Just Desserts (Just No Sammiches)

[no one]

Hatemongering christiboi flunkies were denied service at a Milwaukee Subway. 

It is heartbreaking. Can you just imagine, a business, denying you service based on who you are? It is infuriating. These poor, poor, souls were denied service by this totalitarian business simply because of their lifestyle. I thought Milwaukee was in the United States of America, not Nazi Germany. It's a sad day.

[Sheldon]

Hatemongering christiboi flunkies were denied service at a Milwaukee Subway. 

It is heartbreaking. Can you just imagine, a business, denying you service based on who you are? It is infuriating. These poor, poor, souls were denied service by this totalitarian business simply because of their lifestyle. I thought Milwaukee was in the United States of America, not Nazi Germany. It's a sad day.

Already trying to play the victim, Jesus would be proud. The Daily Heil is misrepresenting this as discrimination against Christians, it's not of course. They also claimed the men should be allowed to have any message they want on their t shirts, without any backlash. So they'd have nothing to say if one of their employees turned up for work wearing a t shirt saying all christians are hate mongers then. 

It's odd how people think they can champion free speech and freedom of expression for themselves, but then complain when others exercise that same freedom.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Would you be so snarky and upset if the shop had refused to serve someone wearing a BLM or Gay Pride shirt?

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hatemongering christiboi flunkies were denied service at a Milwaukee Subway. 

It is heartbreaking. Can you just imagine, a business, denying you service based on who you are? It is infuriating. These poor, poor, souls were denied service by this totalitarian business simply because of their lifestyle. I thought Milwaukee was in the United States of America, not Nazi Germany. It's a sad day.

Already trying to play the victim, Jesus would be proud. The Daily Heil is misrepresenting this as discrimination against Christians, it's not of course. They also claimed the men should be allowed to have any message they want on their t shirts, without any backlash. So they'd have nothing to say if one of their employees turned up for work wearing a t shirt saying all christians are hate mongers then. 

It's odd how people think they can champion free speech and freedom of expression for themselves, but then complain when others exercise that same freedom.

And yet you’re seeking to limit those freedoms yourself.

Boru

[Sheldon]

Already trying to play the victim, Jesus would be proud. The Daily Heil is misrepresenting this as discrimination against Christians, it's not of course. They also claimed the men should be allowed to have any message they want on their t shirts, without any backlash. So they'd have nothing to say if one of their employees turned up for work wearing a t shirt saying all christians are hate mongers then. 

It's odd how people think they can champion free speech and freedom of expression for themselves, but then complain when others exercise that same freedom.

And yet you’re seeking to limit those freedoms yourself.

Boru

Nope. not at all.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And yet you’re seeking to limit those freedoms yourself.

Boru

Nope. not at all.

Of course you are - you just said so. You’re saying that it is permissible to deny service based on something as silly as an offensive t-shirt.

Remember the bakery that wouldn’t do a wedding cake for a gay couple? Same thing.

Boru

[Sheldon]

Nope. not at all.

Of course you are - you just said so. You’re saying that it is permissible to deny service based on something as silly as an offensive t-shirt.



Boru

Of course I am not, and of course I did not say so. Also I have not actually said the actions were not permissible, though a business in the UK may refuse service at their discretion, as long as it not done so illegally, for example violation of a dress code must be applied universally. 

Note this doesn't limit anyone's free speech, it only means there are consequences to how and when that free speech is indulged, as of course has always been the case, defamation laws for example, one is free to use one's freedom of speech to defame another, but not with impunity. Just as one is free to phone a fake bomb scare in, but will have to suffer the consequences. 

There is a difference between censoring someone's free speech, and censuring someone for how it is used.

Note again, they are free to wear the bigoted hate speech t shirts, they can also make the bigoted speech in public, but cannot then complain that others react to it.  

Remember the bakery that wouldn’t do a wedding cake for a gay couple? Same thing.

No, that was very different, they had no legal right to refuse to serve someone based on their sexual orientation, being gay is not a choice anymore than being black is, thus the law does not allow discrimination on that basis, rightly so in my opinion. However freedom of speech involves a choice, thus there can be consequences based on how and where it is exercised. Remember the Australian rugby union player Israel Falou? He made homophobic statements in public, as he is perfectly entitled to do, but he was in violation of his contract of employment in doing so, and after a first warning, that contract was terminated. No one however, stopped him exercising his free speech.

I never said anyone couldn't use hate speech, or wear t shirts expressing the same, though obviously I would rather they did not. I also did not make the laws that govern the possible consequences of how freedom of speech is used, so in no way have I attempted to "limit those freedoms" as you claimed. Though I may be guilty of indulging in a little schadenfreude, at them falsely trying to pretend they are being victimised for their beliefs, rather than for the choice they made about where to express them, as if they alone are allowed to express themselves with impunity.

[arewethereyet]

Nevermind.  I am not getting into a free speech/hate speech/who gets a sammich debate.  

Carry on.

[Sheldon]

Nevermind.  I am not getting into a free speech/hate speech/who gets a sammich debate.  

Carry on.

Exactly so, and how and when we choose to use our free speech is, and that choice can have consequences, though of course it is the law that determines this, not me. Whether I agree with the laws or not, they exist as an objective fact, opinions about whether those laws reflect our own morality are subjective.

[arewethereyet]

I will add that I have a few shirts I don't wear out of the house mostly due to them being something that a kid might read and think is okay to say...nothing against anyone just spicy language.

Common sense should win out on this topic. Unfortunately, common sense seems to be in short supply.

The guys (and girls) I would see in SC with their rebel flag shirts told me who they were and what they were about. Kinda like a MAGA hat. A warning, stay away sign.