Board 8 > This 30 y/o CRYING Trump Supporter is SUING a Bar cause they REFUSED Service!!.

(+) Yeah! (+)

<cite>Full Throttle posted [p:875437076] in This 30 y/... [t:75132218]...</cite> <quote> </quote>

No way is that dude 30.

He looks twice that
---

I'm going to assume based on the picture that he probably came in intoxicated and was shut off for that
---

Yeah this is a little hard to take at face value. There are different situations, sure, but when a bartender cuts someone off, and all we have is the word of the person who was cut off as to why, it makes it hard to just take their word for it.
---

Yet Republicans think it's okay to refuse to bake wedding cakes on religious grounds.


That said, if he wasn't drunk he shouldn't have been refused service based on his political affiliation, I just think in general a lot of people feel you are able to do this to others, and then get mad if it's done to them.
---

Good. If a bakery has to pay a 6 figure fine for not baking a gay wedding cake, then the precedent is set to sue businesses that deny service for political reasons.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

Good. If a bakery has to pay a 6 figure fine for not baking a gay wedding cake, then the precedent is set to sue businesses that deny service for political reasons.

This. I don't really care if you are allowed to deny service based on politics or not, as long as it is consistent both ways.(I'd prefer not being allowed though in general).
---

UItimaterializer posted...

Good. If a bakery has to pay a 6 figure fine for not baking a gay wedding cake, then the precedent is set to sue businesses that deny service for political reasons.

Except in that case it's discrimination, in this case it isn't. Key difference.

Business was stupid to refuse him, but violated no laws, so no payout.

How is not discrimination (if it's true)?

Not that I agree with having private businesses being forced to serve everybody just because it's "in the sphere of the public". You don't have a right to a beer (or a cake).
---

OctilIery posted...

Except in that case it's discrimination, in this case it isn't. Key difference.

Business was stupid to refuse him, but violated no laws, so no payout.

What makes one discrimination and the other not, exactly? When an employer decides not to hire convicted felons aren't they still also using a type of discrimination?

The bakery should have absolutely been allowed to not bake any cake for any reason of their choosing. But then anyone else can call them s***ty for it and they could lose a lot of business as a result. That seems acceptable.
---

Pokewars posted...

How is not discrimination (if it's true)?

Not that I agree with having private businesses being forced to serve everybody just because it's "in the sphere of the public". You don't have a right to a beer (or a cake).

You have the right to equal access to a business. It's not discrimination because political beliefs aren't part of any protected class.

To clarify, this is akin to banning someone for wearing a gay pride hat, which, while. I'd disagree with, doesn't violate any laws and so shouldn't lead to a financial payout.

OctilIery posted...

You have the right to equal access to a business.

Why, exactly?

Businesses that violate this should be prone to having people boycott their intolerant business, but why should it be required?
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

OctilIery posted...

You have the right to equal access to a business.

Why, exactly?

Businesses that violate this should be prone to having people boycott their intolerant business, but why should it be required?

Same reason businesses have to serve people of all race equally.

You have the right to live in a non-segregated society. Refusing someone service on political grounds is still bad, but the thing about laws is you have to draw a clear line. So if you can refuse to serve someone for being a white supremacist, you can probably refuse to serve someone for supporting a mainstream political party. That could be why there isn't a law.
---

You are literally arguing with Joyrock in 2017 lmao

He's only posting here because Current Events finally stopped biting.
---

It sucks, but there is no way this guy can win

'political affiliation' isn't a protected class, and bars are allowed to kick out buzzkills

Bars can kick you out for looking at the bouncer funny, aka no reason at all. Same with employment
---

UItimaterializer posted...

Current Events finally stopped biting.

duuuuuuuuuude... CE is where teeth were invented. "Stop biting" will never happen there. That applies to all sides. You already knew this though and I don't know why I bothered to say it but I'm a little bit f***ed up and doing laundry on new machines that cost more so I'm kinda paying more attention to things... if that makes sense...
---

banananor posted...

It sucks, but there is no way this guy can win

'political affiliation' isn't a protected class, and bars are allowed to kick out buzzkills

Bars can kick you out for looking at the bouncer funny, aka no reason at all. Same with employment

"A business can refuse service for any reason" should allow a bakery to not have to pay a 6 figure fine for not making a gay wedding cake. I would take that precedent and destroy these people with it.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

"A business can refuse service for any reason" should allow a bakery to not have to pay a 6 figure fine for not making a gay wedding cake. I would take that precedent and destroy these people with it.

lose that boner for religious s***heads plz
---

UItimaterializer posted...

banananor posted...

It sucks, but there is no way this guy can win

'political affiliation' isn't a protected class, and bars are allowed to kick out buzzkills

Bars can kick you out for looking at the bouncer funny, aka no reason at all. Same with employment

"A business can refuse service for any reason" should allow a bakery to not have to pay a 6 figure fine for not making a gay wedding cake. I would take that precedent and destroy these people with it.

Too bad a business can't refuse service for any reason.

UItimaterializer posted...

You are literally arguing with Joyrock in 2017 lmao

He's only posting here because Current Events finally stopped biting.

Actually its because I was in the boards page and saw by and realized I haven't posted here in awhile. I actually don't post as much on GF in general.

UItimaterializer posted...

Good. If a bakery has to pay a 6 figure fine for not baking a gay wedding cake, then the precedent is set to sue businesses that deny service for political reasons.

Being gay is not politics, though. It's just something that some people are. Some gay people are right wing, some gay people are left wing. It's something that exists outside the realm of politics.


(Maybe people should be able to sue businesses over politics too? Dunno, haven't thought about it much).
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

OctilIery posted...

