Business Owner says he will not do any business with Trump supporters.

[Mac77]

Other than that 1 is a choice and 1 isnt....

I knew someone would trot out that liberal lie

 

[joG]

Can you hear your own words?
I had to check the header and make sure I was not at some KKK website?

Why? If he doesn't want to do business with trumpites, that's fine. He is a jerk, but he lives in a country that is supposed to protect the jerks' rights too. The Supreme Court made a mistake on that call, but that doesn't mean the citizens shouldn't be protected.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

How far does it go though, should a business be forced to serve someone who comes in full nazi regalia?

I'm all for non discrimination to a certain degree but a business still has to have some discretion.

I run a retail store and I can tell you that I would ask someone dressed like a Nazi to leave.

What if they were on their way to a dress rehearsal of "The Sound of Music", and wanted to stop in for a bite at your place because it will be a long and brutal night singing "16 going on 17" all night long with a lady that consistently sings too sharp?

What if he was a US veteran and part of a WW2 reenactment group, and needed to stop in for a bite before an all day practice session to get their marching techniques down for the big show in two weeks?

Most things are not as simple they appear.

rushed judgments are also usually not correct.

 

[Crovax]

and what if they were on their way to a dress rehearsal of "The Sound of Music", and wanted to stop in for a bite at your place because it will be a long and brutal night singing "16 going on 17" all night long.

Most things are not as simple they appear.

Well I can't stand the sound of music so anyone starts singing that **** I'm tossing them out :mrgreen:

But you know what I meant, an actual ideological nazi dressed up in nazi regalia

 

[Mac77]

Well I can't stand the sound of music so anyone starts singing that **** I'm tossing them out :mrgreen:

But you know what I meant, an actual ideological nazi dressed up in nazi regalia

Along with "Yankee Doodle Dandy" the "Sound of Music" is the best.

 

[Fishking]

If we are going to have protected classes and groups, which I don't think there should be any, things relating to voting and related to the political process should come before any other group out there.

 

[AlbqOwl]

My position on this is pretty consistent whether we are talking about banning Republicans, Democrats, atheists, Christians, gays, straights or whoever.

Privately owned businesses that are not incorporated should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they want. Even stupid or bigoted reasons.

As for me? I would never patronize an establishment that discriminates based on such things.

I have no problem with a business license specifying that a business owner must sell a product he routinely offers for sale to the general public to any legitimate person wanting to buy that product no matter what the person's race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ideology, etc. so long as the person is reasonably dressed and conducts himself/herself in a reasonably non offensive way.

That kind of non discrimination clause is okay with me.

I do not think a business owner should be required to provide a special product, decoration, or service that the business owner finds offensive or for any reason does not wish to provide and that he does not wish to offer the general public.

And nobody should have to participate in any way in an activity the business owner does not wish to participate in for any reason whatsoever.

 

[trouble13]

Other than that 1 is a choice and 1 isnt....

Neither is a choice. A person can not choose what they believe. Its like saying faith is a choice. You feel the way you do because thats what youve been convinced to feel.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Mac77]

I have no problem with a business license specifying that a business owner must sell a product he routinely offers for sale to the general public to any legitimate person wanting to buy that product no matter what the person's race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ideology, etc. so long as the person is reasonably dressed and conducts himself/herself in a reasonably non offensive way.

That kind of non discrimination clause is okay with me.

I do not think a business owner should be required to provide a special product, decoration, or service that the business owner finds offensive or for any reason does not wish to provide and that he does not wish to offer the general public.

And nobody should have to participate in any way in an activity the business owner does not wish to participate in for any reason whatsoever.

Just say that businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and let it go at that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just say that businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and let it go at that.

That would be the pure libertarian point of view, yes. But again, I have no problem with a community having reasonable non discrimination laws as part of the social contract the people adopt to have the sort of community they wish to have. It makes the community more beneficial for all and produces a kinder and gentler way of life. It costs the business owner nothing in liberty and it does not violate anybody's moral center to sell the donuts you have for sale to anybody. But nobody should be required to produce a special product or participate in any activity that the person does not wish to produce or participate.

 

[Mac77]

That would be the pure libertarian point of view, yes. But again, I have no problem with a community having reasonable non discrimination laws as part of the social contract the people adopt to have the sort of community they wish to have.

It makes the community more beneficial for all and produces a kinder and gentler way of life. It costs the business owner nothing in liberty and it does not violate anybody's moral center to sell the donuts you have for sale to anybody. But nobody should be required to produce a special product or participate in any activity that the person does not wish to produce or participate.

the "people" or community can accomplish that through the free market without passing a law.

