Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It appears that some of you would be fine with a return to Jim Crow.
Actually Jim Crow laws and protected classes laws both violate the natural right of freedom of association and property rights. The government should not force segregation or desegregation.
Actually Jim Crow laws and protected classes laws both violate the natural right of freedom of association and property rights. The government should not force segregation or desegregation.
If someone is in a legally protected class, a public business must serve him. That includes all races, all religions, and, in some states, all sexual orientations.
Political orientation is not a protected class. Neither are marijuana smokers, hoodie wearers, or folks who wear sagging pants.
Ah, I see... so a society that does not support liberty and freedom, but rather uses the strong arm of government to force one to action, like a slave, or a servant of a master?
Well, I guess we now understand how some of these laws get through, because some people see nothing wrong using government to enslave others to their will, just as long as it is their "approved" condition?
Don't care much for liberty and freedom do you?
One question:
When you start a business, does your property become government property or is it still private property?
It would be disparate impact though, since white people are more likely to be Trump voters than other minorities (especially in Hawaii). And disparate impact is illegal unless it has a legitimate business reason.
One way that the owner could somewhat enforce this is to require patrons to show their voter id card. A more simple way is to simply go with percentages and people who more strongly fit the profile of a Trump voter (non-resident, white, older, more wealthy) are not served.
But again, there is disparate impact involved in not serving older white non-residents because they are more likely to be Trump voters, even if the reason for not serving them is not a protected status.
You say that like all the white people over 35 years old who vacation in Hawaii are Trump supporters. This is highly unlikely.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Seems that if it's over Trump or a Christian belief than it's fair game; over any of their parrot points (LGBT, women, minorities...etc.) then there's absolutely no freedom. You will agree with the totalitarians or be crushed.
If this cafe had said "we refuse to serve Hillary supporters" all these people saying they support the business would turn into sharks against the business. Guaranteed!
Nope. Refusing to serve people who say they supported Clinton or who are wearing clothing with Clinton campaign slogans on it is perfectly reasonable.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The restaurant apparently sucked before. It's most likely a publicity stunt to attract customers in a solid blue state as a gimmick to detract from crappy food and service.
So the left agrees that people should be able to pick and choose whom they serve. Interesting. How is this different from the Christian bakers in Oregon who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding and were ridiculously fined, their business obliterated.
Do as I say, not as I do mentality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.