• Almost a week in and the Red Hen is being harassed by protesters repeatedly.
    153 replies, posted
In a word: Yes. Obviously, this is more complicated than 'yes' would affirm as it the merits of it should be founded on credible reporting and scientific study by unbiased and studious scientists. Simply believing something is true should not pass muster. Having hard evidence that it is true should pass muster so long as that hard evidence came from a credible source and is being cited and understood correctly.
Then by that logic I should be able to refuse service to muslims and jews in my restaurant because that is a choice. Are you ok with that because it's a choice?
you'd be violating the federal civil rights act.
But if this right is to be encouraged and the reasoning to exorcise it is as you have said earlier a belief in a legitimate harm posed by the policies supported by a certain person in a position of power, this thing will forever be at their discretion and realistically speaking given the fact you cannot force people to doubt their reasoning, such encouragement might prove counterproductive to what you wish to happen if universalized. How can a person not act upon their belief in the legitimacy of an action, with all their biases - invisible to them, when doing said action?
I'd be OK with it if you were refusing service to a death cult or a religion that is known to flagrantly harm and trap its membership. You would be in possible violation of the law if said cult was recognized as a religion (thanks Scientology) - but you could do so and I would support it.
Yes, I would. But i'm showing how that line of logic works. If you support the right of discrimination as long as it is a choice then religion should be allowed to be discriminated against.
I've been job hunting in Europe for a few months now already. Germany looks nice, lots of jobs in health care and computer science right now. That's genuinely great that you can do that, I honestly wish you the best. I'm unfortunately not in a position where I can help. I'd be putting everything on the line, and if worst came to worst and I get attacked/injured, arrested, doxxed, or even just lose my job it'll hurt and burden everyone I love, and hinder their chances of survival/escape and I can't do that to them. If it was just my life and livelihood I was risking then I'd be raising hell right now, but I've seen what's happened to my family when I've been out of work or injured and I can't willingly put them through that again. I'm sorry.
You're basically asserting that people do not know what right and wrong is and don't know when something has been reported and verified versus being a rumor or a personal/organizational belief. I don't think that's an entirely germane claim at its root.
I'm stating that people can know what right and wrong is based on the facts they have only if they properly check those facts, and it is naive to assume every single person encouraged to act based on the facts will do so in a political climate as toxic as this one - so it is better to withdraw such encouragements wholesale. There is also the issue of the belief of right and wrong being utterly subjective, but this is a lesser concern in this argument.
If you're going to argue that there is no such thing as a mass consensus on what is right or wrong then I don't see a point in holding any sort of debate with you because the very foundations of the argument would be subject to change at your whims.
If you think Sarah Huckabee Sanders faced discrimination from this restaurant I choose to believe that you mean there shouldn't be consequences for the actions of an individual. Which no, that's insanely dumb.
This is still extremely objective. It started off with: Equal rights for all Ok so only rights for what I find ok Rights for anything that is not a choice Ok rights for anything that is not a choice and then only religions that I view not to harm and trap people With your logic I could say that being gay is harmful because you are much more likely to receive an STD and get ill than you were if you were heterosexual. I could also say that Islam is sometimes used to recruit terrorists and therefor harmful.
look man I know this is gonna go on forever so i'll just cut out here and say that I actively support the discrimination of sarah sanders and all of her shit-eating friends in washington who continue to push their oppressive and hateful ideology through the arms of the government, and that you equating that to discrimination against someone based on religion is not only childish but a telling insight into your thought processes.
I agree. It is very objective, which is why it's a good methodology. Equal rights for all never meant 'we support the rights of those who would deny the rights of others'.
Not my point, and I'm sorry if I'm failing to properly convey what I mean. People act on behalf of what they believe to be right and wrong and what they believe to be the facts of the matter in any given moment, and as thus your encouragement earlier in this thread wouldn't prevent the kind of cases I'm afraid might happen. Legitimacy of their ideas and beliefs is not my concern when describing what might happen - I speak only on the propensity of such people to act in full accordance with their biases and indoctrination - what I believe will occur. Now you could judge them, entirely correctly and justly, after the fact for being wrong in doing so, but this initial encouragement will not stop such people from acting this way.
This is just my perspective, and I've sadly struggled for what feels like an hour trying to put this into words that may or may not fit fellow Americans looking to Canada or other places as a fantastical or realistic escape plan, but I think a lot of Americans are struggling to decide if their identity is truly American. I believe that I am a true patriot - I believe in the core democratic values I was taught as a child probably more strongly now than I did then - but I think of a lot of us see a blatant, sad reversal and even rejection of these values nowadays. With that rejection, it has forced me, and maybe others, to look back at history and see that America has often struggled poorly with race, governing and budgeting effectively while learning from mistakes and successes. I know that, probably incorrectly in the bigger, statistical model, I have begun to feel like America has never really been about the common good, never fully been a home for immigrants, and has had a very poor sense of equal opportunity and economic fairness. Essentially, I feel like what I agree with and what the amorphous, silent majority agrees on are different enough for me to seriously ask the question of whether or not I should call this country my home. While the grass is obviously always greener - it feels like there's a lot of places around the world that have either heard the call from the US or always upheld the values Americans held dear but them into action far more gracefully and effectively than America has. As long as I stay here I will try to fight - admittedly I am not the bravest, as others have also admitted - but I will do what I can to try to fight for my vision of America. I have just grown to wonder if America as a whole wants that - or if my energy would be better served simple ceding and admitting what has been made obvious with our explosion into an orange, ugly caricature - that America is deeply hypocritical and many of it's promises were barely kept from the start - and it is better to move on to a place more in line with my beliefs. Summary: I think a lot of Americans are wondering if they should give this country the "it's not you, it's me" breakup line.
