Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

@CoastalRat,

She's not discriminating she's taking a stand against the mouthpiece of a regime that has done some pretty disgusting things.

In simple terms it's the difference between good and evil. Locking kids up in cages is evil. I would have thought as a Christian you'd understand that.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Ok, let me just add something here. Maybe I am projecting my thick skin onto others. But why would it bother you for me to think that in this instance you are being hypocritical? Obviously, the same could be said about me (or anyone) who thinks that the baker was ok to refuse but the restaurant owner was wrong. And I know there are people (repubs, conservatives, whatever) who think that way. I don't believe that being hypocritical on certain subjects makes you a bad person. I do believe it means one is not thinking through their position very well.

As another example, I believe pro-life advocates who defend the use of the death penalty are hypocritical. If life is precious, then all life is precious. Now I don't think they are a bad person for thinking this way, they just have not thought through their position.

If I thought the restaurant owner was right to deny service, then I would be saying that it is ok to discriminate based on a very subjective basis. What if I decided I didn't like welders because a welder ran off with my wife? Can I make that decision and drive all welders out of my business whenever they show up? Maybe you are fine with that. Maybe not. I don't know. And what does the welder say to his kids? Sorry guys, we can't eat at this place because they don't like us because I am a welder. Now you are teaching children it is ok to hate simply for what someone does. Really? That is where you see America going? Are you really ok with that? If so, then I am sorry, our country is pretty much doomed regardless of what party controls the white house.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Izzy, where have I said that locking kids up in cages is a good thing? And please keep in mind the policy has been in place since the Clinton presidency and continued to one degree or another by both republican and democrat admins.

But, to your point, I guess you are ok with any establishment refusing service to anyone who works for, speaks for or campaigns for anything that you personally see as wrong. I am just simply trying to nail down your belief here. Because that is what it appears you are saying. If I am reading that wrong, please enlighten me. Because I can go back on this thread and find at least one person who says the restaurant owner "discriminated" and was justified in doing so.

I truly hope we never see the day when you are refused service for your political beliefs.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Ms. Huckabee-Sanders chose to do the things that made the people uncomfortable. They are allowed to choose not to serve her.

The people asking to have a wedding cake baked did not choose to be gay.

This is a protected status issue.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

A hypocrite is someone who's actions/words contradict their own beliefs. Mine don't, I've told you what the distinction is and why I believe it's the case. You've no right trying to force your definition of something on me.

And no, I don't think that being unable to see the difference between the wedding cake and Sanders episodes makes you a hypocrite, even though that distinction has been clearly pointed out. It does make me suspect that you're a bit forgiving of those who do discriminate against LGBT people, perhaps even sympathetic towards them.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

]And, if you own a dining establishment and cannot serve people without discriminating, then you are not fit for the job.

discrimination under the law has a very specific meaning.

you are attempting to misuse it

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

What if I decided I didn't like welders because a welder ran off with my wife? Can I make that decision and drive all welders out of my business whenever they show up?

you certainly can make that choice

welders do not have protected status against discrimination under the law

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It does make me suspect that you're a bit forgiving of those who do discriminate against LGBT people, perhaps even sympathetic towards them.

this for sure

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Ok, let me just add something here. Maybe I am projecting my thick skin onto others. But why would it bother you for me to think that in this instance you are being hypocritical?

Because being accused of being a hypocrite is a negative thing. Here are some synonyms of 'hypocrite' : pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, sanctimonious person, plaster saint, phony, fraud, sham, fake.

I wouldn't say that I'm sitting here at my desk all "bothered" to any degree, but it's not a charge I like to be levied against me at any time. It doesn't mean I'm not hypocritical at time, there are just better ways to point that out if your goal is to have a respectful discussion.

Quote:

Obviously, the same could be said about me (or anyone) who thinks that the baker was ok to refuse but the restaurant owner was wrong.

You're framing the argument in a way that I disagree with. If you try to look at the argument in the way that ehBeth and I have tried to present it, it's not hypocritical. It only becomes that way when you frame the argument in the way you choose to.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Maybe he could use some history on what protected groups are and why it's important.

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

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

It was Donald Trump's zero tolerance approach towards said legislation that caused headlines around the World, not the comparatively light touch approach under the previous administration. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

Over here it's still illegal not to practice archery on Sundays. It's an old forgotten medieval law that never got taken off the statute. It hasn't been implemented for centuries.

If May started locking people up on the pretext of not enough Archery practice only an idiot would blame Henry VIII.

You're deliberately twisting and misrepresenting what I'm saying. Sanders wasn't refused service for her political beliefs it was because she was the mouthpiece of a regime that was locking up kids. She was refused service because she specifically justified locking up kids that very day. I'm sure Trump voters get served every day.

If you have to resort to such underhand tricks instead of discussing the issue there's not any point continuing this conversation.

