Are those conservatives calling for it to be illegal to do what they did to Sanders? If not, then I don't really see the hypocrisy.
This delusion is not only terrifying, it's also fucking amazing:
Love all the low-IQ liberal comments about the Red Hen
"standing up for what's right," Seriously? Are you libtards really that dense? That's the SAME EXACT THING that Southern Democrat business owners used to say, as they kicked black people out of their establishments back in the '50s and '60s.
Fortunately, Republicans made sure that the Civil Rights Movement and the goals it espoused was supported by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and discrimination would no longer be tolerated.
Catch up with the times, libbies. Discrimination FOR ANY REASON is no longer tolerated in America, and The Red Hen -- just like the White Rose Coffeehouse in Massachusetts -- will soon learn that lesson the hard way
I mean, they could make an argument that "the left doesn't want us to be able to discriminate in restaurants but they do it themselves," it would just be a bad argument. In fact, I've already seen it made. But you're not born a Trump toady. It's something you choose to be.
No, but they're decrying it as a political action that shouldn't be taken by the left
They literally don't want people to do what they want the right and freedom to do
There's a difference between not wanting someone to do something, and wanting that thing to be illegal. The main argument from the right with the cake shop is that they should be legally allowed to refuse to make that cake, not that the left shouldn't be allowed to not like it.
With all that said, these two cases are only the same on the surface. The cake shop had no problem serving gay people, they just didn't want to make specialized items for the gay marriage. In the case of the restaurant, they are totally refusing any and all service. The restaurant is going far further than the cake shop.
They’re being discriminated against as people, not as members of a group.
Sanders is a willing participant in the destruction of truth, honesty and the American way. She’s not being discriminated against for her weight, height, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. She’s being discriminated against for her choices.
Oh. Oh. Oh, sweet little honey baby MAGAbot, if only you actually believed this and weren't just bandwagon shitposting on Yelp because you've got nothing better to do with your life you wouldn't support Trump.
Hey guys what's the difference between someone working for one of the richest and most corrupt administrations America has ever seen and struggling to survive on the minimum wage?
I'm asking for a friend who is stupid.
Right, and the gay people were also discriminated for their choice of getting married. The bakery was not choosing to refuse service because of their state of being gay. They explicitly stated that they had no problem serving gay people generally, and had served these specific gay people in the past, knowing that they were gay. They didn't want to support, or be a part of, the act, and choice, of gay people getting married.
Note that I'm not equating the act of gay people getting married and actively lying for and dishonestly defending the Trump administration, which Sanders does daily. Those are not the same thing in a LOT of ways, but they are similar in that both are choices the people in question made.
My main point is that conservatives who argue that the bakery should have the legal right to refuse to make a cake for a gay marriage are not being hypocritical when they say they don't like it that Sanders was refused service at this restaurant. They would only be hypocritical, to at least some degree, if they also argued that it ought to be illegal.
Maybe the owner thought Sanders was gay.
They actually had no problem being involved with a gay wedding.
They had a problem creating custom made art for a gay wedding, something I totally understand as you can't force an artisan to create an artistinal product against his/her will.
What they're arguing is that they should be able to discriminate within the law, but that the culture shouldn't allow them to be discriminated against.
I don't think they're clamboring for it to be illegal, I think they're wishing there was no social pressure on them to adhere to the rules they've demanded.
Isn't the bible a lot clearer on lying being a sin than homosexuality? I mean, it's in the ten commandments and all that. If Christians were consistent, the people who support gay couples being refused service would be applauding this establishment for refusing service to someone who's clearly lied on numerous occasions, not just to individuals whom they know, but to a whole nation, in support of an administration like this.
Seems kinda' hypocritical, even beyond going into what folks think should be ~legal~, if they're happy about one situation and unhappy with another.
Welcome to American Christianity! Where it's only wrong if it affects me!
I mean the vast majority are in support of getting this resturaunt to lose all of its business and shut down and many are review bombing the hell out of the place, I'd say this level of outrage shows some hypocrisy.
Looks like the Red Hen owner has been doxxed already!
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/06/25/after-sanders-tweeted-about-red-hen-pro-trump-trolls-unleashed-pizzagate-style-targeted-harassment/220530
Who could have foreseen this, right after Sanders specifically named where the restaurant is.
Oh, you won't hear me defend Christians for accepting Trump's lying as fine. I agree, many are absolutely massive hypocrites about that issue, and I've had many a heated argument about it with my fellow believers, but whether they are hypocrites in that way or not doesn't also make them hypocrites in every other way.
