Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2019, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,981 posts, read 22,167,958 times
Reputation: 13811

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolom View Post
Except that this is a one-way street. If someone wearing attire that was anti-Obama went into certain establishments and was kicked out, the entire MSM and social media would come down hard in support of the person wearing said attire. Charges of "racism" would abound.

Absolutely.


Remember back to prior presidents and their campaigns. Did we ever hear of people supporting Obama being beaten up by mobs of GW Bush or Romney supporters?? Hell no.

For that matter, did we have mobs of Obama supporters chasing down and beating people wearing shirts or hats who supported McCain or Romney? Not that I remember. But since 2015, we have mobs of Democrats chasing down and beating MAGA hat wearers.

It's only recently, that the leftist democrats have come out of the closet. Now, ordinary people must fear for their safety in public. the left in this nation are always violent, always spun up, angry, and looking to hurt people they disagree with politically.

And what do these leftists and their news media they we need to blame? Is it the people committing these acts of violence? No. We are supposed to blame the victims of these attacks.

In order to try and justify the hate and violence perpetrated by the left, we are told that it's the victims who are to blame. How insane is that?!?

Is the woman to blame because she triggered the violence from the rapist?

Is the black man to blame for triggering the violence from the white supremacist?

Is the Trump supporter to blame for triggering the violence from the democrat who's afflicted with the Trump derangement syndrome?

Hell no.


But according to the Democrats - yes, those victims are to blame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2019, 09:35 AM
 
59,109 posts, read 27,340,319 times
Reputation: 14286
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
A business has the absolute right to remove a customer who is perceived to be bad for business from its establishment. You've seen the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, right? If a guy at a restaurant who is minding his own business takes out a porn magazine and starts reading it, the establishment will properly ask the guy to remove the material or leave; and rightly so. Even if other patrons have no problem or didn't notice it, the restaurant still has the obligation to do something because the presence of a questionable material is potentially bad for business.

There is also common sense that a person should exercise when out in public. You don't walk into a sports bar in Los Angeles wearing San Francisco Giants attire. You don't wear patches in certain bars if you don't belong to that group. It's likely that nothing will happen if you do it, but why take the chance? And if you do take the chance, you should have been prepared to deal with the consequence. Common sense. It's your responsibility to know what attire is controversial in what settings.

If I wear a "Hillary Clinton Rocks!!" t-shirt to a bar in Middle America. I should know full well there is a chance someone will take offense. I have every right to wear that t-shirt but other people also have their rights to dislike it, and we may clash and exercise our first amendment in unpleasant ways. And if the bar kicks me out because of my wardrobe, I'd understand. It's common sense!

Which takes this thread to certain hats that certain groups like to wear. Now, they have the absolute right to wear whatever they want to wear. But why are they so shocked when their questionable hat is causing unpleasant reactions??? If a person doesn't know said hat is highly controversial in this day and age, that person is either a moron or just woke up from a coma.

And when an establishment kicks that person out, it should not come as any surprise. The hat wearer knows full well this may happen and they took the chance. It's like someone skateboarding off a halfpipe and is shocked when he/she broke an ankle. Hey, you should have known this could happen. When you decided to do it, you took on the responsibility of a potential injury. It's life. Sorry.


And when people took offense to the hat... Errr, you didn't know that could happen?? Seriously?? Just be an adult and leave. That's what I'd do if I was in that situation. But no, they have to film it, post it online, cry about it, and be the snowflakes they always wanted to be.


But I guess for some groups, common sense, responsibility, and not being a snowflake is just too much to ask for.

.
"A business has the absolute right to remove a customer who is perceived to be bad for business from its establishment."


So a white owner can kick out a black patron


A back owner can kick out a white patron.


A Christian owner can kick out a gay person.


A gay owner cam kick out a nun or a priest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,981 posts, read 22,167,958 times
Reputation: 13811
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
Just for the record I'm not talking about the legality. You seem to be saying as long as a persons identity is covered by law as a protected class business owners/individuals are morally ok not acting on their personal biases but if ones identity or belief is not protected by law it is morally and socially acceptable to kick someone out of your establishment (or worse) based on your personal biases. In other words the only thing keeping us behaving in a civilized manner are laws imposed by a governing body.

It seems like we have evolved as far as we can and now are reverting back to Homo erectus.
You are correct, of course.

Curious isn't it, how we keep chasing Democrats around the same circle over and over again? We are still dealing with the same exact issues from a century ago, trying to prevent bigoted Democrats from discriminating against people they hate.