You asked a question. I gave you an answer. You didn't like the answer, end of.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
What if I decided I didn't like welders because a welder ran off with my wife? Can I make that decision and drive all welders out of my business whenever they show up?

you certainly can make that choice

welders do not have protected status against discrimination under the law

It's even ok when shop owners don't want to serve you as Vice President and then later on get called on stage by Paul Ryan at a campaign rally to celebrate his refusal to serve cookies to Biden.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

There is no use going around and around on this since you continue to return to the idea that this is a gay or not gay issue. I don't care if they chose to be gay or were born that way. It has no bearing on my belief as to the right to refuse service. I have never and will never argue the genetic issue of homosexuality. It makes no difference to any opinion I have.

I am not necessarily arguing that what the baker did was right. Or wrong. I only ever stated that I believe this case is fundamentally the same as the incident involving Ms. Sanders. I have stated that I believe one cannot say the baker was wrong (or right) and the restaurant owner was right (or wrong) without being hypocritical. That's it. If you see it otherwise, great. If you think I am a monster for thinking this way, well, I'm fine with that too.

3 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

There is no use going around and around on this since you continue to return to the idea that this is a gay or not gay issue.

It is a protected status issue. That is what matters.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

If you think I am a monster for thinking this way

no need to reach

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

See CR, I will tell you right now that you've stated your position clearly and I understand where you are coming from. Let me paraphrase:

1) If what the baker did was wrong because there isn't a right to refuse service to someone
2) Then it was wrong for the restaurant owner to refuse service

I think that sums your argument up.

Here is how I can make the case in a way that rebuts your argument AND is not hypocritical.

1) If what the baker did was wrong because there isn't a right to refuse service to someone based on a protected class status
2) Then it was not wrong for the restaurant owner to refuse service because being a liar (in the restaurant owners eyes) and a mouthpiece for a president is not a protected class.

I'm hoping that you can see the argument that I/we are making and understand the differences.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

I did not suggest otherwise.

Nor am I suggesting it is wrong for people to want to change the policy. But it is wrong to create a policy as was done under Clinton, and then simply not follow the law.

So I guess your problem with Trump is that he is enforcing a policy put in place a under a democrat president that other presidents did not enforce as strictly? Ok, that is your right to think that. And I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with anyone who fights to change the policy. In fact, I would change the policy right now if I could. Of course, because I am a conservative republican, any change would be attacked by the left in the same manner that if I were a liberal democrat the right would attack that exact same policy change. And THAT, my friend, was the point of my first post that has been ignored in order to go down this side path that we are now on.

Quote:

Sanders wasn't refused service for her political beliefs it was because she was the mouthpiece of a regime that was locking up kids.

So it is because of her job. Ok, got it. So it is acceptable to you to refuse to serve someone who, what exactly? Who espouses a point of view different than yours? So if you came down to Charleston and walked into a bar and the owner hears you say that you think Trump should be impeached, you would be fine with him kicking you out? Or maybe you simply say that you think Charlestonians are all asses. You'd be ok with being kicked out?

3 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

So if you came down to Charleston and walked into a bar and the owner hears you say that you think Trump should be impeached, you would be fine with him kicking you out?

it's allowed under the law

___

no blacks allowed and no assholes allowed are not the same

protected status issue v not a protected status issue

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

So I guess your problem with Trump is that he is enforcing a policy put in place a under a democrat president that other presidents did not enforce as strictly?

That's one of my problems with it, yes...not this this was addressed to me. I think other presidents (including Bush) viewed this as the humanitarian crisis that it is and used their rights to selectively enforce this policy (really, they just granted bail to these families), and our current president....well doesn't (I could be much harsher here).

Quote:

So it is because of her job. Ok, got it. So it is acceptable to you to refuse to serve someone who, what exactly? Who espouses a point of view different than yours? So if you came down to Charleston and walked into a bar and the owner hears you say that you think Trump should be impeached, you would be fine with him kicking you out? Or maybe you simply say that you think Charlestonians are all asses. You'd be ok with being kicked out?

A business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone as long as they are not basing that decision on a protected class (there may be other laws they need to follow too, but in this cake example, it's about protected classes).

If you're asking if I'd be 'ok' with someone being refused service because they were republican, then no, I would not be ok with that. I'd likely join you in protesting that restaurant. That shop owner would be within the law though. I don't believe the cake shop owner was within the law, and the narrow supreme court ruling doesn't' change that.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

based on a protected class status

I get it now. You can refuse to serve someone who is not in a protected class for whatever reason you wish. But by God, refuse to serve someone in a protected class for any reason at all and the left demonizes you.

Thank God Ms. Sanders is not a lesbian. Or black. Or an Indian. Or disabled. Or a part of any other protected group, right? Cause then I'm guessing you would be condemning the restaurant owner, correct? It is only because she is not "protected" under some "special group" that she can be refused service. Thanks for clearing that up maporsche.

6 Replies

Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know