If the Christan baker chooses not to make homosexual themed wedding cakes that should be his right

If the community does not like that decision they can stop doing business with that baker

 

[Visbek]

Biz owner refuses to do business with Trump supporters | On Air Videos | Fox News

What about those who make cakes and arrange flowers?

The law is the law. Discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of party identification or ideology is not barred on the federal level. so it's up to the states or municipalities -- very few of which bother protect political affiliation.

California, for example, does not tolerate discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of ideology. I for one back that approach, and have said as much in many threads.

FYI, most jurisdictions do protect employees from being fired on the basis of political affiliation. We probably should have a national law protecting all employees from retaliation on the basis of political affiliation or ideology, but somehow this does not seem like the Congress or President to pass any new civil rights laws....

And in the "hysterical hypocrisy" department, I wonder how many people who normally oppose discrimination laws are irate about this.

 

[upsideguy]

Biz owner refuses to do business with Trump supporters | On Air Videos | Fox News

What about those who make cakes and arrange flowers?

The shoe is on the other foot this time, and I would like to see the eventual legal outcome of this.

1. How does he know who a Trump supporter is in the first place? It is not like they carry ID cards.

2. I voted for Trump, but held my nose when I did. I am NOT a supporter, but he might see me as one.

3. It has already been declared illegal for a business owner to discriminate against customers for a variety of reasons. Is VOTER PREFERENCE to be added to the list of RACE, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, RELIGION, or NATIONAL ORIGIN?

I am sure some here will applaud this action, but if you do, then you do not see the downstream repercussions of it.

If he is allowed to get away with it, then another business owner could say they will not do business with those who voted for Hillary, and it would be fine.
Then another business owner could say they will not do business with any DEMOCRAT, and it would be OK.
Discriminating against DEMOCRATS or how a person voted is another backdoor stab at racial injustice.
All one has to do is say they are not doing business with them because of their voting preference, rather than because they are black, a woman, gay, or whatever.

If foolishness like this is allowed to stand, then all you need to do is paint over the old, NO COLOREDS ALLOWED, and replaces it with NO DEMOCRATS ALLOWED.

This guy is already saying NO TRUMP SUPPORTERS ALLOWED.
I hope he was a well funded legal defense war chest.

If anyone supports and approves of this, the gun of legal racial/sexual/political legislation may be pointed your way soon.

To me, this is naked, in-your-face discrimination for a person having a different political opinion as he.

A person's voting preference is a sacred right and a citizen's choice needs to be free of negative repercussions.

However, as the election was progressing, I learned there are scores of DP members who do not feel this way, and feel a person's choice of candidate is good reason to attack, insult, discriminate, and wish harm on them.

You know who you are.

Well, there are fewer Trump supporters than Hillary supporters, so at least he is going for larger market share....

 

[Mr Person]

To me, this is naked, in-your-face discrimination for a person having a different political opinion as he.

Well, yes, it is, and the business owner wouldn't disagree.

The thing is, that the having of a specific political opinion does not put one into a suspect class. Meaning, there's no federal constitutional reason why you cannot discriminate on the basis of political speech if you are a business open to the public, and I'm not aware of any state constitutional or other sort of local law prohibiting the same. (And you might not want a complete ban on discriminating on the basis of speech. For example, a drunk patron verbally abuses the wait staff. You'd want the business to be able to refuse to serve them and/or kick them out, even though that verbal abuse is protected speech in the constitutional sense)

Anyway, it sounds like a publicity stunt anyway, little different than the Chik-A-Fil CEO generating business at franchises by announcing that gay people shouldn't have an equal right to marry.

 

[Mac77]

Well, yes, it is, and the business owner wouldn't disagree.

The thing is, that the having of a specific political opinion does not put one into a suspect class. Meaning, there's no federal constitutional reason why you cannot discriminate on the basis of political speech if you are a business open to the public, and I'm not aware of any state constitutional or other sort of local law prohibiting the same. (And you might not want a complete ban on discriminating on the basis of speech. For example, a drunk patron verbally abuses the wait staff. You'd want the business to be able to refuse to serve them and/or kick them out, even though that verbal abuse is protected speech in the constitutional sense)
C
Anyway, it sounds like a publicity stunt anyway, little different than the Chik-A-Fil CEO generating business at franchises by announcing that gay people shouldn't have an equal right to marry.

I personally think homosexuals shot themselves in the foot out of stupidty..

But if you think it was a marketing plans by the company it was a brilliant one

Mobs of normal Americans presented Chic-Fil-A with the busiest day in their history as the mobbed the store just hoping a homosecusl would show up with a protest sign

But very few gay protesters were ever seen

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Well, yes, it is, and the business owner wouldn't disagree.

