Current Events > Bernie Sanders: People have a right to go into a restaurant and eat dinner

(+) Yeah! (+)

What did Sarah Sanders do wrong anyway? Other than the crime of working for Trump
---

Fate posted...

"Racist" is a very vague buzzword that is often used as an epithet against people with very nuanced or cautious views

Not all <minority> are <X> is a nuanced view. Being cautious of a minority is fucking bigoted and based on bad assumptions and poor data interpretation.
---

PanzerElite posted...

What did Sarah Sanders do wrong anyway? Other than the crime of working for Trump

Why does there have to be more and who cares whether or not it is a crime? You aren't forced to be a press secretary and push a President's lies and you shouldn't be protected from the judgment of other citizens for such a reason. I wouldn't care if someone disagreed with my choice of employment and refused to deal with me, unlikely as that would be. They aren't doing it because I'm white or a man.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Fate posted...

hockeybub89 posted...
Fate posted...
That's a terrible idea, because communist regimes have a horrible track record of persecuting and even genociding religions like Christianity and Judaism. What you're suggesting would only make the issue worse, not better. Why not make an affirmative argument as to why "immutable characteristic" is a factor that matters or why you think it's okay for your political opponents to be persecuted and discriminated against?

You can't force everyone to agree, but people choose why they think a lot of things and you can't force them to get along. I am perfectly okay with people being denied for personal choices or for being a nuisance to others.

Fate posted...
Woah.... did you just change your argument halfway through the thread? Do you believe sundown towns for conservatives and Christians are okay? Would "Keep walking, bible thumper" signs be alright with you outside of gas stations and grocery stores?

They wouldn't happen. Also, you choose religion and politics.

Prove it.

Well, for one most people are still pretty chill, and the civilized world survives due to far more than just putting religion on a special pedestal. I don't have physical proof as I haven't perfected my time/alternate universe machine to where I can see the future. As for the other things, what is there to prove? Everyone doesn't have to agree or have conversations to try and change opinions. Religion and politics are not biological. They aren't there at birth. And people make conscious choices to change or not change thoughts every single day. I guess if you believe that free will is an illusion or that predestination is real, then everything would actually be immutable, but I'm not on that train.

How do you think that "equality" is a "special pedestal"? Literally 2 atheists already told you that you're being ignorant, one of whom is still trying to argue against me about the political views issue. Do you need 3?
---

Darmik posted...

Fate posted...

Darmik posted...

I don't particularly care that a guy got fired after writing a manifesto about fellow employees not being good at their job because of their gender.

That's different than just being fired for voting for Trump.

That's not what he said and you're being completely absurd. You don't care that the Civil Rights Act was used to compel discrimination against a man for First Amendment protected speech in a state where political views are literally a protected class?

I mean, that's literally not following the law plus using anti-discrimination laws to discriminate against someone plus silencing free speech... 3 strikes and you're out.

That's not how it works.

You can't just write whatever you want at work and hide being anti-discrimination laws. If a religious person wrote a manifesto about religion and sent it out to employees and they got fired I wouldn't have an issue with that either. They were fired due to their actions within work. Not due to their beliefs.

And no you don't have free speech in your employment.

You do when you have labor laws which explicitly protect your free speech and right to a political opinion. Full stop. Ignoring laws that are already on the books to discriminate against your political opponents is... I mean what do you even want me to call it? It's discrimination. Full stop.

Add to all this you're defending a workplace that literally bullies and humiliates people on the basis of immutable characteristics like their race and sex.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Fate posted...

"Racist" is a very vague buzzword that is often used as an epithet against people with very nuanced or cautious views

Not all <minority> are <X> is a nuanced view. Being cautious of a minority is fucking bigoted and based on bad assumptions and poor data interpretation.

I hope it's wrong to assume that this wording wasn't unintentional, as if being cautious of non-minority groups is OK.
---

Fate posted...

You do when you have labor laws which explicitly protect your free speech and right to a political opinion. Full stop. Ignoring laws that are already on the books to discriminate against your political opponents is... I mean what do you even want me to call it? It's discrimination. Full stop.

Right to a political opinion? Sure.

Right to say whatever you want at work? Nope. You have to follow company policy. Have you ever worked for a large organization before?
---

I think Sarah Sanders and almost everyone involved in this administration is a piece of shit, but this denying people service shit whether it's because of their race, sexuality or their political affiliation is fucking petty at least, disgustingly inhuman at most. Grow the fuck up everyone. Make a gay couple a cake, serve that black dude a drink, fill that fat fucks face filled with hot cakes, make money.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"Liberals are hypocritical!"

