Isnt this discrimination? Shouldn't she get sued so that her business is shut down?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nka-Trump.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nka-Trump.html
How is this chick different from the Christian Baker?
- Thread starter pmclaine
- Start date
Something about double standard and childish behavior.
Lack of media accountability ect.
R
Lack of media accountability ect.
R
The article looks like an incomplete story, but based on what it says, why is asking to meet with Ivanka the same as refusing service to a segment of society?
The Christian baker used its ideology as an excuse to refuse service to a whole segment of society. This is the very definition of discrimination. Refusing service to an individual based on something they have done is not discrimination.
If the owner of the gym refused service to Ivanka, it wouldn't be discrimination because she's a representative of her father, which according to the gym owner her clients are directly affected by the policies he's enacting.
It's not much different then if a gun shop refused serve a politician or their aide who actively pushed anti-gun legislation.
The Christian baker used its ideology as an excuse to refuse service to a whole segment of society. This is the very definition of discrimination. Refusing service to an individual based on something they have done is not discrimination.
If the owner of the gym refused service to Ivanka, it wouldn't be discrimination because she's a representative of her father, which according to the gym owner her clients are directly affected by the policies he's enacting.
It's not much different then if a gun shop refused serve a politician or their aide who actively pushed anti-gun legislation.
How about if the Christian Baker had of asked to meet with the gay couple so as to suggest conversion therapy for them?
Would there be a problem?
I think the left would have a shit storm.
I think a private business has the right to decide who it will or will not serve and the market has actions/reactions that will determine if that decision is a sound one or not.
I don't disagree if the gym owner bans Ivanka. I just want the same respect accorded to the Christian Baker than let the market decide if the business survives or fails on that decision to shun a portion of sales.
Last edited:
Really? There are so many fallacies in this it's not worth straying from your original question.
Fortunately we've moved beyond the 1960's and in 1964 the federal government passed the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Although gays are not covered under this many states and cities have laws that prohibit discrimination against them.
If you want to give people who claim to be religious a special status and be exempt from our Nations laws then the Founding Fathers would roll in their graves and ISIS and the Taliban would love it.
Last edited:
Hmmm. Smells like a big tuna in here.
The baker did not refuse all service. They refused a specific service. There is a difference. Any business has the right to refuse anyone at any time.
Guess I dont see why we protect one minority and hang another out to dry.
The business owners should have known the flaming leftists would have a conniption and had a different story.
The baker did not refuse all service. They refused a specific service. There is a difference. Any business has the right to refuse anyone at any time.
Guess I dont see why we protect one minority and hang another out to dry.
The business owners should have known the flaming leftists would have a conniption and had a different story.
No fallacies. I've shown you a similarity, it blew up your line of attack, and now you are are deflecting.
So The Civil Rights Act doesn't apply specifically to Ivanka Trump alone and she can be subject to discrimination whether it be sitting on an airplane, trying to sell some shit or just wanting to go to a gym.
My point is specifically I don't want anyone to have special status but "special status" is specifically what has been applied by the left. Remember Eric Holder, "I won't prosecute my people"? Ohhh Isis and the Taliban would love it. Apparently the courts decided this week they get special status and shall not be denied visas.
I could give a rats ass really about Ivanka, other than that she is by far the hottest first daughter, but if she can be attacked, counseled and provided sermon because of her beliefs I guess the left feels it's okay to attack schlubs like us too. If she gets admonished for supporting Dad do I get the same when I go to the gym in a Make America Great Again hat? If it's a private business doing it I'm fine with that. I'll just avoid those businesses but I want the left to acknowledge it's okay for another shop keeper to give Hillary supporters a complete explanation of how her server was felonious and have them explain how they could support her for office after proving to be a criminal prior to receiving the service they seek.
Your argument is flat darkearth.
Last edited:
Apparently United Airlines prohibits subjecting its customers to the harangue prior to giving service....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4216218/United-Airlines-pilot-removed-flight-rant.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4216218/United-Airlines-pilot-removed-flight-rant.html
Federal and state laws disagree with you.
A business DOES NOT have the RIGHT to refuse service to anyone, see the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many states specifically have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Colorado law (where one of the cases went to court) specifically prohibits such discrimination.
