Trump Supporter Refused Service

[G-Man]

So, a Trump supporter walks into a restaurant, identified by a hat she is wearing, and is refused service by the waitress and told to leave by the owner.

Do you think the Justice Dept. will fine the restaurant hundreds of thousands to crush the owner and put them out of business?

The way things have progressed over the last 7 years, I'm gonna answer my own question and say NO.  The woman will be called a racist and a few other names which will justify this act.   Afterall, Republicans and conservatives don't have the same rights as liberals and progressives whether they are individuals or part of groups.  They can be beaten, they can be fined, they can lose their livelihoods, they can lose their privacy, they can even be investigated, and bullied by the IRS.

In a post regarding Bill's meeting with Loretta, Serk said he doesn't know what's worse, the fact that they think they can get away with it, or the fact that they will get away with it.  To me, they are both one and the same.  They think and will get away it.  It's open season on Trump supporters and those on the right.

[..]

I think a business owner should be able to refuse anyone unless it will cause that person physical harm.

I've been turned away because I was on a bike. I don't care because from that moment forward I would never give that business my money. Their choice, my choice. That applies if it's a single or a multiple outlet of that business.

[..]

It would be fun to have a real black Trump supporter go to the same business to see what would happen.

EDIT.

It would be even better to have a large group do it.

[G-Man]

The woman went to the police and was told, by the police, not much they can do because a business can refuse service to whoever they want.


       


I bet that's news to the bakery owner and the pizza store owner.

[Gavin_Sons]

I also believe a business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone at any time. If i make a product and do not want a specific person/group to have what i make then it should be my choice. Lets say i make a very special product just for a Valkyrie motorcycle and a group of harley riders want what i am making. Should i be forced to sell them this special product?

[G-Man]

I also believe a business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone at any time. If i make a product and do not want a specific person/group to have what i make then it should be my choice. Lets say i make a very special product just for a Valkyrie motorcycle and a group of harley riders want what i am making. Should i be forced to sell them this special product?

What if a guy makes a shirt he only wants white men to wear.  Should it be OK to not sell to anyone other than white men.  What if you had a steakhouse should you be able to turn away Jews and only serve Christians?

Slippery slope, that blanket statement of being able to serve only the ones you want to.

I agree, they would never see my money again.  But only based on the businesses actions.  Don't care what the owner of the chicken place says, but if he refused service, different story.  If they can refuse one, they can refuse all.

I'd just like to see fairness.  I'd like to see the owner and the waitress embarrassed on national TV, be fined $150K, receive death threats, etc.  At least then I'd know there was stll a hint of fairness left.  But I do live in the real world and see the hypocrisy clearly.

BTW, Clinton's getting off on the e-mail thing.  Just bad judgement according to the FBI.  Bad Judgement.  Great quality for our next president.

[Oss]

think that will be brought up at the DEBATE ? 

[Gavin_Sons]

if it's your business then it's your choice to turn away anyone you wish. Yes it is a bad business practice, something i would never do, but at the same time you should be able to run your business as you please without the government telling you how to do it. It's easy to say, i don't serve whites, blacks, hispanics, ext. because it is clear by their skin color. It's harder to turn away faiths because you don't know unless you ask. Also easy to turn away people by what they wear. Like i said i would never do this but if it's your business then it should be your choice how you want to run it. And if you do turn away people for any reason you won't be in business long because word will get out. This is just another way for the government to get their hands in your pockets and control what you do. Anything the government tries to control of mine i'm against, within reason.

[Robert]

I guess its kind of anti climatic when no one seems to care or maybe does not know that a bakery shop lost its business and fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by the city and has legal fees on top of it because they felt their personal conviction was not to make a gay wedding cake. But its ok not to serve a Trump supporter and nothing happens. WTF?

I am disappointed and surprised at the response.

As for your post the hypocrisy is almost too much to take. Thanks for posting and that my friends is why they are winning.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop last year, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case.html

A judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recommended a lesbian couple should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering after Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to make them a wedding cake.