We tried passing the 13th Amendment, to grant blacks equality, and once and for all put an end to the bigotry and violence on the left. But we know that didn't work. The Democrats found many ways to weasel their way around the 13th. They implemented their black code laws, during the Jim Crow era, so they could justify their mistreatment of people they hated.

The only way we could finally end the rampant discrimination of people by Democrats, was by going thru the pain staking process of passing law, after law, to make it illegal for them to act upon their hate and bigotry.

We passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, but did those stop the Democrats? No. They worked their way around those and continued to act on their hate and bigotry.

Just like today, they claimed there were no laws forcing public establishments or state governments from discriminating against people. So we had to pass the Civil rights Act, and then the Voting Rights Act. We had to go on like this for decades, passing law after law until we covered every conceivable manner, to finally make it illegal for dems to act on their hate and bigotry.

So here we are, in 2019, and once again, the meme from the Democrats is that it's okay to act upon their bigotry and discriminate against their fellow Americans. What reason do they give, that there isn't a law written to specifically make this new type of bigoted discrimination illegal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 10:02 AM
 
46,311 posts, read 27,124,387 times
Reputation: 11134
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee View Post
Reading is fundamental.

No where in that does it say nothing shall impede. The limitation was placed upon government, as it is in each State Constitution as well.

But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.


So is comprehension, did you even read what and who I was quoting?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 10:04 AM
 
46,311 posts, read 27,124,387 times
Reputation: 11134
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1 View Post
Exactly! Check out these right wing fashions:





Good one!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 01:18 PM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,238,960 times
Reputation: 9845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Like when blacks went to the lunch counter and made people uncomfortable? Of when interracial and same sex couples are seen in a restaurant, when they kiss it makes people uncomfortable.

When an establishment kicks them out, it should not come as any surprise, right?

Don't you tire of being wrong so often?

Race and gender are PROTECTED category. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate someone based on race and gender. Do you still NOT know that in this day and age?????!!!!!!!!!! Seriously??

A MAGA hat is NOT associated with race/gender/religion/age; therefore it is NOT protected by our laws.

Aren't you tired of being schooled by liberals, all the time??


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 01:21 PM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,238,960 times
Reputation: 9845
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
So, what happened to freedom of speech, you know that pesky 1st that appears to only be subject to those that hate trump?

I'd bet you'd be first in line to burn the American flag....since that's been ruled to be freedom of speech....

But, what can we expect from the left these days? It's the person wearing the MAGA hat that invoked his beating by wearing the hat.....

The 1st Amendment is ONLY guaranteed from our government.

A private business DOES NOT owe you any freedom of speech, ever!!!

Read the above sentence until it sinks in because I am tired of having to explain the Constitution to the ignorant right-wing.


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 01:25 PM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,238,960 times
Reputation: 9845
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post
If you wore a "Hillary Clinton Rocks!!" T-shirt to a bar in middle America, you'd probably get laughed at.

But you wouldn't get assaulted.

If you can be provoked to violence by a hat.........

The problem isn't the hat.

It's you.


That's because a "Hillary Clinton Rocks" t-shirt is not a symbol of hate and racism like a MAGA hat.

The difference is like walking into a bar wearing a Frankenstein mask vs wearing a white hood.

They are both just things to cover faces, but one has a very different implication than the other.


.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 01:29 PM
 
13,711 posts, read 9,238,960 times
Reputation: 9845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"A business has the absolute right to remove a customer who is perceived to be bad for business from its establishment."

So a white owner can kick out a black patron

A back owner can kick out a white patron.

A Christian owner can kick out a gay person.

A gay owner cam kick out a nun or a priest.

Good lord, why are there so many ignorant right-wingers about our laws???????????????

Again, gender and race are PROTECTED categories. No one can be discriminated based on race or gender. They are PROTECTED.

A MAGA hat is not, I repeat not, associated with gender/age/race/religion; so it is NOT protected.

Do you guys get it now??? Do I really have to keep explaining the law to every right-winger on this forum??
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2019, 01:33 PM
 
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
17,642 posts, read 6,923,260 times
Reputation: 16552
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p View Post
That's because a "Hillary Clinton Rocks" t-shirt is not a symbol of hate and racism like a MAGA hat.

The difference is like walking into a bar wearing a Frankenstein mask vs wearing a white hood.

They are both just things to cover faces, but one has a very different implication than the other.


.
False.

A "Hillary Clinton Rocks" t-shirt is a hate symbol as it represents disenfranchising military personnel, racial hatred against whites, and bigotry against men. It would be the next in a long line of hate-wear sported by Democrats, which started with the white hoods worn by Grand Kleagles of the KKK, almost all of whom were DEMOCRATS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top