Quote:Yes, like the Trump cabinet being able to get good nachos.  Got to have those priorities!

Again not everything is about the election

(June 26, 2018 at 11:39 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 10:20 am)Shell B Wrote: I disagree with the notion itself. However, if we're living in a country where a person can be refused service because of their sexual orientation, then political party is fair game. It does make people more informed consumers, that's for sure.

If Sarah didn't want the backlash, then she shouldn't support a fucking asshole.

I don't know if you understand my position. If someone pissed right in her face, I wouldn't care that much. I don't like her. I'm saying, we can either refuse service to people based on our beliefs or we can't. Since it's the new thing, then the Red Hen chick was well within the current norm.

---

(June 26, 2018 at 12:12 pm)johan Wrote: You might not, but the law does.

And, if I was arguing from a legal perspective, I wouldn't have said "I don't see any difference."

---

(June 26, 2018 at 1:28 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:The real problem with this, is that to the 70% of the country that doesn't buy into the hyperbole, it's making Sanders look like a sympathetic figure. Most people have family or friends that they like that are republicans. The idea of them being refused service over that isn't going to play well in a general election. 

The goal should be win in 2018, then beat Donald in 2020. Will it be worth it to have withheld nachos from a couple rich republicans if it means republicans remain in control for 6 more years? 

It all goes back to the group of people in that echo chamber who don't realize that they don't make up 55% of the country.

As much as i want to beat Trump there are more important things then the election

Aren't you Canadian? I'm not doing the whole, "It's none of your business" thing. I'm just curious how you can beat Trump or assess the import of the election vs. other things. In this country, the election is pretty fucking important. It's the thing that helps fix all those other things.

(June 26, 2018 at 1:45 pm)Shell B Wrote: I don't know if you understand my position. If someone pissed right in her face, I wouldn't care that much. I don't like her. I'm saying, we can either refuse service to people based on our beliefs or we can't. Since it's the new thing, then the Red Hen chick was well within the current norm.

So are you saying you believe there should be no laws protecting any group of people from discrimination when it comes to the sale of goods and services?

(June 26, 2018 at 12:41 pm)johan Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 12:10 pm)henryp Wrote: The real problem with this, is that to the 70% of the country that doesn't buy into the hyperbole, it's making Sanders look like a sympathetic figure.  Most people have family or friends that they like that are republicans.  The idea of them being refused service over that isn't going to play well in a general election.  

She wasn't asked to leave because of who she voted for. She was asked to leave because of who she works for and because of the particular job she's choosing to do.

Quote:The goal should be win in 2018, then beat Donald in 2020.  Will it be worth it to have withheld nachos from a couple rich republicans if it means republicans remain in control for 6 more years?  

Trump is going to win in 2020 regardless of who does or does not get asked to leave any restaurant. Also don't want to bring anyone down or anything but we're halfway through 2018 so we've got about 6 months at best before he goes into full campaign mode. Brace yourselves.

Trump will only win if apathy and ignorance continue.

(June 26, 2018 at 1:45 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 11:39 am)Brian37 Wrote: If Sarah didn't want the backlash, then she shouldn't support a fucking asshole.

I don't know if you understand my position. If someone pissed right in her face, I wouldn't care that much. I don't like her. I'm saying, we can either refuse service to people based on our beliefs or we can't. Since it's the new thing, then the Red Hen chick was well within the current norm.

---

(June 26, 2018 at 12:12 pm)johan Wrote: You might not, but the law does.

And, if I was arguing from a legal perspective, I wouldn't have said "I don't see any difference."  

---

(June 26, 2018 at 1:28 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: As much as i want to beat Trump there are more important things then the election

Aren't you Canadian? I'm not doing the whole, "It's none of your business" thing. I'm just curious how you can beat Trump or assess the import of the election vs. other things. In this country, the election is pretty fucking important. It's the thing that helps fix all those other things.

1. Trump isn't just an American problem as Tariffs and Refugees have proven. 

2. I think this case has universal civil rights in my opinion that could be potent long after Trumps second term and American issues have a tendency to be reflected here .

3. As for fixing everything i don't honestly think a Democrat victory will fix Trump ism. I think it's marked American politics for at least a generation or two as it's proven effective at getting elected . I hope i'm wrong though .

(June 26, 2018 at 2:08 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Trump will only win if apathy and ignorance continue.

Agreed. So four more years it is then.

(June 26, 2018 at 1:55 pm)johan Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 1:45 pm)Shell B Wrote: I don't know if you understand my position. If someone pissed right in her face, I wouldn't care that much. I don't like her. I'm saying, we can either refuse service to people based on our beliefs or we can't. Since it's the new thing, then the Red Hen chick was well within the current norm.

So are you saying you believe there should be no laws protecting any group of people from discrimination when it comes to the sale of goods and services?

Nope. I don't see how you could have gleaned that from my comments. I'm saying people are refusing service based on their beliefs and getting away with it, so I guess that's the new standard.

(June 26, 2018 at 2:28 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 1:55 pm)johan Wrote: So are you saying you believe there should be no laws protecting any group of people from discrimination when it comes to the sale of goods and services?

Nope. I don't see how you could have gleaned that from my comments. I'm saying people are refusing service based on their beliefs and getting away with it, so I guess that's the new standard.

You're referring to the Colorado baker I'm assuming. Its my understanding that the baker won not because the SCOTUS thought the baker had a right to refuse service to the gay couple, but because they felt the baker didn't get a fair trial in the lower court. The baker deal might be what you were talking about and I could be wrong on my understanding of it, but if I'm right then I would say people are getting away with it in certain cases. Certain cases does not a new standard make IMO.

(June 26, 2018 at 2:13 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: 1. Trump isn't just an American problem as Tariffs and Refugees have proven. 

I agree. It was the way you said you wanted to "win" that made me think I was wrong about your nationality.

(June 26, 2018 at 2:38 pm)johan Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 2:28 pm)Shell B Wrote: Nope. I don't see how you could have gleaned that from my comments. I'm saying people are refusing service based on their beliefs and getting away with it, so I guess that's the new standard.

You're referring to the Colorado baker I'm assuming. Its my understanding that the baker won not because the SCOTUS thought the baker had a right to refuse service to the gay couple, but because they felt the baker didn't get a fair trial in the lower court. The baker deal might be what you were talking about and I could be wrong on my understanding of it, but if I'm right then I would say people are getting away with it in certain cases. Certain cases does not a new standard make IMO.

There have been a few instances. However, my point is that it is the public's opinion that this is what we're doing. It's a habit that is spreading, obviously.

I'm talking about my opinion, not the law. My opinion is if people are doing this, than anyone can do it. That doesn't mean it's my opinion that everyone should be doing it, either.