About 70% of the US population is Christian. This is not a minority group.
The bakers should have read their state laws regarding discrimination. They are not the victim here.
EDIT: Removed two questions that related to religion and politics.
Last edited:
That is where you prove your book knowledge and lack of real knowledge. Of that 70% how many voted for Hillary? They certainly all did not vote for Trump. Of that 70%, what percentage is so convinced they will be judged for making a cake for a couple of pole smokers who ignore God's laws. It is a pretty small group of Christians. That is why they are a minority.
do you think the sig brace violates law? One that members of this site see as draconian and outdated? So its a skirt to a law, put in place to keep pussies happy, sinilar to the "you have to accept me and let me push my way of life on you" laws.
The Bible instructs to follow the law of the land unless it conflicts with God's law. Perhaps that is how these folks interpreted it.
And, in OR, the fines and punishments were far beyond regular prosecution by a leftist fuckwad who had an axe to grind.
Just some arguments of how it looks from somewhere other than your legal books. Not all mine, just a point of view I dont think you can see, or if you do its hard to read it.
I think Christians should not judge homosexuals, bake the cake, pray for them, and maybe tell them about God's Grace. That love has nothing to do with judging people or creating a barrier to keep them from God.
And screw CO. I live here and it is so full of potheads and leftys I want to puke. It is cool I am going to go shooting with FM though.....
do you think the sig brace violates law? One that members of this site see as draconian and outdated? So its a skirt to a law, put in place to keep pussies happy, sinilar to the "you have to accept me and let me push my way of life on you" laws.
The Bible instructs to follow the law of the land unless it conflicts with God's law. Perhaps that is how these folks interpreted it.
And, in OR, the fines and punishments were far beyond regular prosecution by a leftist fuckwad who had an axe to grind.
Just some arguments of how it looks from somewhere other than your legal books. Not all mine, just a point of view I dont think you can see, or if you do its hard to read it.
I think Christians should not judge homosexuals, bake the cake, pray for them, and maybe tell them about God's Grace. That love has nothing to do with judging people or creating a barrier to keep them from God.
And screw CO. I live here and it is so full of potheads and leftys I want to puke. It is cool I am going to go shooting with FM though.....
If these laws were applied evenly I could get behind them.
To say that they have been would be admitting you are a fool.
R
You have shown no similarity. Asking Ivanka for a meeting is not similar as refusing service. It may be poor business management, but it is not illegal.
We're talking about businesses violating laws. An individual being a total dick to someone on an airplane has nothing to do with violating the Civil Rights Act. Those fuckers who did that should have been shut up.They are abusing social norms and most likely airline regulations. If I was the airline, and it was possible, I would ban those guys from flying my airline again.They showed they couldn't behave themselves.
Ay carumba, now let's get into immigration.
You mention her a lot though.
Your conflating individuals crossing social norms to businesses who violate laws, it's not the same.
Yes, it's my argument that's flat.
Darkearth
you werent a regular poster under that name on scout and I dont remember you from '14 when we moved. What was your user name? Just so I can tie your work in the pot here to a name I have read before.
Your arguement is purely ideological that the laws on the books are correct and constitutionally sound (dont tell me they have met challenge and are, many that arent have been ok'd by the SCOTUS) and as RthurD stated, they are applied with great prejudice.
If the left thinks they are screwed now, how about my man DJ Trump has his goons go after the lefties like the govt agencies did conservatives the last 8 yrs?
I am a staunch Constitutionalist and would not endorse or support that, just the thought of how they think they are being treated right now compared to those witch hunts cracks me up.
Someone get Graham here to weigh in. And VJJ so we know we are home!
you werent a regular poster under that name on scout and I dont remember you from '14 when we moved. What was your user name? Just so I can tie your work in the pot here to a name I have read before.
Your arguement is purely ideological that the laws on the books are correct and constitutionally sound (dont tell me they have met challenge and are, many that arent have been ok'd by the SCOTUS) and as RthurD stated, they are applied with great prejudice.
If the left thinks they are screwed now, how about my man DJ Trump has his goons go after the lefties like the govt agencies did conservatives the last 8 yrs?