I guess without the understanding that without outrage that nothing will happen and the movement to change this country will just continue till it becomes so bad that we cannot recognize the place will continue. Unfortunately this is a tactic that the left has learned well and we need to pick this up before its to late.

[baldo]

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

That answers your question right there.........unlawful....

[Robert]

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

That answers your question right there.........unlawful....

I understand the judge made the ruling but why is this Trump supporter any different?  Baldo tell me what the difference is.

Maybe we no longer live in a country where all men are created equal. That the laws says its ok to discriminate against a Trump supporter but not ok to discriminate against a gay person.

The family told me the gay rights activists won’t be satisfied until her family is living in a homeless shelter.

  Some very kind and loving people (gay rights activists) took lessons from the times that they were discriminated against and decided to show love and support to them. NOT

and this is what we have to contend with. We can no longer look and say its on someone else's time and money especially if you want this country to remain. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Protected Classes, Lawful Discrimination, and Unlawful Discrimination 
Decisions become a form of unlawful discrimination when race, creed, national origin, ethnicity, or gender cause one person to be treated differently than another. Some states have laws that also protect against discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. These are called protected classes.

The U.S. government created protected classes through anti-discrimination laws in effort to protect groups of people of similar characteristics who tend to be targeted by unlawful discrimination. Race was added to the books initially with the Civil Rights Act of 1866; later it was reiterated and strengthened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information are all among the protected classes that are shielded against unlawful discrimination at the federal level.

[baldo]

Protected Classes, Lawful Discrimination, and Unlawful Discrimination 
Decisions become a form of unlawful discrimination when race, creed, national origin, ethnicity, or gender cause one person to be treated differently than another. Some states have laws that also protect against discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. These are called protected classes.

The U.S. government created protected classes through anti-discrimination laws in effort to protect groups of people of similar characteristics who tend to be targeted by unlawful discrimination. Race was added to the books initially with the Civil Rights Act of 1866; later it was reiterated and strengthened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information are all among the protected classes that are shielded against unlawful discrimination at the federal level.

You've just said it much better than I'd be able to...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Protected Classes, Lawful Discrimination, and Unlawful Discrimination 
Decisions become a form of unlawful discrimination when race, creed, national origin, ethnicity, or gender cause one person to be treated differently than another. Some states have laws that also protect against discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. These are called protected classes.

The U.S. government created protected classes through anti-discrimination laws in effort to protect groups of people of similar characteristics who tend to be targeted by unlawful discrimination. Race was added to the books initially with the Civil Rights Act of 1866; later it was reiterated and strengthened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information are all among the protected classes that are shielded against unlawful discrimination at the federal level.

You've just said it much better than I'd be able to...

it was a copy and paste that some here are so fond of. I thought it might have more of an impact on him. 

This self imposed exile of political posts is a lot harder than I thought it would be. 

[Patrick]

We'll see what happens.
One of the famous TV chef's, Michael Symon [ sp ] has said he will refuse service to Mr Trump or any of his party if they enter any of his restaurants.

[Moonshot_1]

So a bakery can deny service to a same sex couple if they believe they are Trump supporters?

A restaurant can do the same with Black people they believe to be Republican?

You can discriminate against these folks if you find a lawful way to do it?

We have assuredly lost our collective minds. ???

[G-Man]

So a bakery can deny service to a same sex couple if they believe they are Trump supporters?

A restaurant can do the same with Black people they believe to be Republican?

You can discriminate against these folks if you find a lawful way to do it?

We have assuredly lost our collective minds. ???

You are asking these questions to hypocrites.  At least they are consistent hypocrites.  As long as it's not specifically stated, it's fine by me.  They'll be using the same hypocritical reasoning when they pull the lever for the woman who lied to the parents of dead soldiers.

[baldo]

So a bakery can deny service to a same sex couple if they believe they are Trump supporters?

A restaurant can do the same with Black people they believe to be Republican?

You can discriminate against these folks if you find a lawful way to do it?

We have assuredly lost our collective minds. ???