You have the right to equal access to a business.

Why, exactly?

Businesses that violate this should be prone to having people boycott their intolerant business, but why should it be required?

Sure, I can field this one.

It's something I wondered myself at one point. I'm LGBT, and if a store refused me service, I'd drive down the street to the next store. Maybe leave them a bad online review and move on with my life.

But not everyone has this luxury. Not everyone has a car. Not everyone lives in a town with multiple stores. What really drove it home for me was reports from the civil rights era of 70 year old black women with a bad back needing to walk to the next town over just to get groceries. She didn't have a car, or a drivers licence. She didn't live in a town with multiple supermarkets.

And this is why we don't just allow businesses to discriminate.

Now, you might be thinking "but surely it would be ok to relax this rule a little bit in large cities where there's lots of options," and yeah, that actually does happen. I know Vancouver has some restaruants that are asian-only. San Franciso last I checked had four gay male bars that do not admit women. Nobody's really bothered by these, cause it's not like it's hard to find asian restaurants in Vancouver, or gay bars in San Francisco.

But businesses are a service to people. And if you're the only store in a small town, and you refuse to serve gay people, well, none of the gay people can access the services that businesses provide. That sucks.
---

I agree, it does suck. And if a large chain store somewhere pulled that s*** and I heard about it then its safe to say I would stop shopping at the chain and so would many otters.

But a large corporation would never do that because it would represent too much risk to their bottom line.

Its really only an issue with small privately owned businesses.



But some people are s***ty. I can't just sue everyone who says something s***ty to me. And I would say im generally a nice person, but that doesn't mean I think people should be required to be nice or treat people fairly.


I dunno though. Even saying this I am adamantly opposed to businesses doing those kinds of things. Im just not sure that they shouldn't be allowed to if they wanted to accept the inherent business risks associated with doing s***ty things.

I could see compelling reasons for both sides.
---

Just because political beliefs is not a protected class does not make it a case of not being discrimination.
---

Do you have a right to walk into someone's private home and demand they to give you something?

Do you have a right to walk into someone's private business and demand they give you something for adequate compensation?


What is the difference when the voluntary exchange of money for goods/services is involved in the equation?


(Note: It's stupid to not accept money if you're a business. You're a f***ing business. That's what you're supposed to do).

(Double note: Expose the discriminate businesses so they lose out to businesses who happily accept anyone).
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I dunno though. Even saying this I am adamantly opposed to businesses doing those kinds of things. Im just not sure that they shouldn't be allowed to if they wanted to accept the inherent business risks associated with doing s***ty things.

There are some cities where being, say openly racist is not a business risk. I know people who moved away from small towns and were like "yeah, the KKK was large and active in my town."

Pokewars posted...

(Double note: Expose the discriminate businesses so they lose out to businesses who happily accept anyone).

Except sometimes it's a great business decision for them. See also the pizza shop that refused to sell to gay customers. They got $842,592 in donations when that made news headlines:

http://time.com/3771465/indiana-no-gay-wedding-pizza-parlor-raises-money/


Like, this whole strategy of "if you tell people that a store is racist/homophobic it will be bad for them." Are you sure that will work?

Let's try that another way--if it worked to tell people someone is racist, then why did Donald Trump get elected? "Oh, if we just tell people he's racist then nobody will vote for him." Mhm. How'd that work out for you?
---

^
That's because you and your SJW buddies destroyed any meaning the words "racism," "homophobia," etc. had.

Most people don't give a f*** anymore. And that's a good thing.
---

Full Throttle posted...

He and his goombas

Yes
---

Maybe small damages, yes. Not a huge amount--because unlike the Sweet Cakes by Melissa Case, the owner didn't post his address online, prompting death threats to be sent. And unlike the sweet cakes case, he was served his first drink. (Which actually leads me to think he's probably lying. The owner and manager have yet to respond)
---

metroid composite posted...

Except sometimes it's a great business decision for them. See also the pizza shop that refused to sell to gay customers. They got $842,592 in donations when that made news headlines:

http://time.com/3771465/indiana-no-gay-wedding-pizza-parlor-raises-money/

It's kind of sad that conservatives will gladly give money to causes like this. That $800,000 could be better spent on people who were needy instead of discriminatory.
---

Vlado posted...

Most people don't give a f*** anymore. And that's a good thing.

lmfao
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

lmfao

i mean, he thinks exposing children to homosexuality is "harmful." are you surprised that he thinks people not caring about homophobia is a good thing?
---

crazyisgood posted...

Just because political beliefs is not a protected class does not make it a case of not being discrimination.

Legally,yes it does.

metroid composite posted...

Let's try that another way--if it worked to tell people someone is racist, then why did Donald Trump get elected? "Oh, if we just tell people he's racist then nobody will vote for him." Mhm. How'd that work out for you?

I mean technically, more people voted against him didn't they? Just not in the right places.
For a country getting it's panties in a bunch about equality. Their political system is built on inequality. One persons vote is literally less important than an other persons because of where they live. Regardless of age, race, sexuality or religion.
---

5tarscream posted...

metroid composite posted...

Let's try that another way--if it worked to tell people someone is racist, then why did Donald Trump get elected? "Oh, if we just tell people he's racist then nobody will vote for him." Mhm. How'd that work out for you?

I mean technically, more people voted against him didn't they? Just not in the right places.
For a country getting it's panties in a bunch about equality. Their political system is built on inequality. One persons vote is literally less important than an other persons because of where they live. Regardless of age, race, sexuality or religion.

It would be the same either way, but the current system means fewer people get screwed over. If we just went straight vote numbers, it would be California and just a small handful of others deciding everything, and flyover states wouldn't even matter.