Restaurant in Hawaii Bans Trump Voters, Faces Immediate Backlash - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Paramud;51597655]That wouldn't prove anything since businesses can choose whether or not to enforce their rules.[/QUOTE] No they can't. They have to have a rule and stick to it. If they break it willy nilly they will be found guilty of Discrimination.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51597660]And a Muslim Bakery can refuse baking a cake for a gay wedding also in my opinion.[/QUOTE] It's illegal to discriminate based on sexual preferences.

this is fucked. your personal beliefs shouldn't dictate whether you're allowed service

[QUOTE=Paramud;51597668]It's illegal to discriminate based on sexual preferences.[/QUOTE] You are correct. Sexual preferences as well as transgender is currently covered by the Sex protected class. [quote]The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), [url]http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt[/url]. The Commission has also held that discrimination against an individual because of that person's sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex and therefore prohibited under Title VII. See David Baldwin v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 120133080 (July 15, 2015), [url]http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120133080.pdf[/url]. [url]https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm[/url][/quote]

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597667]No they can't. They have to have a rule and stick to it. If they break it willy nilly they will be found guilty of Discrimination.[/QUOTE] There's no law against making exceptions to your right to refuse service standards, so it'd be completely legal in the scenario you've described.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597670]this is fucked. your personal beliefs shouldn't dictate whether you're allowed service[/QUOTE] Do you suggest the government force the business owner to serve someone despite their beliefs possibly being against what the business owner would consider his best interests?

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597685]Do you suggest the government force the business owner to serve someone despite their beliefs possibly being against what the business owner would consider his best interests?[/QUOTE] yea why not

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597689]yea why not[/QUOTE] Because that totalitarian?

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597685]Do you suggest the government force the business owner to serve someone despite their beliefs possibly being against what the business owner would consider his best interests?[/QUOTE] While I completely understand the sentiment of not wanting to serve Trump supporters nor Nazis, I don't think political affiliation should be protected under the right to refuse service.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51597683]There's no law against making exceptions to your right to refuse service standards, so it'd be completely legal in the scenario you've described.[/QUOTE] If your exception is straight people, it is most certainly against the law. If your exception is trans people, it is most certainly against the law.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597697]Because that totalitarian?[/QUOTE] how so

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597689]yea why not[/QUOTE] Best argument I have seen for this topic./s

[QUOTE=Paramud;51597698]While I completely understand the sentiment of not wanting to serve Trump supporters nor Nazis, I don't think political affiliation should be protected under the right to refuse service.[/QUOTE] I agree and am glad to hear some sense in this thread. [editline]29th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597700]how so[/QUOTE] The state would be revoking someones right to both private property and association.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51597701]Best argument I have seen for this topic./s[/QUOTE] it's not an argument, i'm asking what he thinks. if you can't see the point in that, no wonder you've never created any sort of meaningful discussion in this site

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597711]it's not an argument, i'm asking what he thinks. if you can't see the point in that, no wonder you've never created any sort of meaningful discussion in this site[/QUOTE] He says to the creator of the 4 page thread. That is some lack of self awareness right there.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597702]The state would be revoking someones right to both private property and association.[/QUOTE] what are your rights regarding association?

Should let Trump supporters eat there and when they order an appetizer bring them 2 mozzarella sticks. When they point out that the picture shows a dozen explain that you weren't being serious and the menu is just rhetoric to get you in the door.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597699]If your exception is straight people, it is most certainly against the law. If your exception is trans people, it is most certainly against the law.[/QUOTE] I think you've misunderstood. If you've made the rule "we refuse to serve [X] people," there's no law that forces you to not serve [X]. For example, if you've made a rule not to serve people without shirts, you aren't breaking a law by then serving someone not wearing a shirt. As such, in the scenario that you described, a business could then refuse to serve a homosexual under the stated purpose of "we refuse to serve democrats," while allowing a heterosexual democrat to be served by simply saying "we're gonna allow it." You could really change this scenario to fit with any of the typical gerrymandering stereotypes