"Businesses should be able to deny anyone for any reas- OMG stop discriminating against press secretaries!"

I do think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, it's their company, so they will take the positive or negative of doing so. If they don't want to serve a happy gay couple, well, fuck them and never give them money again. They should't be forced to, that's their choice.

I think it's far too risky to actually allow anyone to refuse service for any reason. You'll wind up with sundown towns and whatever the equivalents for non-blacks would be in various places. We need some protections

As long as it fits with what you want, right? Fact is, she was peacefully in the restaurant and not causing a scene. Just because of her political affiliation she got and her party got the boot.

I think its fine. I also think its fine for Christian Bakers to refuse to make a cake.

Dont be a hypocrite about it.
---

DiegoSanchez206 posted...

Fact is, she was peacefully in the restaurant and not causing a scene. Just because of her political affiliation she got and her party got the boot.

Not because of her affiliation, but because she actively plays a role in the administration. The restaurant isn't denying service to all conservatives.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

I think Sarah Sanders and almost everyone involved in this administration is a piece of shit, but this denying people service shit whether it's because of their race, sexuality or their political affiliation is fucking petty at least, disgustingly inhuman at most. Grow the fuck up everyone. Make a gay couple a cake, serve that black dude a drink, fill that fat fucks face filled with hot cakes, make money.

nothing wrong with treating fascists like shit

DiegoSanchez206 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"Liberals are hypocritical!"

"Businesses should be able to deny anyone for any reas- OMG stop discriminating against press secretaries!"

I do think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, it's their company, so they will take the positive or negative of doing so. If they don't want to serve a happy gay couple, well, fuck them and never give them money again. They should't be forced to, that's their choice.

I think it's far too risky to actually allow anyone to refuse service for any reason. You'll wind up with sundown towns and whatever the equivalents for non-blacks would be in various places. We need some protections

As long as it fits with what you want, right? Fact is, she was peacefully in the restaurant and not causing a scene. Just because of her political affiliation she got and her party got the boot.

I think its fine. I also think its fine for Christian Bakers to refuse to make a cake.

Dont be a hypocrite about it.

Not being all or nothing is not hypocritical. I have perfectly spelled out the nuance necessary. Again, hypocrisy would be if I said certain sexual orientations can be discriminated against or certain political beliefs must be respected.

I also think parents should have some limits on how they can raise their children. Vaccinate, don't slap them around, avoid medical treatment, etc. Am I a hypocrite because I don't think they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to them nor make every child a ward of the state until 18?

Any opinions between extremes are just cherry picking to fit an agenda? I thought we hated how black and white and divisive America has become?

Everyone doesn't have to agree. They just have disagree in ways they can control. You can disagree with someone's politics or religion. You can't disagree with their skin color or gender any more than you can the amount of gravity pushing on them.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

DiegoSanchez206 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"Liberals are hypocritical!"

"Businesses should be able to deny anyone for any reas- OMG stop discriminating against press secretaries!"

I do think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, it's their company, so they will take the positive or negative of doing so. If they don't want to serve a happy gay couple, well, fuck them and never give them money again. They should't be forced to, that's their choice.

I think it's far too risky to actually allow anyone to refuse service for any reason. You'll wind up with sundown towns and whatever the equivalents for non-blacks would be in various places. We need some protections

As long as it fits with what you want, right? Fact is, she was peacefully in the restaurant and not causing a scene. Just because of her political affiliation she got and her party got the boot.

I think its fine. I also think its fine for Christian Bakers to refuse to make a cake.

Dont be a hypocrite about it.

Not being all or nothing is not hypocritical. I have perfectly spelled out the nuance necessary. Again, hypocrisy would be if I said certain sexual orientations can be discriminated against or certain political beliefs must be respected.

Except you have repeatedly state that certain sexualities can be discriminated against - namely straight people, because they are not a 'protected class.'
---

First time in awhile I have agreed with Sanders.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Except you have repeatedly state that certain sexualities can be discriminated against - namely straight people, because they are not a 'protected class.'

They are, though; the law talks about race and orientation, it doesn't distinguish between individual ones.
---

Just too bad you can discriminate against certain people and the tolerate left doesnt care.

Theyll just make up excuses for their hateful behavior.
---

Gotta give him points for consistency at least. Dems think denying people service based on religious grounds is wrong, but then laughed when it happened to Sarah Sanders. Repubs think denying service based on religious grounds is fine, but then threw a fit when it happened to her.
---

no fuck that bernie

SageHarpuia posted...