I mean, sure, they don't like it, but the just of the conservative argument is that not liking something doesn't mean it should be illegal. That's the whole point. We should be able to very strongly disagree about the actions people take, but that doesn't mean we should be able to legally punish them for doing so.
As long as they aren't arguing that it ought to be illegal, I really don't see the hypocrisy.
You know I'd agree with you that it's not hypocrisy if it weren't for the harassment on a national level, defamation, review bombing and now doxxing that's taking place. I mean these people are doing everything they can short of calling for legislation.
SG if you cannot see the hypocrisy of conservatives standing for a baker who refused service to gay people, then yelling at a restaurant owner for refusing service to the mouthpiece of a facist leader who is sending fucking children to tent cities as hostages. Then you are more messed in the head than I thought.
Like one is two people who are born attracted to the opposite sex, the other is a woman who is willingly working for a complete shitheel. Its not like Sarah was born into this world with the sole purpose of being trump's press secretary. Sarah can leave her job anytime, the gay couple cant just snap their fingers and be straight. One is pure discrimination against a biological factor, another is discrimination against a shit choice.
I guess I don't see the entirety of the ring wing as one amalgamous mass. The vast majority of people are not defaming, review bombing, etc. this restaurant. You're taking a tiny minority of people and applying it to absolutely anyone making the argument.
Ah but they can snap their finger and not get married so all effort you put into making the cases seem different is gone!
I'm sorry, this is pure sarcasm, and even if it's unlikely something SGman feels that's the only out he left himself in his wording.
Not content in ruining immigrants’ lives, the administration turns to personally ruining American citizens’ and business owners’ lives.
I think this is an extremely narrow way to look at things. the only way they would not looked like hypocrites is if they didn't get totally butt mad about sarah being denied food.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that the banning of someone like Sanders is way more morally legitimate than what the baker did, therefore anyone who supports the baker, but doesn't support the restaurant is a hypocrite.
The problem is that isn't an example of hypocrisy. It's just an example of you thinking people are wrong. The conservatives in this instance aren't being inconsistent in their argument. They aren't saying one thing and doing another, which would be hypocritical. The conservative argument isn't that everyone ought to refuse service to absolutely anybody they disagree with. If that were the argument, then not supporting the restaurant would be hypocritical, yes, but that isn't the argument. Instead, the argument is that the state shouldn't force people to associate with activities that they don't agree with it.
How does disagreeing with this restaurant owner's actions, but also thinking that it should be legal, contradict that argument?
Like I've been saying
They're just upset that they have no legal rebuke for a system they demanded be in place
but they're still upset by it
It's not hypocrisy to the extent they're calling for another law, but it's hypocrisy to the extent that they should expect to get what they give in a system like this.
That's fine because I'm not talking about the vast majoirty but rather those who are vocal about supporting the rights of business owners who then want to gripe and react with hostility when people they like are on the wrong end of that business freedom, people such as our own President.
I really just don't see how that's hypocrisy. It seems like you're just throwing that word in there. What is the inconsistency? No one is saying that only conservatives are allowed to refuse service when they want to just like no one is saying that liberals aren't allowed to strongly disagree with the actions of the baker.
being right wing isn't a protected class as much as people would like it to be
Im saying banning people for sex/race/gender is asinine. None of these can be changed due to being biological characteristics. Sarah on the other hand has decided on her own free will to support a shitty person that the business owner doesn't want to cater to. Comparing biological characteristics to political stances is asinine when looking at basic human rights in private businesses. What you are honestly arguing for is allowing owners to ban whoever they want, which we did have at one time. I bet you can't guess what im talking about.
The example is worse than hypocrisy. People want Sarah to be able to eat wherever she wants to. I would agree with that statement. But we already had a gay couple be told they cannot forced to be serviced because its the business owner's right. Okay, fine. Now a business owner turns away Sarah for her views and supporting a fascist government, and here comes the same people cheering for the gay people losing their right to bitch about it not being fair. These people want their rights, while taking away minorities rights too.
But what really sucks is the gay couple cannot change who they are, Sarah has all the free will to change her shit way. You see this in all the fucking avenues where trump supporters are told to go fuck off. They want to be a protected class while stripping everyone else down below them. Which ironically sounds exactly like Nazi shit.
Looking at this issue only in legal terms is like trying to enjoy an apple by using your sight alone. you're missing the whole picture @Sgman91
Then why are they complaining so vociferiously enough to have generated a hate campaign over this business?
If they agreed and didn't have a problem with the role reversal, would you not expect to see a civil response? As it is now, we have the anti-thesis of a civil response from the right and it's
mouth pieces.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.