which is why it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to leave under current laws.

(06-25-2018 08:56 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:51 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:45 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:42 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

What? Please enlighten us with a link...

A link to what? The supreme court case?

Yes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...1_j4el.pdf

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...tions.html

You're comparing this situation to some form of religious belief situation?

Conservatives:



Also Conservatives:

"I got kicked out of a place because of the same law I use to kick people out of my place because they're meanie faces. I was harassed :( :( :("

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

There is no such law. There IS a constitution that gives the business owner that right—though I have no idea how serving Sarah Sanders would violate the owners religious beliefs (which was the basis of the refusal to make a cake for a gay wedding being cited). This kind of ignorance of the facts is what you get when hysterical rants and anchors crying on tv is served up as “unbiased news coverage”. Frankly, I’m fine with him not serving Sanders—-however, I do hope every Republican takes notece and immediately ceases to ever step foot in that idiots dirty greasy spoon again.

(06-25-2018 08:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:44 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:29 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

I personally, don't really have a problem with it. My belief is that any business should be able to serve who they want and deny anyone they want for any reason.

I respect a business owner's decision to not participate in something like a gay wedding, but the laws that protect it are very vague which leads to stores putting "No Gays Allowed" signs up on one side of the spectrum and also leads to prominent political figures being banned from other establishments on the other side.

It just seems like a bad business model to exclude entire groups of people from your customer base just because you don't agree with them. This whole thing has been stupid from the beginning of the cake incident to now.

Okay, so how is Sarah Sanders eating a meal at a public restaurant in any way like a business being forced by law to participate in a gay wedding?

Not even a “business” being forced to participate.

An individual. The guy had PERSONAL beliefs that he felt conflicted about.

Should the local Halal shop be forced to sell me pork shoulders and bacon?

Amazes me some of these groups want to go back to isolating themselves further, all in the name of inclusion.

Very strange (unproductive) tactic.

(06-25-2018 09:04 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:56 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:51 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:45 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:42 AM)450bench Wrote:  What? Please enlighten us with a link...

A link to what? The supreme court case?

Yes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...1_j4el.pdf

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...tions.html

You're comparing this situation to some form of religious belief situation?

Maybe it's against the restaurant owner's religion to serve conservative politicians. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't believe?

(06-25-2018 09:01 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)450bench Wrote:  Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.


What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Therefore, having prominent political officials dine at your restaurant could attract unwanted attention and possible protests and discourse which is why it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to leave under current laws.

Right. Typical liberal bs. See if that holds up in court.

(06-25-2018 09:06 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:04 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:56 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:51 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:45 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  A link to what? The supreme court case?

Yes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...1_j4el.pdf

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...tions.html

You're comparing this situation to some form of religious belief situation?

Maybe it's against the restaurant owner's religion to serve conservative politicians. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't believe?

And who are you to assume their religious beliefs were discussed? Again, typical liberal bs. This is why you people keep losing elections. Keep it up. Please keep up the bs.

(06-25-2018 09:07 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:01 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)450bench Wrote:  Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.


What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Therefore, having prominent political officials dine at your restaurant could attract unwanted attention and possible protests and discourse which is why it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to leave under current laws.

Right. Typical liberal bs. See if that holds up in court.

It already did. Do you pay attention?

(06-25-2018 09:09 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:07 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:01 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)450bench Wrote:  Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.


What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Therefore, having prominent political officials dine at your restaurant could attract unwanted attention and possible protests and discourse which is why it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to leave under current laws.

Right. Typical liberal bs. See if that holds up in court.

It already did. Do you pay attention?

There was no discussion of religious beliefs. So again you're full of shiiit.

(06-25-2018 09:09 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:06 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:04 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:56 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:51 AM)450bench Wrote:  Yes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...1_j4el.pdf

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...tions.html

You're comparing this situation to some form of religious belief situation?

Maybe it's against the restaurant owner's religion to serve conservative politicians. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't believe?

And who are you to assume their religious beliefs were discussed? Again, typical liberal bs. This is why you people keep losing elections. Keep it up. Please keep up the bs.