The thing is, that the having of a specific political opinion does not put one into a suspect class. Meaning, there's no federal constitutional reason why you cannot discriminate on the basis of political speech if you are a business open to the public, and I'm not aware of any state constitutional or other sort of local law prohibiting the same. (And you might not want a complete ban on discriminating on the basis of speech. For example, a drunk patron verbally abuses the wait staff. You'd want the business to be able to refuse to serve them and/or kick them out, even though that verbal abuse is protected speech in the constitutional sense)

Anyway, it sounds like a publicity stunt anyway, little different than the Chik-A-Fil CEO generating business at franchises by announcing that gay people shouldn't have an equal right to marry.

I agree with you. Openly discriminating against others due to POLITICAL LEANING/PREFERENCE is not currently considered a discriminatory act.
However, I feel if this becomes a pattern it will be one day. Just not now.

However, your abusive drunk patron is not considered free speech in any court simply because it is usually directed toward and individual, and disruptive of others dining experience.
Abusive language directed toward an individual is NOT free speech, it is abuse.
The caveat being it being directed toward and individual and in a place of private business.

Two strikes to begin with.

Your most excellent point is made and taken, though.

 

[_Sal]

Biz owner refuses to do business with Trump supporters | On Air Videos | Fox News

What about those who make cakes and arrange flowers?

The shoe is on the other foot this time, and I would like to see the eventual legal outcome of this.

1. How does he know who a Trump supporter is in the first place? It is not like they carry ID cards.

2. I voted for Trump, but held my nose when I did. I am NOT a supporter, but he might see me as one.

3. It has already been declared illegal for a business owner to discriminate against customers for a variety of reasons. Is VOTER PREFERENCE to be added to the list of RACE, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, RELIGION, or NATIONAL ORIGIN?

I am sure some here will applaud this action, but if you do, then you do not see the downstream repercussions of it.

If he is allowed to get away with it, then another business owner could say they will not do business with those who voted for Hillary, and it would be fine.
Then another business owner could say they will not do business with any DEMOCRAT, and it would be OK.
Discriminating against DEMOCRATS or how a person voted is another backdoor stab at racial injustice.
All one has to do is say they are not doing business with them because of their voting preference, rather than because they are black, a woman, gay, or whatever.

If foolishness like this is allowed to stand, then all you need to do is paint over the old, NO COLOREDS ALLOWED, and replaces it with NO DEMOCRATS ALLOWED.

This guy is already saying NO TRUMP SUPPORTERS ALLOWED.
I hope he was a well funded legal defense war chest.

If anyone supports and approves of this, the gun of legal racial/sexual/political legislation may be pointed your way soon.

To me, this is naked, in-your-face discrimination for a person having a different political opinion as he.

A person's voting preference is a sacred right and a citizen's choice needs to be free of negative repercussions.

However, as the election was progressing, I learned there are scores of DP members who do not feel this way, and feel a person's choice of candidate is good reason to attack, insult, discriminate, and wish harm on them.

You know who you are.

good luck to him, he is obviously a very bad businessman riding on his emotion

not to mention, a challenged human being

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

good luck to him, he is obviously a very bad businessman riding on his emotion

not to mention, a challenged human being

When I had my own business, I never once asked about any customer's politics....or religion....or sexual preference.

It was all about the $$$$.

I did not discriminate against anyone.

It cost me one night after servicing some Vietnamese shrimp boats.

Two weeks later I was back at it.

 

[_Sal]

When I had my own business, I never once asked about any customer's politics....or religion....or sexual preference.

It was all about the $$$$.

I did not discriminate against anyone.

Absolutely. It is not good business sense at all to allow prejudice to infringe upon putting cash in the till.... you can bet they will not remain successful for long

It cost me one night after servicing some Vietnamese shrimp boats.

Two weeks later I was back at it.

:shock: what happened?

 

[trouble13]

The gov has no buisiness telling anyone who they can or can't do buisiness with. All antidiscrimation laws should be abolished in the private sector.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Absolutely. It is not good business sense at all to allow prejudice to infringe upon putting cash in the till.... you can bet they will not remain successful for long

:shock: what happened?

I was walking back to my truck after setting up a LORAN C system for some Vietnamese customers.
After putting up the gear, I got waylaid by two professional thumpers.
I have a scar on my left thigh, when I hit a nailed board as I fell.

It took about two weeks to get right again. After that I hired one guy to sit in the truck with a gun as I serviced them again.
I also went armed myself.

This was long after the famous Gulf Coast Shrimp Wars.