The problem lies in who denies the rights of others. You think Trump denies the rights of immigrants by separating them from their parents and detanting them Others think that promoting gay rights is spreading evil and suppressing their religious views and rights No one is right or wrong because it is all subjective to your view. Just like the NFL anthem, and Roseanne argument, the decision should be the business owners. Literally every argument that deals with this issue ends up the same NFL Fines players who kneel during anthem Facepunch: How dare they! They are violating the freedom of speech and protest! Roseanne fired from her show for racist tweets Facepunch: Awesome! ABC deserves the right to fire employees for what they say! (Does not care about freedom of speech) Bakery refuses to bake cake for homosexual couple Facepunch: How dare they! Businesses have no right discriminating, equal rights for all! Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked out from restaurant Facepunch: Awesome! The restaurant deserves the right to refuse service (Does not care about equal rights) I've just noticed a pattern where every time a conservative viewpoint is being suppressed, it is ok. But you all lose your shit when it's left leaning.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/394322-man-arrested-for-throwing-chicken-dung-at-restaurant-that Apparently one of them has thrown poop at the restaurant, lmao.
One is a human rights violation where the president would also give a middle finger to due process and the other is thinking a group deserves to be treated as second-rate citizens for no reason. Could you have picked a worse example? Or are you just gonna scream 'what about' until the cows come home just for the sake of it?
You've noticed a pattern where Conservatives are making horrible and ridiculous decisions and are being rightly and roundly roasted for it. No one is right or wrong because it is all subjective to your view. That you bolded this, by the way, only highlights how little you intend to actually debate here by holding a position which you can not possibly hold with factual analysis.
guys if we open the doors to discrimination, then republicans might start discriminating against people! can you imagine how terrible it would be if that started happening? we need to prevent that future at all costs!!
The latter, of course, being idiots crying because someone else is having sex. What if someone had the religious belief that jews deserve to die? 1, sure, businesses can make choices, but others also have the right to respond to those choices. 2, you're focusing way too much on the method of fining, firing, or kicking out people and way too little on why they choose to fine, fire, or kick out. Kicking out someone because "sure they're harmless but my god says they have cooties" and kicking someone out because they're rounding up harmless people and putting them in camps are two entirely different situations that only approach equality in morality if you remove any and all context.
This is actually an interesting perspective, one that I've been curious about for a while now. There is no way someone could admit with a straight face that the United States was formed as a country "for the people" when the entire founding fathers were businessmen trying to create a state that would protect their economic interests. It worked, regardless of how false the rhetoric was, but memetically, the United States would become a country for the people, or at least that's how people perceived it. It's a damn good marketing ploy and has worked up until the country hit several recessions and labor crises that would lead into the US having to work with other enlightened countries to reform labor or fix the market. We've never been able to do it alone, regardless of how proud we are of our country. Our country is far from perfect, but it's always been a country of dreamers and visionaries, and honestly, if it makes the country into the home of the free and the home of the brave just from those memes alone, I'm fine with that. Reality is what you make of it, so why not envision it as a better place and make it one, yeah? It's a lot of deep philosophy, and there really is no clear, right answer in all of this. I just don't want people to lose hope and be routed by a couple of assholes who rattle their sabers a bit.
Chris Hayes articulated why it's actually good that Sanders got rejected from the restaurant so I'm just gonna post him https://twitter.com/LateNightSeth/status/1011691683560476672
I can say the same for any group of people, doesnt mean its true. Imagine comparing gay people's rights to the right to throw children into camps.
How do people who spend time protesting dumb shit like this even make a living? Do they just get donations from people who agree with their agenda or something? Get a job
They're probably retired
Ah, so the argument of "Your intolerance of my intolerance isn't very tolerant! Be tolerant of my intolerances!" You're a joke dude, honest to god, just a joke. Here's the issue with your argument. The christians who believe that being gay is evil are(objectively wrong for one) not empowered by the constitution to enact their religious vision on the country. That's it. You don't even know your own fucking constitution my man. Try harder, or troll better.
Would you can it with this bullshit about the "camps?" They broke US Immigration law. Every country has laws about how you can and cannot immigrate to their country and the consequences for violating those laws vary by country. Normally, in America, they'd go to some kind of prison or holding facility before a deportation hearing. That's what these supposed "camps" are, is a holding facility for people who have broken the law, and are therefore, by definition, criminals, and are awaiting trial and sentencing for their crime, which is usually deportation and a lifetime ban from entering the US. They are not just "rounding up" random people of Mexican ancestry, they're detaining people who have violated US Immigration law. The reason these facilities are the way they are is because of how many people they're having to deal with. With the volume of detainees they needed more area to detain them, hence why they're not in a more traditional prison. On top of that, these people are not being deprived of food, water, shelter, sleep, being beaten by the guards, or being forced to do manual labour. They are in prison because they are criminals, not because they're Mexican. Illegal immigrants awaiting a deportation hearing are treated differently depending on the country's laws. America's laws dictate that they be arrested and detained. I'm sure several European countries do too. I know Canada will detain them if they're a flight risk. Now the separating of the families thing, especially when there's already communal detention, was shitty and a misapplication of a law that stated that children of alleged criminals are supposed to be separated from said alleged criminal, but the fundamental act of detaining the person who entered the US illegally is, in my and many other peoples' opinions, completely acceptable.
They followed international Asylum law. They also followed US Asylum law. They also followed official USCIS policy. They also in many cases entered at specified ports. You are not a criminal when you are jailed. You are a criminal when you are imprisoned. They are being held pending trial - which means they are jailed. That also means they're not criminals because you are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law - not by an immigration officer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.