Refusing service because of political party.

[RoadRunner79]

I've seen a number of times here, and in another thread, references to protected classes.  My understanding is that some believe that it is ok to discriminate, as long as the person is not a part of this protected class.  This to me, appears little more than a technicality.  That if a person can not fit on the list, then it is ok to disrespect them, even though the reasoning, and the actions are very similar.  On the other hand, I would consider discrimination to have  a more moral underpinning. That the bigotry was wrong before there was a protected class, or a particular group was added to that list.  The "protected class" represents a larger moral principle.  How would you justify discrimination of one person, and so easily dismiss similar actions and sentiment towards another?  Or is it just a technical thing, and enforcing the law, where if you are not on the list, then it is perfectly all right to discriminate?  Many statements and actions particularly of the left lately seem hateful and hypocritical to me (although the right is not free from blame either).

I would contend that the reverse is true, and that the right does and has done it worse than the left for centuries, and in some cases, for millennia. Though they weren't called "the right" in those days; they were just called "men" in those days, with a heaping helping of religion. Women's and minority's rights (as well as LGBTQ rights) have only made some sort of headway in recent decades- women since the '20s, minorities since the '60s, and LGBTQ still in the works. Getting a law that allows other than white males to be treated as "equals"? You have to be kidding. It should have been that way all along. I think maybe a bit of understanding about the backlash would be in order, especially since the "right" assuming whites are still out there carrying torches like villagers in some novel by Mary Shelley. I wonder if there is an organization on the left that competes openly and ideologically against the KKK, for example?

I was speaking more about now. I don’t think that pointing to others and what they have done effects this either way. If anything we should learn from mistakes of the past.

[Angrboda]

I've seen a number of times here, and in another thread, references to protected classes.  My understanding is that some believe that it is ok to discriminate, as long as the person is not a part of this protected class.  This to me, appears little more than a technicality.  That if a person can not fit on the list, then it is ok to disrespect them, even though the reasoning, and the actions are very similar.  On the other hand, I would consider discrimination to have  a more moral underpinning. That the bigotry was wrong before there was a protected class, or a particular group was added to that list.  The "protected class" represents a larger moral principle.  How would you justify discrimination of one person, and so easily dismiss similar actions and sentiment towards another?  Or is it just a technical thing, and enforcing the law, where if you are not on the list, then it is perfectly all right to discriminate?  Many statements and actions particularly of the left lately seem hateful and hypocritical to me (although the right is not free from blame either).

I don't think it's that simple. We have a tradition of political discourse in our society which includes free speech, among other things. We want to respect a person's right to influence that discourse with speech, boycotts, voting, and other acts, but we also don't want people to be unable to live their lives simply because of who or what they are. So it's not simply a question of allowing some discrimination, but not others. There are competing interests to be served.

[brewer]

I see the secret service is now involved, at least with regard to Sanders.

Unintended consequences?

[Brian37]

Sure, in that case I don't think things should be that way. The cake guy can just say he doesn't like the gay couple, telling them to get out. This nullifies the whole idea of protected groups.

It does nothing of the sort. Protecting classes of people does just that, it protects the entire group from being discriminated against based on the class. But you can be a member of a protected class and also be an individual whom I think is an asshole. It is and should be illegal for me to refuse to serve all members of a protected class simply because I think one or more members of that class are assholes. But it is not and should not be illegal for me to refuse to serve any individual I find to be an asshole regardless of what protected class they may also be a member of.

Yea, tell that to blacks who are old enough to remember segregation. Tell that to the Japanese Americans old enough to remember being ILLEGALLY DETAINED without due process during WW2.

Yes I can and will tell a fucking bigot to get the fuck out of my business if I owned one. If you allow discrimination to grow horrible things follow.

[Shell B]

I've seen a number of times here, and in another thread, references to protected classes.  My understanding is that some believe that it is ok to discriminate, as long as the person is not a part of this protected class.  This to me, appears little more than a technicality.  That if a person can not fit on the list, then it is ok to disrespect them, even though the reasoning, and the actions are very similar.  On the other hand, I would consider discrimination to have  a more moral underpinning. That the bigotry was wrong before there was a protected class, or a particular group was added to that list.  The "protected class" represents a larger moral principle.  How would you justify discrimination of one person, and so easily dismiss similar actions and sentiment towards another?  Or is it just a technical thing, and enforcing the law, where if you are not on the list, then it is perfectly all right to discriminate?  Many statements and actions particularly of the left lately seem hateful and hypocritical to me (although the right is not free from blame either).

It boils down to choice. You can't choose your sexual orientation or race, but you can choose to be a monster’s mouthpiece.

[robvalue]

Also, orientation and race don't affect anyone else, even if they were a choice.

[Brian37]

I've seen a number of times here, and in another thread, references to protected classes.  My understanding is that some believe that it is ok to discriminate, as long as the person is not a part of this protected class.  This to me, appears little more than a technicality.  That if a person can not fit on the list, then it is ok to disrespect them, even though the reasoning, and the actions are very similar.  On the other hand, I would consider discrimination to have  a more moral underpinning. That the bigotry was wrong before there was a protected class, or a particular group was added to that list.  The "protected class" represents a larger moral principle.  How would you justify discrimination of one person, and so easily dismiss similar actions and sentiment towards another?  Or is it just a technical thing, and enforcing the law, where if you are not on the list, then it is perfectly all right to discriminate?  Many statements and actions particularly of the left lately seem hateful and hypocritical to me (although the right is not free from blame either).