You are asking these questions to hypocrites.  At least they are consistent hypocrites.  As long as it's not specifically stated, it's fine by me.  They'll be using the same hypocritical reasoning when they pull the lever for the woman who lied to the parents of dead soldiers.

 

[Robert]

Protected Classes, Lawful Discrimination, and Unlawful Discrimination 
Decisions become a form of unlawful discrimination when race, creed, national origin, ethnicity, or gender cause one person to be treated differently than another. Some states have laws that also protect against discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. These are called protected classes.

The U.S. government created protected classes through anti-discrimination laws in effort to protect groups of people of similar characteristics who tend to be targeted by unlawful discrimination. Race was added to the books initially with the Civil Rights Act of 1866; later it was reiterated and strengthened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information are all among the protected classes that are shielded against unlawful discrimination at the federal level.

Thanks that is much more of an intelligent explanation of the stance you take, I would guess because you didn't write it, but at least it explains why the government feels its ok to put one person above another when the Constitution says all men are created equal. It does not explain why you think this is ok.

  Why if I am a law abiding citizen should I obey the law when just because someone is gay they are not subject to the same penalties as me? why is it fair for one person lose their business and livelihood for refusing service just because they are christian? I guess its every man for himself.
 
Another question is why would anyone support an unfair and unequal system of government rules. Liberals were not supposed to be unfair or unbiased that is why I now say liberals are subversives.

The laws are being used for purposes that they were not designed for and its the courts again that are deciding who has the upper hand when it comes to application of people rights. I think its getting pretty close to doing something about this.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Protected Classes, Lawful Discrimination, and Unlawful Discrimination 
Decisions become a form of unlawful discrimination when race, creed, national origin, ethnicity, or gender cause one person to be treated differently than another. Some states have laws that also protect against discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. These are called protected classes.

The U.S. government created protected classes through anti-discrimination laws in effort to protect groups of people of similar characteristics who tend to be targeted by unlawful discrimination. Race was added to the books initially with the Civil Rights Act of 1866; later it was reiterated and strengthened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information are all among the protected classes that are shielded against unlawful discrimination at the federal level.

Thanks that is much more of an intelligent explanation of the stance you take, I would guess because you didn't write it, but at least it explains why the government feels its ok to put one person above another when the Constitution says all men are created equal. It does not explain why you think this is ok.

  Why if I am a law abiding citizen should I obey the law when just because someone is gay they are not subject to the same penalties as me? why is it fair for one person lose their business and livelihood for refusing service just because they are christian? I guess its every man for himself.
 
Another question is why would anyone support an unfair and unequal system of government rules. Liberals were not supposed to be unfair or unbiased that is why I now say liberals are subversives.

The laws are being used for purposes that they were not designed for and its the courts again that are deciding who has the upper hand when it comes to application of people rights. I think its getting pretty close to doing something about this.

I'm sorry but my exile is back on. 

[baldo]

Protected Classes, Lawful Discrimination, and Unlawful Discrimination  
Decisions become a form of unlawful discrimination when race, creed, national origin, ethnicity, or gender cause one person to be treated differently than another. Some states have laws that also protect against discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. These are called protected classes.

The U.S. government created protected classes through anti-discrimination laws in effort to protect groups of people of similar characteristics who tend to be targeted by unlawful discrimination. Race was added to the books initially with the Civil Rights Act of 1866; later it was reiterated and strengthened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information are all among the protected classes that are shielded against unlawful discrimination at the federal level.

Thanks that is much more of an intelligent explanation of the stance you take, I would guess because you didn't write it, but at least it explains why the government feels its ok to put one person above another when the Constitution says all men are created equal. It does not explain why you think this is ok.

  Why if I am a law abiding citizen should I obey the law when just because someone is gay they are not subject to the same penalties as me? why is it fair for one person lose their business and livelihood for refusing service just because they are christian? I guess its every man for himself.
 
Another question is why would anyone support an unfair and unequal system of government rules. Liberals were not supposed to be unfair or unbiased that is why I now say liberals are subversives.

