Cookout employess refused to serve Trump supporters

[Wiggen]

Actually the majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted in favor of the act. So, no, the Democratic Party did not oppose the CRA. A bunch of white racists in the former Confederacy voted nearly unanimously against it, and they were Democrats (because Lincoln was a republican), but the racist wing did not represent a majority of the party.

Thank goodness those idiots changed parties after the CRA and the aftermath and now it's the GOP that has to worry with those dead enders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Sadly, those 'dead enders' now run the party. Lincoln must be spinning in his tomb.

 

[Lovebug]

Unless they are black, and you hate blacks. Or Hispanic, and you hate Hispanics. Or gay, and you hate homosexuals. It just goes on and on.

I don't understand.

 

[Henrin]

Boy, I think you're onto something there! I'd get right on that if I was you. Maybe you could start a National Freedom to Yell Fire in a Theater' organization.

Does yelling fire under false pretenses harm anyone? Oh I know, it might cause an idiot to act like an idiot, so it should be illegal. My bad.

 

[clownboy]

Yeah, we'd be such a peaceful gentle nation if it wasn't for those damned Mexicans!:lamo

Certain parts of our country would indeed be a whole lot more peaceful without the illegals, yes even the Mexican illegals.

 

[Aberration]

Actually, as with most extreme Right Wingers, you've got it completely wrong. It was opposed by southern conservatives, who happened at that time to be Democrats. Thankfully they got the hell out of our party and became Republicans (Strom Thurmond, for example). When Lyndon Johnson - a Democrat - signed the Civil Rights Bill he said 'well, we (the Democrats) have lost the south for a generation'. Actually he was underestimating the racism that fled to the Republican Party. It's why the South today at the local, state, and national level is run by Republicans.

I'd really recommend you invest in a really good history book covering the last half of the 20th Century. Your lack of knowledge of that era is painful.

You didnt argue they werent Democrats. Was the Grand Cyclops and the revered Robert Byrd a Republican? Not even the very liberal New York Times perpetuates that nonsense.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ - NYTimes.com

Your lack of integrity is painful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[radcen]

A legendary fast-food chain is in hot water after refusing to serve Donald Trump supporters.

Shannon Riggs and her cousins were turned away from a Cook Out in Colonial Heights, Virginia, on Friday night, when they showed up in Donald Trump shirts and hats, WTVR reports.

Apparently, when Riggs attempted to order from the window, decked out in Trump apparel, an employee yelled "Hell no! I'm not serving them."

The family's orders were eventually taken, but they say that they never received their food. Eventually Riggs said she canceled her order and the family had their money refunded — but they were not satisfied with the situation.


Cook Out refused to serve Donald Trump fans - Business Insider

===========================================================================

Those of you who said it was the towtruck driver's right to refuse to tow a Sanders supporter, do you feel the same about this restaurant's employees refusing to serve Trump supporters?

Legendary? Granted, I haven't been to the south in over 30 years, but I was not aware this place even existed until I read this thread.

 

[sangha]

Perhaps it was already mentioned, but if someone can be forced to provide services because of the customer's constitutional rights against discrimination, why can't someone be forced to provide services because of a customer's constitutional rights to free speech?

Because the laws which prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc are not based on constitutional rights. They are based on the govt's power to regulate commerce

 

[ellesdee]

Someone may. But unless they state so one is left with the ideological platform he chose as a label.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean his ideological name for himself. His platform was no where near that of a socialist of any kind.

 

[Aberration]

Yeah, we'd be such a peaceful gentle nation if it wasn't for those damned Mexicans!:lamo

Thank you for proving my point. Democrats are still the party of racism and lies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

You mean his ideological name for himself. His platform was no where near that of a socialist of any kind.

He willingly chose the label. And other people who choose the label dont dispute his label.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

He willingly chose the label. And other people who choose the label dont dispute his label.

So what? If a "Democrat" is running for office, we don't assume that person agrees with 100% of whatever is the Democratic Party platform at that time. To the extent we can even define what it is to be a "democratic socialist" or "republican" or "libertarian" or "liberal" or "independent" in your case, it's absurd to assert that anyone running under any of those labels agrees with the entirety of that party's then set of beliefs. It's why we often have two, e.g., republicans running against each other in primaries, disagreeing on very big and fundamental issues like taxes, entitlements, national defense, foreign policy, etc.

FWIW, other people who 'choose' that label do in fact dispute that he's one of them. Example here:

Professor Frances Fox Piven, the honorary chairperson of the official Democratic Socialists of America coalition, says Sanders does not quite meet the definition of the term, preferring to call him a New Deal Democrat – a reference to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ambitious set of social programs after the Great Depression and during the Second World War. Piven did admit, however, that “people mean a lot of different things by (democratic socialism).” Famed activist and linguist Noam Chomsky also has said Sanders is not a socialist of any sort, calling him “a decent, honest New Dealer.”

 

[Aberration]

So what? If a "Democrat" is running for office, we don't assume that person agrees with 100% of whatever is the Democratic Party platform at that time. To the extent we can even define what it is to be a "democratic socialist" or "republican" or "libertarian" or "liberal" or "independent" in your case, it's absurd to assert that anyone running under any of those labels agrees with the entirety of that party's then set of beliefs. It's why we often have two, e.g., republicans running against each other in primaries, disagreeing on very big and fundamental issues like taxes, entitlements, national defense, foreign policy, etc.