I am a staunch Constitutionalist and would not endorse or support that, just the thought of how they think they are being treated right now compared to those witch hunts cracks me up.
Someone get Graham here to weigh in. And VJJ so we know we are home!
Powdahound76
i've been a lurker, mostly in equipment related. I made a couple of posts about Sig optics recently. Haven't posted anything but that. Generally, a beginning long distance shooter, love to shoot anything that goes bang. And shoot something every week. I defend and support 2A.
Saw the forum change and looked in the Bear Pit to read the We're Back post and saw this thread and contributed to it.
Any law is subject to revision or reinterpretation it depends on how much interest there is in changing it.
State laws can be written to undermine Federal law. This is always in flux.
i've been a lurker, mostly in equipment related. I made a couple of posts about Sig optics recently. Haven't posted anything but that. Generally, a beginning long distance shooter, love to shoot anything that goes bang. And shoot something every week. I defend and support 2A.
Saw the forum change and looked in the Bear Pit to read the We're Back post and saw this thread and contributed to it.
Any law is subject to revision or reinterpretation it depends on how much interest there is in changing it.
State laws can be written to undermine Federal law. This is always in flux.
Sure there is similarity. Ivanka signed up for a class under a pseudonym. Likely when the SS showed up to do a security sweep the proprietor said no service until she has her face to face meeting in order to harangue the client desiring service. Is every customer submitted to her BS in order to do some cardio?
Correct we we are talking about a business violating laws. Why does Ivanka Trump have to go through an interview regarding her father and her views. Show me where other clients had to do same or stand by for a lawyer up your ass. There is likely, or should be, a clause posted somewhere "We exercise the right to provide or deny service without discretion" Fine, exercise it and shut the fuck up without going to the media blabbing about how you fight for your other clients. If you do that you basically indicate you are treating this client differently. Which I think as a business owner she should have the right to do and so should the Christian bakers. EXCEPT that the hypocrisy of the left states "believe as I do and agree with our diversity".
Immigration. Yep, the point of this is hypocrisy and immigration is another example of hypocrisy. Trumps policy does nothing previous Presidential policy did. I experienced it in grade school when a classmate was shipped back to Iran by Carter. 4 weeks ago Obam shut the door on the Cubans. Where was the humanity and the outrage. None, just hypocrisy.
Conflating individuals crossing social norms is more hypocrisy. Kelly Anne Conway in a fit of pique makes the statement to wit "Oh just buy the Ivanka shit. Who gives a crap". Still an abuse of her office. Total silence on a Sec of State using her office to deal influence through the Clinton Initiative. Evidence of this being the org has died since her loss. The creepy son in law must have been getting fed inside info as he has shut down his funds. More hypocrisy. Never mind that uranium she sold to Putin now the lefts number one straw man.
Flat like a pancake but I did agree with the idea that people should follow the Golden Rule, Yada, Yada, shut the fuck up and decide whether you are a business person or a social justice warrior than get on with it
We could do without the hypocrisy but should point it out when it happens.
Last edited:
Kind of lost track of the fact we are back in Lowlights House, got used to the free for all shitstorm in the slum that was scout.
This post likely violates the house rules.
Darkearth you should get your response. Hit me up in PM or let's go back to the mud pit of Scout and continue.
.....or if there is a time to decompress and adjust to civilization with Lowlight allowing us to readjust to the common courtesies than let's continue.
This post likely violates the house rules.
Darkearth you should get your response. Hit me up in PM or let's go back to the mud pit of Scout and continue.
.....or if there is a time to decompress and adjust to civilization with Lowlight allowing us to readjust to the common courtesies than let's continue.
Running a small business I learned something. As the business owner, I had the right to refuse service to anyone, any time, anywhere. I also learned that money is green, spends equally the same whether it came from a gay, demorat, or anyone else who at the time I found intolerable. Hopefully we can get back to the rights of the business owner.