The laws are being used for purposes that they were not designed for and its the courts again that are deciding who has the upper hand when it comes to application of people rights. I think its getting pretty close to doing something about this.

Robert.... like Meathead, I'm currently working on a personal 'boycott' of political arguments. I don't know how long I can last....But I really have to say this.

I'm awestruck with the way you're seeing this whole thing. It takes 'skill' to come at an issue, sideways, backwards and upside down, all at the same time. I doff my cap.

Feel free to carry on without me. I'm really trying.

[Willow]

There seems to be confusion among some of the difference between right and legal.  The system was correct when they made it wrong to discriminate against someone based upon race.  The system was even mostly right when they made it illegal to discriminate based upon gender.  Long ago there were lines crossed when the number and descriptions of "protected classes" ballooned.

For what it's worth I'm consistent.  I also distinguish between right and legal in traffic laws.   

[Roadog]

So, a Trump supporter walks into a restaurant, identified by a hat she is wearing, and is refused service by the waitress and told to leave by the owner.

Do you think the Justice Dept. will fine the restaurant hundreds of thousands to crush the owner and put them out of business?

The way things have progressed over the last 7 years, I'm gonna answer my own question and say NO.  The woman will be called a racist and a few other names which will justify this act.   Afterall, Republicans and conservatives don't have the same rights as liberals and progressives whether they are individuals or part of groups.  They can be beaten, they can be fined, they can lose their livelihoods, they can lose their privacy, they can even be investigated, and bullied by the IRS.



I would think she was white and not a member of a protected class. They would NEVER try that with a member of a minority class.

Roadog

Roadog

[hubcapsc]

The system was correct when they made it wrong to discriminate against someone based upon race.

I don't think so. Black people were correct when they asserted themselves as citizens, asserted their
rights to the ballot box and asserted their rights to have protection under the law. But I think most everything
the government did after the government jumped on the civil-rights bandwagon was the normal load of hooey.

-Mike "the government = the system"

[Willow]

The system was correct when they made it wrong to discriminate against someone based upon race.

I don't think so. Black people were correct when they asserted themselves as citizens, asserted their
rights to the ballot box and asserted their rights to have protection under the law. But I think most everything
the government did after the government jumped on the civil-rights bandwagon was the normal load of hooey.

-Mike "the government = the system"

We would not be at very distant disagreement and yes, the system is the government although the system includes multiple governments including city, county, state, and federal.

I also think the judge in the bakery case significantly misinterpreted the law.  The bakery didn't refuse their business because the potential customers were "gay".   The bakery simply refused to create a cake with the message they requested displayed upon it.

I am not white although I am usually assessed as white.  I do not think it is right for a person to choose to treat someone as less than acceptable based solely upon the race into which he was born.  I do believe it would be acceptable for someone to refuse to make a sign that says Indians are better than Europeans but not to refuse to do business with someone because he was Indian.

When my great grandfather died suddenly of a street car accident he was owed several thousand dollars by a business associate.  the business associate refused to pay it because my great grandmother was a Choctaw.  His explanation was simply that he would not give money to an Indian.

Discrimination can take place at the government level or at the business level.  I think it's easy to decide that discrimination at the government level based upon race, gender, age, or handicap is wrong.  Spreading the same to business and personal level becomes more complex.

I would actually support the business owner's right to refuse to allow someone to enter his business wearing a shirt he found offensive even though I would think he is wrong.  As some others have said, I really wouldn't want to do business with him either.         

[Robert]

Robert.... like Meathead, I'm currently working on a personal 'boycott' of political arguments. I don't know how long I can last....But I really have to say this.

I'm awestruck with the way you're seeing this whole thing. It takes 'skill' to come at an issue, sideways, backwards and upside down, all at the same time. I doff my cap.

Feel free to carry on without me. I'm really trying.

Thanks for your post and I understand about the political arguments. I deal with different opinions  all day so I don't think its these but the way they are presented from both sides.

On this topic there is no need to have a privileged class which is what we have today. In order to have laws that men respect and abide by they cannot be arbitrary. In the making of laws its our government that is responsible for not keeping a level playing field and elevating some to a higher standard. The laws on the books were sufficient.