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597720]what are your rights regarding association?[/QUOTE] [quote] Annotation 12 - First Amendment [B]Right of Association[/B] ''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association. 197 Freedom of association as a concept thus grew out of a series of cases in the 1950's and 1960's in which certain States were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the State. ''Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.'' 198 ''[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,'' 199 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the State had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce. Applying the concept in subsequent cases, the Court again held in Bates v. City of Little Rock, 200 that the disclosure of membership lists, because of the harm to be caused to ''the right of association,'' could only be compelled upon a showing of a subordinating interest; ruled in Shelton v. Tucker, 201 that while a State had a broad inter est to inquire into the fitness of its school teachers, that interest did not justify a regulation requiring all teachers to list all organizations to which they had belonged within the previous five years; again struck down an effort to compel membership lists from the NAACP; 202 and overturned a state court order barring the NAACP from doing any business within the State because of alleged improprieties. 203 Certain of the activities condemned in the latter case, the Court said, were protected by the First Amendment and, while other actions might not have been, the State could not so infringe on the ''right of association'' by ousting the organization altogether. 204 [/quote] http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597715]He says to the creator of the 4 page thread. That is some lack of self awareness right there.[/QUOTE] Just because you've created four pages worth of discussion doesn't mean the discussion was meaningful or useful. I'd damn right say that I've had few meaningful discussions with quite a number of the Trump supporters on this site.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51597725]I think you've misunderstood. If you've made the rule "we refuse to serve [X] people," there's no law that forces you to not serve [X]. For example, if you've made a rule not to serve people without shirts, you aren't breaking a law by then serving someone not wearing a shirt. As such, in the scenario that you described, a business could then refuse to serve a homosexual under the stated purpose of "we refuse to serve democrats," while allowing a heterosexual democrat to be served by simply saying "we're gonna allow it." You could really change this scenario to fit with any of the typical gerrymandering stereotypes[/QUOTE] No. This isn't how this works at all. They would lose any case with this defense.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597732]No. This isn't how this works at all. They would lose any case with this defense.[/QUOTE] This is how it would work with your proposed scenario. It's a gaping legal loophole. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Which is why I've stated that I don't believe political affiliation should be protected under the right to refuse service.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597702]The state would be revoking someones right to both private property and association.[/QUOTE] how does private property work if you're exercising that right based on discrimination? what's the precedent for that?

[QUOTE=Paramud;51597736]This is how it would work with your proposed scenario. It's a gaping legal loophole. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Which is why I've stated that I don't believe political affiliation should be protected under the right to refuse service.[/QUOTE] Are we talking about the same scenario? A business owner refusing service to a protected class under the guise of political affiliation?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51596935]Calling trump voters nazis... classic people like this is why trump won.[/QUOTE] That's cool because several Republicans (Some, not all) have been calling muslims/blacks/gays/jews a whole lot of other shit long before Trump ran for president what does this have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51597660]And a Muslim Bakery can refuse baking a cake for a gay wedding also in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree with you. Honestly it's more prohibitive to strongarm businesses into performing services that conflict with their beliefs when one of the founding principles of our country was and is freedom of religion. That being said, I think it's a shitty dick move to refuse service to people based on your religious beliefs and ethically you should keep those personal and business things separate, but if a local level bakery is gonna be that shitty about their beliefs towards someone planning a gay wedding, why would you want to give them your business anyway? It's 2016, there are plenty of other bakeries that will gladly make you a cake for your wedding regardless of your sexual orientation. My main beef here is that most of the Trump supporters that I've met/talked to online/seen were one step away from lighting torches and grabbing their pitchforks when one business was forced into acting in neutrality and performing a service that contradicted their personal beliefs, but have no problem strongarming another business into doing the same when the target is something they're personally invested in. It's very hypocritical.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597753]how does private property work if you're exercising that right based on discrimination? what's the precedent for that?[/QUOTE] Can you further explain what you are asking? This doesn't really make sense to me. Also please refer to my previous posts about discrimination Vs [B]D[/B]iscrimination and clarify what you mean.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597768]Can you further explain what you are asking? This doesn't really make sense to me.[/QUOTE] i'm talking about this stuff [quote]Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation[/quote] why doesn't private property trump this law? edit: should note that the quote is from another case entirely, if it wasn't obvious enough

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51597805]i'm talking about this stuff why doesn't private property trump this law?[/QUOTE] Because the will of the people decided that there are specific classes that are protected. These classes are things that you can not change and have no help over.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51597823]Because the will of the people decided that there are specific classes that are protected.[/QUOTE] do you think protected classes are just another flavor of totalitarianism? and do you believe these protections shouldn't extend to political beliefs?