Almost a week in and the Red Hen is being harassed by protesters repeatedly.
153 replies, posted
Yes, because kicking someone out because of their sexuality is totally, completely, 100% the same as kicking someone out because they're a fucking awful human being, complacent in a myriad of human rights abuses.
Oh wait, it's Programmer, never mind.
Real talk though, what do you expect to accomplish by leaving? From my perspective, it's almost like completely surrendering to the fight and leaving the others to fight it for you.
So now discrimination is allowed for things you don't like? Why do you get to chose what can and can not be discriminated for? One could also make an argument that not allowing refusal of service to gays is a violation of freedom of religion.
I'm very sure you would not be saying the same thing if a liberal was refused service from a restaurant.
I believe private business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. I just find it very hypocritical say you're for "equal rights for all" when you really mean "rights for what I believe in only". That is the very definition of discrimination.
Not all discrimination is bad. Some discrimination should be encouraged.
Nobody should mind if you refuse service to a man who comes into your restaurant saying that he's going to kill all your customers to preserve his race because that's his religious belief - that they must all die to support his rise to heaven.
The line is between things which are a choice and things which are not. I'd also extend it to religion to an extent.
Being black or gay isn't a choice, being part of a given political establishment is.
I'd be fine if Antifa members got kicked out of some establishment and I'm fine with KKK members getting kicked out of establishments, both are personal choices and they're deeply political to boot. I'm not fine with black people getting kicked out of establishments because they're black or white people getting kicked out of establishments for being white. I wouldn't be fine with her getting kicked out for being Christian or something like that, just like I wouldn't be fine with a muslim getting kicked out for being a muslim. The instances where I'd draw the line in the case of religion are when the individual in question is heavily activistic with their religion, to the point where it's practically speaking a political movement, as is the case with the WBC which are very public about their beliefs.
But I'm pretty okay with people getting kicked out based on who they choose to work for and what they say on national television.
In that sense I figure my beliefs on the subject matter are pretty internally consistent, or at least more internally consistent than the conservatives who act like this is some horrible line the owners of this establishment have crossed in spite of doing the same thing or worse themselves for, essentially, decades.
Except that man is breaking the law by threatening to kill someone. Being associated with one political party or another is not breaking the law, inherently disruptive or threatening.
How exactly do you go from 'there's a difference between discrimination because gay and discrimination because of behavior' to 'WOW, NICE PICK AND CHOOSE THERE BUSTER'?
America is an incredibly flawed country in every aspect, with a pretty shitty history full of dark chapters. And I want kids, but not have them in a fascist hellhole.
If you're associated with the nazi party you are inherently threatening to kill people by association. You are in support of policies and laws which actively harm people simply for having the wrong skin color, religion, et cetera. Ergo, it would be fine for you to kick them out of your restaurant because even though they're not directly threatening your customers, they are supporting forces which would nonetheless seek to harm them.
Good luck with that, just remember those who are still fighting in your absence I guess.
The people Red Hen and such are kicking out are furthering discrimination. You know, putting people in camps because of their ethnicity and because they don't have an arbitrary piece of paper.
It's a protest of discrimination.
Would you say kicking out a Nazi is discrimination?
One can not help being gay. It is a protected group in society and one that can not be changed as its part of who a person is and there are laws protecting them due to it. This supersedes any rights to deny service.
Being a cunt that enacts shitty policy and lies out the ass is not a protected group. This does not supersede the right to deny someone service.
I would not mind if a person denied food to someone who was a liberal that much as long as it wasn't masking something else. I'd say it was a shitty thing to do and that they should probably serve them, but in the end it is their right to do so. However, if we extend that right to discriminate against protected groups then we would be severely limiting the rights of those being discriminated against. There's historical precedent to this.
For instance, my grandfather couldn't buy a home in a nice neighborhood because he was Chinese as late as the fucking 60s. He had a doctorate, owned 4 businesses, and was a naturalized citizen because he was a surgeon for Patton in WW2. Every time he'd show up they'd tell him that they didn't sell to Chinese. People were fine with it then, and I'm sure that people would be fine with it now. It's only been 50 years.
Now I feel like trash, I'm just not a fighter, I don't want to hurt anyone. I don't even like hurting insects.