Typical conservative bs to get butthurt about laws and policies you created because they're used against you instead of you using them against other people

(06-25-2018 08:46 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:45 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:42 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

What? Please enlighten us with a link...

A link to what? The supreme court case?

lolol

(06-25-2018 09:11 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:46 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:45 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:42 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

What? Please enlighten us with a link...

A link to what? The supreme court case?

lolol

First star: decides if laws are constitutional

The supreme court was interpreting a vague law. That's literally it's job.

(06-25-2018 09:11 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:09 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:07 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:01 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)450bench Wrote:  Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.


What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Therefore, having prominent political officials dine at your restaurant could attract unwanted attention and possible protests and discourse which is why it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to leave under current laws.

Right. Typical liberal bs. See if that holds up in court.

It already did. Do you pay attention?

There was no discussion of religious beliefs. So again you're full of shiiit.

They can claim to follow any religion and it still applies. Oh I forgot, in a conservative's head there are only Christians and Heathens.

(06-25-2018 08:49 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:39 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:23 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it.

There isn't a large amount of 'butthurt' from republicans. I think most people can draw a distinction between potentially forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs and not serving someone simply because you don't like them or who they work for. To me that is the difference in this case, but overall I think any business should be able to refuse service for any reason.

What you are seeing is republicans and conservatives laughing at that inability of liberals to recognize their hypocrisy.

The name if this thread is "harassment of conservatives" in which there are links to instances where conservatives are mad they aren't welcome at some establishments because of the vague wording in the religious freedom policies and laws that they themselves are proponents of, but the left are the hypocrites...cool....

Nooooooooo,


They apparently aren’t welcome at some establishments, not because of the “vague wording in the ‘religious freedom policies’, whatever that means. They aren’t welcome due to being recognized since they are a public figure or because they are perhaps wearing a hat or tshirt.

Is there a religious argument that precludes a diner owner from serving a supporter of a president?

What grounds would those be?

This short-sighted fool can do whatever she’d like for all I care, but actively working to wreck potentially 50+ percent of your business “cuz Trump”, is a special kind of stupid.

Especially in a small, rural town like Lexington. Have at it, I wish her well...

(06-25-2018 09:14 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:11 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:46 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:45 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:42 AM)450bench Wrote:  What? Please enlighten us with a link...

A link to what? The supreme court case?

lolol

First star: decides if laws are constitutional

The supreme court was interpreting a vague law. That's literally it's job.

Raise your hand if you claimed in this thread, "Here's the problem: why are conservatives getting butthurt about not being served when THEY are the ones who passed laws allowing business owners to not serve certain customers based on their beliefs? Y'all made your bed, now lie in it."

(06-25-2018 09:11 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:09 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:06 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 09:04 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 08:56 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...1_j4el.pdf

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...tions.html

You're comparing this situation to some form of religious belief situation?

Maybe it's against the restaurant owner's religion to serve conservative politicians. Who are you to tell them what they can and can't believe?

And who are you to assume their religious beliefs were discussed? Again, typical liberal bs. This is why you people keep losing elections. Keep it up. Please keep up the bs.

Typical conservative bs to get butthurt about laws and policies you created because they're used against you instead of you using them against other people

Again this attitude is why you librocrites keep losing elections.

Religion was never discussed in this case. Sarah Sanders and her family were there to eat. There was no threat of any form of misconduct or violence by her presence at the restaurant. She was asked to leave because a waiter called the owner of the restaurant and told her Sanders was there. The owner showed up and asked her to leave because her politics were different than the staffs politics.

Simple as that.

Since trump got elected conservatives have been treated pretty poorly just because of their political view. Both sides treat the other like garage on a regular basis even before the trump got elected. So I think that both sides just need to be more respectful to each other. I have a few good friends that voted for trump. Do i agree with them...no, but they are still my friends so I dont attack them verbally just because the have different view on how the country should be run. This goes both ways. Politics is such a vicious conversation at times. That is why is usually stand clear of politics until voting time. Its not worth getting into a argument with someone that has the exact opposite opinion as you..they are obviously going to disagree