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