Evidently the Clan did not like a white man servicing their shrimp boats.

With the few Clan people I knew about, it turned out it was not an authorized hit, but the actions of a radical few.

To me, it did not matter if it was authorized or not, the pain was the same, and now my guard was up.

Nothing more happened after that.

Their hatred was understandable because the feds gave them money to buy their boats, and they used unlicensed radios on unauthorized frequencies to call their friends and fish out everything they caught. Even juvenile shrimp.

I reported each and every unauthorized radio I saw on their boats, but the FCC and the Coast guard all looked the other way, and allowed them to do it.

I blamed the Texas boat builders and the Feds for the issue. But the Texas boat builders, just like me, took their money and did their job regardless of politics.

Although that does not make you free from a good "thumping".

 

[_Sal]

I was walking back to my truck after setting up a LORAN C system for some Vietnamese customers.
After putting up the gear, I got waylaid by two professional thumpers.
I have a scar on my left thigh, when I hit a nailed board as I fell.

It took about two weeks to get right again. After that I hired one guy to sit in the truck with a gun as I serviced them again.
I also went armed myself.

This was long after the famous Gulf Coast Shrimp Wars.

Evidently the Clan did not like a white man servicing their shrimp boats.

With the few Clan people I knew about, it turned out it was not an authorized hit, but the actions of a radical few.

To me, it did not matter if it was authorized or not, the pain was the same, and now my guard was up.

Nothing more happened after that.

Their hatred was understandable because the feds gave them money to buy their boats, and they used unlicensed radios on unauthorized frequencies to call their friends and fish out everything they caught. Even juvenile shrimp.

I reported each and every unauthorized radio I saw on their boats, but the FCC and the Coast guard all looked the other way, and allowed them to do it.

I blamed the Texas boat builders and the Feds for the issue. But the Texas boat builders, just like me, took their money and did their job regardless of politics.

Although that does not make you free from a good "thumping".

holy wow, that is some scary stuff, could have been killed for sure...

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

holy wow, that is some scary stuff, could have been killed for sure...

...and some wonder why I bristle when I am called a racist redneck, and use Clan references directed my way.

believe me, they have yet to meet TRUE racist redneck Clan members like I have.

 

[Mr Person]

Well, yes, it is, and the business owner wouldn't disagree.

The thing is, that the having of a specific political opinion does not put one into a suspect class. Meaning, there's no federal constitutional reason why you cannot discriminate on the basis of political speech if you are a business open to the public, and I'm not aware of any state constitutional or other sort of local law prohibiting the same. (And you might not want a complete ban on discriminating on the basis of speech. For example, a drunk patron verbally abuses the wait staff. You'd want the business to be able to refuse to serve them and/or kick them out, even though that verbal abuse is protected speech in the constitutional sense)

Anyway, it sounds like a publicity stunt anyway, little different than the Chik-A-Fil CEO generating business at franchises by announcing that gay people shouldn't have an equal right to marry.

I agree with you. Openly discriminating against others due to POLITICAL LEANING/PREFERENCE is not currently considered a discriminatory act.
However, I feel if this becomes a pattern it will be one day. Just not now.

However, your abusive drunk patron is not considered free speech in any court simply because it is usually directed toward and individual, and disruptive of others dining experience.
Abusive language directed toward an individual is NOT free speech, it is abuse.
The caveat being it being directed toward and individual and in a place of private business.

Two strikes to begin with.

Your most excellent point is made and taken, though.

Well, about that abusive drunk person example: contrary to what you're saying, verbal abuse IS considered free speech by the courts. Though, we must be very careful if we talk about constitutional law because, for example, there is the "fighting words" doctrine - words that, by their very utterance, tend to inflict injury or incite a breach of the peace.

But, for purposes of my example, I'm not talking about someone potentially starting a riot or anything. Just a rude customer.


The government couldn't arrest the rude customer or drunk nasty person simply for calling a waitress a nasty name. (I am deliberately ignoring laws against public drunkenness because those are aimed at the state of intoxication, not on any particular words uttered. I am also ignoring disorderly conduct type laws because again, those aren't about whether a specific word was uttered, but about the overall behavior of the individual, physical and verbal).

But, a business open to the public could have the person removed, because the use of certain speech does not put a person in a "suspect class" (like being of a certain race, of a certain sex, and so on).

 

[Bobbaker]

1. How does he know who a Trump supporter is in the first place? It is not like they carry ID cards.

2. I voted for Trump, but held my nose when I did. I am NOT a supporter, but he might see me as one.

That's because you are one. You voted for him. And this is the kind of guy you are :
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...selfishness-lost-election.html#post1066638769