  Quite honestly in this situation I am really pissed that one couple working for a good life together is punished for making a decision in their hearts based on their religious conviction and liberty. The courts say this liberty means nothing in comparison to a gays wedding cake.  This right is in the Constitution, and is the basis this country was founded on. Yet when it comes to someone that decides on their gender identity we honor that above all else. This meant by the law this special class is above the Constitution.

Why does the law support a gay person deciding on their gender more than those living a Godly life? When government calls right wrong and wrong right and elevates behavior that according to every standard this country was formed on was wrong we have a major problem with those in government. 

The gays found another place to make a cake and went on with their wedding no harm no foul,

While the Christians have lawsuits, government penalties, changed way of life all for refusing the words on a cake.

With liberty and justice for all.  ???

[3fan4life]

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

That answers your question right there.........unlawful....

So, if the headline read:

So, a Clinton supporter walks into a restaurant, identified by a hat she is wearing, and is refused service by the waitress and told to leave by the owner.

That would be "PERFECTLY" acceptable to you?

[baldo]

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

That answers your question right there.........unlawful....

So, if the headline read:

So, a Clinton supporter walks into a restaurant, identified by a hat she is wearing, and is refused service by the waitress and told to leave by the owner.

That would be "PERFECTLY" acceptable to you?

Where did I say that? It would bother me as much as this bothers you. My substantial shadow would never darken their door. That's the way it is.

[3fan4life]

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

That answers your question right there.........unlawful....

So, if the headline read:

So, a Clinton supporter walks into a restaurant, identified by a hat she is wearing, and is refused service by the waitress and told to leave by the owner.

That would be "PERFECTLY" acceptable to you?

Where did I say that? It would bother me as much as this bothers you. My substantial shadow would never darken their door. That's the way it is.

Then why is it NOT ok for Trump supporters to be miffed by this?

[art]

The woman went to the police and was told, by the police, not much they can do because a business can refuse service to whoever they want.


       


I bet that's news to the bakery owner and the pizza store owner.

You think?

[G-Man]

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

That answers your question right there.........unlawful....

So, if the headline read:

So, a Clinton supporter walks into a restaurant, identified by a hat she is wearing, and is refused service by the waitress and told to leave by the owner.

That would be "PERFECTLY" acceptable to you?

Where did I say that? It would bother me as much as this bothers you. My substantial shadow would never darken their door. That's the way it is.

Then why is it NOT ok for Trump supporters to be miffed by this?

Because, for some unknown reason that I haven't figured out yet, they like to argue, even when they agree or there is no argument.  One of them can read a 7 paragraph post, and pull out one word from all 7 paragraphs and put it in quotation marks as his reply.  Couldn't find anything to argue about or anything wrong, but that one word, that means absolutely nothing, it so important that you now need to go back and explain why you put in that one word.  I never do any more.  If it really bothers him, that one word, so be it.

[baldo]

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple
A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

That answers your question right there.........unlawful....

So, if the headline read:

So, a Clinton supporter walks into a restaurant, identified by a hat she is wearing, and is refused service by the waitress and told to leave by the owner.

That would be "PERFECTLY" acceptable to you?

Where did I say that? It would bother me as much as this bothers you. My substantial shadow would never darken their door. That's the way it is.

Then why is it NOT ok for Trump supporters to be miffed by this?

Because, for some unknown reason that I haven't figured out yet, they like to argue, even when they agree or there is no argument.  One of them can read a 7 paragraph post, and pull out one word from all 7 paragraphs and put it in quotation marks as his reply.  Couldn't find anything to argue about or anything wrong, but that one word, that means absolutely nothing, it so important that you now need to go back and explain why you put in that one word.  I never do any more.  If it really bothers him, that one word, so be it.

 

I really don't know what you're talking about. If you're referring to my post pointing out the law, well. I just don't know what to say. Carry on.

[Roadog]

I really don't know what you're talking about.

I do...