I think that some political groups are inherently disruptive or threatening. Antifa makes violence its modus operandi. The WBC makes being a disruptive eyesore its modus operandi. The folks at the unite the right rally wave about the flags of political movements which are built upon violence as not a means to an end, but rather an end-goal of the movement itself. I wouldn't want any in my establishment because I don't enjoy the idea of serving violent or disruptive people, and aligning oneself with one of these movements is aligning oneself with threatening or disruptive policy.
Being gay does not, for example, imply support of inherently disruptive or violent ideology. It doesn't really imply support of any ideology in particular, it's just a sexual orientation. Milo's gay but he sure as shit doesn't support what you'd expect a gay person to support.
You do understand that this is up for interpretation of whatever business owner decides to act in such a way (especially problematic with people who believe in things like the gay agenda)?
Or is this your personal ethical standpoint from which to judge whether such actions by others are justified or not?
This is very subjective. Having a baker make a cake for a gay couple is suppressing their religious right as they believe being gay is evil, is it not? Should restaurants be able to kick out liberals because they believe in gay rights that is actively harming and suppressing them?
I have dual citizenship with Canada so I can leave whenever I want but I don't particularly like the cold so I'll stay till this place burns to the ground. Plus I believe we have a responsibility to stay and fight for positive change.
Honestly, someone trying to argue before a court that gay rights actually affect them would be pretty funny.
Otherwise, you're full of shit.
Baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple if there's any indication that it's for a gay couple because that passes into the realm of art and I'd agree that nobody should have to make art that they don't want to make. I think he probably should make the cake for them rather than being an ass but I don't think he should have to make the cake for them.
How is believing in gay rights 'actively harming and suppressing them'?
Normally I would say the same thing. I don't have a single drop of violent blood in me, but when it comes to protecting the things I love and have near and dear to my heart, I would defend them to the grave and even beyond if possible. I can't just sit idly while things go to shit in my own backyard and would rightfully stand up and dig my heels if the time came. Just know that not all fighters fight with a blade or a firearm, you can fight with words or even stand up with your presence alone against the real villains that wish to plague the system. Do all you can and use every resource possible to make the resistance a iron fucking wall for the enemies to even try and break. We may be divided and diverse in the states, but I truly believe the union will pull through when the time comes, in order to fight to protect our livelihoods we've been granted from previous generations of strife.
At the federal level and I believe the state in which the bakery was located; sexuality is not a protected group.
I'm not giving up now, i'm voting in November, 2020's going to be make or break for me I suppose.
I'm sorry I'm not in a good state now, recent news brought me to tears.
Being liberal is a choice. Being gay is not.
If you don't like the treatment you receive for being liberal, you can change your party or get your party to change. If you don't like the treatment you receive for being gay then I guess go fuck yourself? It's not like you can just decide to stop being gay. You could suppress who you are, sure, but there are limits to that. What if the treatment was, rather than being gay, being ugly? What then?
Both. Business owners should be allowed to kick people out if those people support policies or agendas which would harm their customers - they are inherently hostile and will harm their business as a result as their customers would not feel comfortable and abandon them. It is also my personal belief that people should be judged on their actions rather than on their inherent qualities.
It is unfair to judge someone for being gay or being ugly or having thin hair and declare them not fit for service at your establishment. It is however fair to judge someone who is saying 'All mexicans are rapists' and refuse to serve them.
But whether such policies or agendas harm their costumers or even exist is up to the owner to decide based on what information they have and things they believe, no? It seems to me that people are hardly this objective, nor realistically should they be expected to be so when politics are the issue.
Not if it is a point of objective fact.
Hardcore christians believe that being gay is a sin and evil. If you believe in gay rights it means that you support an evil ideology. Just like you view Trump's immigration policy evil.
If the whole point is that "political parties actively harm and suppress people" by their views then the same can be said by supporting gay rights because some conservatives view it negatively and by you supporting it, it means that you are harming and suppressing them by normalizing evil.
So people are to be given the right and encouraged to exercise this based on what they believe to be the facts, yet to be judged and condemned if their facts were wrong and they did not sufficiently educate themselves on the issue?
The thing is though, political ideology is a choice, being gay/black is not
If they can demonstrate objective physical harm or social diminishment of those people by being gay, then perhaps they could demonstrate that they are being evil.
I can demonstrate objective physical harm and social diminishment of Trump's immigration policy. Hardcore christians can not show me the same regarding gay people.
equivocating gay rights being evil to hardcore christians to trump's immigration policy is apple to oranges.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.