It boils down to choice. You can't choose your sexual orientation or race, but you can choose to be a monster’s mouthpiece.

I agree.


I have long despised the GOP economic policies, and hate the wrongful vilification of anyone saying workers, both urban, suburban and rural workers have lost their seat at the table. I hate the false accusation that you want communism or fascism if you say the top earners have way too much power over our government. But that is made worse by the vile political scapegoating by one man in our highest office.

He is a monster and I refuse to back down from that statement. We were even warned by 50 REPUBLICAN law agents during his run that his rhetoric is toxic and dangerous to our western values and global diplomacy. Just this week he LIED about German's crime level which is at a generational LOW in reality. The worst part is that his supporters are also getting screwed, like Carrier workers, and now Harley whom he really doesn't give a shit about and is "fake fighting" like WWE. The only person he gives a shit about is himself. 

It is also dangerous to make blanket carpet bombing statements about the watchdog press. He isn't addressing one article on a case by case basis. He is attempting to destroy any questioning of his power. 

Any survivor of the Holocaust can tell you, AND I HAVE SPOKEN TO SURVIVORS, they can tell anyone this is how democracy falls, this is how an open society can fall. It never happens in one day or one year, but it is boiling the lobster slowly. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...



I do not attack Trump just because I personally hate him, I do, I attack him for very pragmatic reasons because I know American history. I know WW2 History. He is literally vilifying innocent non violent people whom I personally know. I attack him for his vile political scapegoating because I do not want Hispanics or LGBT to go through the same things blacks or Japanese Americans went through. I do not want our pluralistic society to become a one party state like China or the former Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany.

The threat is real, and I do not say that lightly. This is not paranoia on my part, nor can anyone sanely equate standing up to a bully as equal to being the bully. I am dead serious to anyone who supports him. You are wrong and history will not look back kindly to his brand of politics. We know where this brand of politics takes a society, and it never ends up well, even for those who initially think it is a good idea.

If anyone reading this values western open societies, then THE ONLY RIGHT THING TO DO is to condemn his dangerous rhetoric.

[RoadRunner79]

I've seen a number of times here, and in another thread, references to protected classes.  My understanding is that some believe that it is ok to discriminate, as long as the person is not a part of this protected class.  This to me, appears little more than a technicality.  That if a person can not fit on the list, then it is ok to disrespect them, even though the reasoning, and the actions are very similar.  On the other hand, I would consider discrimination to have  a more moral underpinning. That the bigotry was wrong before there was a protected class, or a particular group was added to that list.  The "protected class" represents a larger moral principle.  How would you justify discrimination of one person, and so easily dismiss similar actions and sentiment towards another?  Or is it just a technical thing, and enforcing the law, where if you are not on the list, then it is perfectly all right to discriminate?  Many statements and actions particularly of the left lately seem hateful and hypocritical to me (although the right is not free from blame either).

It boils down to choice. You can't choose your sexual orientation or race, but you can choose to be a monster’s mouthpiece.

Interesting considering another thread about choice and what we believe.

Would you agree then, that discrimination is allowed based on what another chooses to act on, not necessarily the impulses themselves?

[Brian37]

Not accepting bigotry is not intolerance. But, I think the way to fight anti LGBT and anti immigrant bias is legally and socially. I don't think denying service is a good response, because, yes, there will be a counter response. You might say fine, but, what about liberals that live in red states, where it's going to be hard for them to find a place to eat out?To be clear, I really don't feel sorry for Sanders.

On a side note, it's hilarious that Trump talked about filthy canopies, doors and windows, and it needing a paint job. That buffoon has obviously never been there, nor even seen a picture. Unless the pictures I see are really old. He just flies off at the mouth, like always. His rabid, undying fans, I mean his base, will probably take him at his word like they always do.

The more I talk to my atheist "Redneck" friend who lives in Oklahoma he does make one point, that he wishes East Coast and West Coast liberals would not abandon rust belt and rural state liberals. He is absolutely right that liberals live in red states. Both parties exist in all 50 states. 

Having said that, no sorry, we are not dealing with politics as normal. I'll defend a republican like McCain or Comey or Mueller, yes. But I will not back down to someone who is literally trying to destroy any check on his power. 45 is not politics as normal. He isn't just vilifying minorities, he is vilifying the free press and his own intel.

[Shell B]

It boils down to choice. You can't choose your sexual orientation or race, but you can choose to be a monster’s mouthpiece.

Interesting considering another thread about choice and what we believe.

Would you agree then, that discrimination is allowed based on what another chooses to act on, not necessarily the impulses themselves?

I think that's the metric used now to gauge what's correct, and I think it's a relatively fair one. You can refuse service to someone who chooses not to wear shoes, chooses to swear loudly, makes a fuss, etc. You can't/shouldn't if a person is handicapped and needs help, is a certain race, gender, nationality, sexuality. These things we don't choose, and it's not fair to make opinions about people based on these qualities.

For the record, I do think we have a choice in what we believe. We can choose to educate ourselves and evolve intellectually or not. Of course, you can't help it if you're an idiot, and concessions should be made for dummies.