As a Psychological Counselor in two programs, I have found people have a natural selector for what each sees as intolerable. It is their gut measure. If it causes a negative gut reaction, it is intolerable. On does not have to over ride that. It is one;s choice in values. Should one go against those guy reactions, and try to tolerate the intolerable, they will sooner or later have issues
As a Psychological Counselor in two programs, I have found people have a natural selector for what each sees as intolerable. It is their gut measure. If it causes a negative gut reaction, it is intolerable. On does not have to over ride that. It is one;s choice in values. Should one go against those guy reactions, and try to tolerate the intolerable, they will sooner or later have issues
The Baker had the right to refuse service, so does the gym owner. If you were pro the Baker, you by logic should be pro-gym owner. As Scalia once said "You sometimes have to back the verdict that you don't like if it's right." Or something close to it...
Now - irony alert - Ivanka and her husband were the only ones in the Admin who actually advocated for the LGBT(to the nth letter) community. To use her as a lightning rod for expressing anti-Trumpism is effectively isolating the one friendly you have in the enemy's camp. Dumb.
Now - irony alert - Ivanka and her husband were the only ones in the Admin who actually advocated for the LGBT(to the nth letter) community. To use her as a lightning rod for expressing anti-Trumpism is effectively isolating the one friendly you have in the enemy's camp. Dumb.
Pmclaine
I addressed your original question and explained the difference. You're not convinced. I believe I've made my point. You keep throwing in points that I see as irrelevant regarding actual laws that were violated. I didn't make those laws up.
Me a social warrior, lol!!!
Not much more to say.
I addressed your original question and explained the difference. You're not convinced. I believe I've made my point. You keep throwing in points that I see as irrelevant regarding actual laws that were violated. I didn't make those laws up.
Me a social warrior, lol!!!
Not much more to say.
Upon reading the Forum rules, this thread should have been nuked from the beginning simply by the topic title.
I tried to stick to the judicial aspect of the thread, but it keeps getting steered into religion and politics. I'm guilty of touching on those subjects on this thread, I've removed 3 of my sentences to conform to the forum rules.
"6. Political discussion is prohibited, as is any discussion on religion and religious matters. The posting of political or religious material will be deemed disruptive and maybe result in disciplinary action without notice or warning. Sniper's Hide has zero tolerance for political posts of any kind. Whether under guise of a political joke, or a blatant propaganda piece, no political posts means, no political posts, period.
Religious Posts of any kind are also strictly forbidden on the site. This site is not for discussion of one's faith as we feel that is private matter best left off the forum. "
I tried to stick to the judicial aspect of the thread, but it keeps getting steered into religion and politics. I'm guilty of touching on those subjects on this thread, I've removed 3 of my sentences to conform to the forum rules.
"6. Political discussion is prohibited, as is any discussion on religion and religious matters. The posting of political or religious material will be deemed disruptive and maybe result in disciplinary action without notice or warning. Sniper's Hide has zero tolerance for political posts of any kind. Whether under guise of a political joke, or a blatant propaganda piece, no political posts means, no political posts, period.
Religious Posts of any kind are also strictly forbidden on the site. This site is not for discussion of one's faith as we feel that is private matter best left off the forum. "
You are almost spot on. The courts have overstepped their authority with the equal rights laws. They should apply only to the govt. They should have no bearing on the private sector. As a business owner. I should be able to hang a sign that says. No Whites, No Gays, No Blacks or whatever on my store front. Let the people decide if they want to do business in my store. If any special group does not like it. They can go stand on public property and protest all they want. Basic economics will decide the fate of my business. The progressives have mastered the sjw aspect of getting their way. They do organize and protest. The middle ground ignores and goes about their day. The right makes a few phone calls to their political rep. Which one gets the backing of the propaganda/media?
BTW. Good to see you here posting again.
BTW, darkearth the rules were relaxed a while ago and we are waiting to see what Papa Frank and the Mods (helluva name for their boy band, they can all wear diapers!) say about it now that we are back home.
I've told people that psychologically, they really have to trust their body for their gut reaction to things for tolerance ind intolerance. If it makes you nauseous thinking about it for self, it is intolerable to you, and you should, in good conscience, not support it or you will have moderate to severe personal issues that will cause stress, which is exhibited by mood swing, short temper, emotional imbalance, and general malaise.
This is a base for good business practice for self.
Similar threads
