Refusing service because of political party.

[Brian37]

Apparently some see this as a perfectly reasonable action. I don't, not when you're out trying to live your own life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e5714148cb

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/393874...lic-spaces

What do the rest of you think and where would you draw the line?

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.

[robvalue]

My confusion is having a law which prevents discrimination, and then another law which allows you to freely discriminate. What's the point?

I'm thinking that in reality, if a person consistently threw out black/gay people, they'd be considered to be discriminating even if they said these people all just happened to annoy them. But I guess if you consistently throw out democrats, then that's okay, legally speaking. However, you could claim to think that all gays are democrats...?

It all seems rather strange to me.

[johan]

You're right, a business owner could do that. Now show me one that actually has.

Wait for it.

I've been on this planet almost 50 years and it ain't happened yet. Haven't seen much in the history books about it happening much before I was born either. How long do you want me to wait?

[henryp]

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.

[johan]

I'm thinking that in reality, if a person consistently threw out black/gay people, they'd be considered to be discriminating even if they said these people all just happened to annoy them. 

And you'd be right. If someone was consistently denying service to all black or gay people, it wouldn't be difficult at all to prove discrimination in court regardless of their claimed reason.

But I guess if you consistently throw out democrats, then that's okay, legally speaking. 

True. Political affiliation is not a protected class.

However, you could claim to think that all gays are democrats...?

Well you could try it I suppose. But it would be an extremely weak legal defense and I doubt any judge or jury would buy it.

---

I don't personally see a difference between being a douche over religion and being a douche over politics.

You might not, but the law does.

[Ravenshire]

Decent treatment for indecent people would be the decent thing to do.

There comes a time when one realizes doing the decent thing to indecent people doesn't change them in the slightest, because they keep being indecent people, and then the decent thing to do is to be indecent right back.

I'm more concerned with who I become than I am with who I can make them become. I refuse to be a reprehensible person just because I find the beliefs of others reprehensible. Bigotry is bigotry whether it's based on race, gender, sexual orientation or beliefs or lack thereof. If it's wrong to allow blacks a place at the lunch counter or to refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake, then it's wrong to discriminate based on political idology as well. While I don't like what they have to say, I don't think I have the right to refuse them a service that is publicly available to everyone just because I don't like the way they think.

[Brian37]

There comes a time when one realizes doing the decent thing to indecent people doesn't change them in the slightest, because they keep being indecent people, and then the decent thing to do is to be indecent right back.

I'm more concerned with who I become than I am with who I can make them become. I refuse to be a reprehensible person just because I find the beliefs of others reprehensible. Bigotry is bigotry whether it's based on race, gender, sexual orientation or beliefs or lack thereof. If it's wrong to allow blacks a place at the lunch counter or to refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake, then it's wrong to discriminate based on political idology as well. While I don't like what they have to say, I don't think I have the right to refuse them a service that is publicly available to everyone just because I don't like the way they think.

Ann Frank was insightful for basically saying, "In spite of everything I truly believe people are good at heart."

That does not mean you give the powers that convince others the same benefit. My late mother was a loving caring decent human whose economic policies I hated. That does not mean you give the powers that convince such the same consideration. There are politicians who get into it for noble reasons, and others who get into it for power.

[johan]

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.

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.

[Amarok]

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

[henryp]

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

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