FWIW, other people who 'choose' that label do in fact dispute that he's one of them. Example here:

Of course that is what we assume. Its the entire point of parties and party platforms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

Of course that is what we assume. Its the entire point of parties and party platforms.

Uh, no, we don't assume it, or at least thinking people don't assume it.

But you know that, you just want to apply a different standard to Bernie and his followers than you would to any other politician running for office or their supporters. Just as an example, anyone who thinks Cruz, Trump and Jeb (who all label themselves "republicans") have the same position on every issue is not very bright, or not paying attention, or both.

 

[Aberration]

Of course thinking people do. Its the whole point of the label. That is why so many people vote along party lines because the assumption is the candidate supports the party platform.

The whole point of Bernie choosing the label of Democratic Socialist is to differentiate those differences of opinions with the Democratic party he caucuses with. Just like Cruz uses the label Conservative.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

A legendary fast-food chain is in hot water after refusing to serve Donald Trump supporters.

Shannon Riggs and her cousins were turned away from a Cook Out in Colonial Heights, Virginia, on Friday night, when they showed up in Donald Trump shirts and hats, WTVR reports.

Apparently, when Riggs attempted to order from the window, decked out in Trump apparel, an employee yelled "Hell no! I'm not serving them."

The family's orders were eventually taken, but they say that they never received their food. Eventually Riggs said she canceled her order and the family had their money refunded — but they were not satisfied with the situation.


Cook Out refused to serve Donald Trump fans - Business Insider

===========================================================================

Those of you who said it was the towtruck driver's right to refuse to tow a Sanders supporter, do you feel the same about this restaurant's employees refusing to serve Trump supporters?

Oh good gracious, just give them their damned food. Trump supporters have the right to clog their coronary arteries like the rest of us.

 

[JasperL]

Of course thinking people do. Its the whole point of the label. That is why so many people vote along party lines because the assumption is the candidate supports the party platform.

The whole point of Bernie choosing the label of Democratic Socialist is to differentiate those differences of opinions with the Democratic party he caucuses with. Just like Cruz uses the label Conservative.

I don't know anyone who pays attention to politics who assumes that Cruz, Bush and Trump, all "republicans," each have the same views on all issues, and they all agree 100% with whatever is the GOP platform at the moment. Do you? And if you do know such people, they're no doubt not paying attention to politics or aren't very bright....

Obviously, Bernie adopting the label "democratic socialist" is meaningful to distinguish himself from the other two major parties, but you're taking it a step further - it means (you're asserting) that he and all his followers support some mythical worldwide platform that details the beliefs of all "democratic socialists." Can you point me to this platform that all democratic socialists wherever they are in the world must agree to support before they adopt the label? While you're at it, please point me to the current "Republican" platform that every "Republican" in the country agrees to support 100% at all times! Etc.

Bernie's platform and beliefs are what he says they are, informed by his decades of public service as an elected official with a long history of speeches, votes, legislative work, etc. It's obvious BS to read the nearest wiki definition of "democratic socialist" then attribute all those beliefs to him and his supporters as a substitute for his stated positions on the issues.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

The gravy train is Over. Buckle up.

 

[Deuce]

Oh good gracious, just give them their damned food. Trump supporters have the right to clog their coronary arteries like the rest of us.

I encourage it, in fact.

 

[ellesdee]

He willingly chose the label. And other people who choose the label dont dispute his label.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's definitely been dispute. Anyone willing to take even a few moments to look into what he actually has to say can see he's not a socialist, certainly not in the same league as someone like Chavez, as Henrin implied when he mentioned Sanders supporters being against the tow-truck driver's right to private property.

 

[apdst]

This is great example of what kind of assholes liberals really are. I hope they behave like this more often.

 

[Aberration]

I don't know anyone who pays attention to politics who assumes that Cruz, Bush and Trump, all "republicans," each have the same views on all issues, and they all agree 100% with whatever is the GOP platform at the moment. Do you? And if you do know such people, they're no doubt not paying attention to politics or aren't very bright....

Obviously, Bernie adopting the label "democratic socialist" is meaningful to distinguish himself from the other two major parties, but you're taking it a step further - it means (you're asserting) that he and all his followers support some mythical worldwide platform that details the beliefs of all "democratic socialists." Can you point me to this platform that all democratic socialists wherever they are in the world must agree to support before they adopt the label? While you're at it, please point me to the current "Republican" platform that every "Republican" in the country agrees to support 100% at all times! Etc.

Bernie's platform and beliefs are what he says they are, informed by his decades of public service as an elected official with a long history of speeches, votes, legislative work, etc. It's obvious BS to read the nearest wiki definition of "democratic socialist" then attribute all those beliefs to him and his supporters as a substitute for his stated positions on the issues.

I just pointed out they don't have all the same views. Which is why they use other labels like Conservative. Bush didn't, because he is an establishment Republican. Just like Hillary doesn't use other labels.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

There's definitely been dispute. Anyone willing to take even a few moments to look into what he actually has to say can see he's not a socialist, certainly not in the same league as someone like Chavez, as Henrin implied when he mentioned Sanders supporters being against the tow-truck driver's right to private property.

Democratic Socialist vs Socialist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

This is great example of what kind of assholes liberals really are. I hope they behave like this more often.

Your statement is more of a comment on yourself than on liberals.

 

[apdst]

Your statement is more of a comment on yourself than on liberals.

Your comment proves my point.

 

[Deuce]

This is great example of what kind of assholes liberals really are. I hope they behave like this more often.

Yeah. They're acting more like conservatives.