Dems think denying people service based on religious grounds is wrong, but then laughed when it happened to Sarah Sanders

She was not denied service on religious grounds.
---

DiegoSanchez206 posted...

Just too bad you can discriminate against certain people and the tolerate left doesnt care.

Theyll just make up excuses for their hateful behavior.

When you choose to be a shitty person you should expect backlash. The world doesn't have to put up with your bullshit because "it's just a different opinion!"
---

darkjedilink posted...

Except you have repeatedly state that certain sexualities can be discriminated against - namely straight people, because they are not a 'protected class

Lmao what? Of course heterosexuals are a protected class. You're being silly again
---

darkjedilink posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

DiegoSanchez206 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"Liberals are hypocritical!"

"Businesses should be able to deny anyone for any reas- OMG stop discriminating against press secretaries!"

I do think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, it's their company, so they will take the positive or negative of doing so. If they don't want to serve a happy gay couple, well, fuck them and never give them money again. They should't be forced to, that's their choice.

I think it's far too risky to actually allow anyone to refuse service for any reason. You'll wind up with sundown towns and whatever the equivalents for non-blacks would be in various places. We need some protections

As long as it fits with what you want, right? Fact is, she was peacefully in the restaurant and not causing a scene. Just because of her political affiliation she got and her party got the boot.

I think its fine. I also think its fine for Christian Bakers to refuse to make a cake.

Dont be a hypocrite about it.

Not being all or nothing is not hypocritical. I have perfectly spelled out the nuance necessary. Again, hypocrisy would be if I said certain sexual orientations can be discriminated against or certain political beliefs must be respected.

Except you have repeatedly state that certain sexualities can be discriminated against - namely straight people, because they are not a 'protected class.'

Repeatedly where? Also, straight people are not a protected class , but orientation is, of which straight is one. Also Also, orientation being protected doesn't mean no one can be discriminated against. It just means you can't do it due to their orientation. A gay or straight man can absolutely be denied service for some other reason.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

DiegoSanchez206 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"Liberals are hypocritical!"

"Businesses should be able to deny anyone for any reas- OMG stop discriminating against press secretaries!"

I do think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, it's their company, so they will take the positive or negative of doing so. If they don't want to serve a happy gay couple, well, fuck them and never give them money again. They should't be forced to, that's their choice.

I think it's far too risky to actually allow anyone to refuse service for any reason. You'll wind up with sundown towns and whatever the equivalents for non-blacks would be in various places. We need some protections

As long as it fits with what you want, right? Fact is, she was peacefully in the restaurant and not causing a scene. Just because of her political affiliation she got and her party got the boot.

I think its fine. I also think its fine for Christian Bakers to refuse to make a cake.

Dont be a hypocrite about it.

Not being all or nothing is not hypocritical. I have perfectly spelled out the nuance necessary. Again, hypocrisy would be if I said certain sexual orientations can be discriminated against or certain political beliefs must be respected.

Except you have repeatedly state that certain sexualities can be discriminated against - namely straight people, because they are not a 'protected class.'

Repeatedly where? Also, straight people are not a protected class , but orientation is, of which straight is one. Also Also, orientation being protected doesn't mean no one can be discriminated against. It just means you can't do it due to their orientation. A gay or straight man can absolutely be denied service for some other reason.

So you agree that the baker was correct.
---

False Bernie. Private business owners should have the right to refuse service.

I feel that way about those pussy hat wearing restaurant owners, and I feel that way about bakers refusing to make a cake. A private business providing a non essential service should have the right to deny service to whomever they wish.

The Great Muta 22 posted...

When you choose to be a shitty person you should expect backlash. The world doesn't have to put up with your bullshit because "it's just a different opinion!"

Everyone should just wear a DNA-encoded badge that identifies your political party. That way, the Conservative restaurants can bar liberal customers from entry and Liberal restaurants can do likewise to conservatives. Vet them at the door, so you dont have to deal with throwing them out when theyve already ordered.
---

Darmik posted...

Fate posted...

You do when you have labor laws which explicitly protect your free speech and right to a political opinion. Full stop. Ignoring laws that are already on the books to discriminate against your political opponents is... I mean what do you even want me to call it? It's discrimination. Full stop.

Right to a political opinion? Sure.

Right to say whatever you want at work? Nope. You have to follow company policy. Have you ever worked for a large organization before?

You realize that every first-world country has laws protecting collective bargaining and labor organizing, right? Especially the State of California, which has the discrimination laws already explained to you. @Darmik
---

Don't you get sick of using up your accounts like a pack of condoms?
---

Does having to win arguments through censorship make you feel smart?
---