California chef won't serve customers wearing MAGA hats

[Hutch Starskey]

Not surprised you can't understand it. Both cases involve Constitutional rights. One is freedom of speech and the other is freedom of religion.

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establisbment. There's only their rules.

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

 

[BS Filter]

Not surprised you can't understand it. Both cases involve Constitutional rights. One is freedom of speech and the other is freedom of religion.

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establisbment. There's only their rules.

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. Fuck your law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's the law. Grow up.

I am arguing that the law is unjust and a violation of rights.

We arent talking about blacks or gays. We're talking about attire.

What if a black dude is wearing a MAGA hat? And, therein lies your pretext.

I can kick a gay dude who is dressed inapproriately as I'm kicking him for his attire and not soley for being gay.

You can see how "inappropriately dressed" can be set up as a pretext for kick him out because he is gay, right?

I guess that's a concept that is a bit too mature and nuanced for you to understand.

Cut the bullshit. I know you're no idiot and I expect you know the same about me.

Jackasses have a right to not be a jackass.
Blacks can't not be black.

Black jackasses have a right to be jackasses and still force service because they are protected.

I know you see the problem. You just won't admit it because you want a particular result.

 

[hadit]

My position on this has been clear and correct all the way around.

This America hater is not
required to give service to MAGA hat wearers.

Bakeries are not required to bake a faggot cake.

It's callwd freedom.

Most of you hate other people's freedom, and so I hate the fuck out of you!!!

.

Your position is confused and without merit.

A dress code has nothing to do with denying service based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. That is codified.
In fact, the MAGA hat wearer is welcome once the hat is removed.

Just like the gay customers are welcome as soon as they drop their demand for a custom congratulatory gay "wedding" cake.

No. Not "just like". Not in any way.

If course it is. There is zero evidence the baker refused to serve gay customers, zero evidence he targeted gay customers. He refused one product and would have refused it had the straight mother of one of the couple come in and requested a cake for a gay "wedding". Thus, it was not gay customers he was refusing (as the customer would be straight), but the event he was objecting to. Same as your claim that the customer is welcome as long as he takes off the hat. Just as with the bakery case, it is not the customer that is objectionable, it is the event or message.

Or is nuance only acceptable in certain cases?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

Yes. And we are demonstrating how those laws are WRONG and should be declared unconstitutional.

You're arguing that government forcing services for some people is logically sound SOLELY because it's the law.

If you want to continue with circular reasoning, I am not interested in such a discussion.

Yes. And we are demonstrating how those laws are WRONG and should be declared unconstitutional.

Again, your imagination is not evidence of reality.

The law doesn't exist in a vacuum. They are a result of years of systematic discrimination.

 

[jc456]

Not surprised you can't understand it. Both cases involve Constitutional rights. One is freedom of speech and the other is freedom of religion.

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establisbment. There's only their rules.

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

dude, these fks talk out each sides of their mouth. they are disgusting humans.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The law sucks.

Nobody is arguing that it's not the law. You're blowing away that strawman with a gale.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establisbment. There's only their rules.

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. Fuck your law.

Great.
The law still stands.

 

[jc456]

I can read, but I don't own a TV, and that definitely influences my understanding of the world.

Probably for the better.

I think so.

Our TV viewing is down to an episode of Shark Tank and an Aerial America and that is it.

well I just slammed the door on Hawaii Five O. Every program today has LGBT in it now, and I'm not watching any TV trying to force an agenda. just ain't. shame. but hello netflix on my old tv programs before the tied of the ram the gays down my throat objective.

what's even funnier, is I have a couple friend that have a gay son, and they can not stand the ram it down our throats gay crap.

 

[BS Filter]

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. Fuck your law.

Great.
The law still stands.

The law has been gutted. Whenever queers can sue a business owner for not submitting to their deviant demands, this country is toast. Fuck you.

 

[Desperado]

Better to have him out front like that, than not saying how he hates Americans and doing nasty thing to the food he serves them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. Fuck your law.

Great.
The law still stands.

The law has been gutted. Whenever queers can sue a business owner for not submitting to their deviant demands, this country is toast. Fuck you.

LOL

It hasn't. It's still a federal statute. The court simply ruled that it didn't apply in that case.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again, your imagination is not evidence of reality.

To what are you referring? Government force is not a reality? Where has my imagination gone awry?

The law doesn't exist in a vacuum. They are a result of years of systematic discrimination.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. YOU want a particular result. You want an outcome. Fuck rights. Fuck equal protection. The outcome is more important to you.

Noble is the cause of shitting on the rights of others.

This way of thinking will end all freedom.

 

[Lesh]

I can read, but I don't own a TV, and that definitely influences my understanding of the world.

Probably for the better.

I think so.

Our TV viewing is down to an episode of Shark Tank and an Aerial America and that is it.

well I just slammed the door on Hawaii Five O. Every program today has LGBT in it now, and I'm not watching any TV trying to force an agenda. just ain't. shame. but hello netflix on my old tv programs before the tied of the ram the gays down my throat objective.

what's even funnier, is I have a couple friend that have a gay son, and they can not stand the ram it down our throats gay crap.

Newsflash...it ain't just TV..."the gays" are all around you and always have been

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It hasn't. It's still a federal statute. The court simply ruled that it didn't apply in that case.

Yes, it doesn't apply here. It does apply there. Carve out this exception to get the "right" result.

Freedom is the only fair way.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's the law. Grow up.

I am arguing that the law is unjust and a violation of rights.

We arent talking about blacks or gays. We're talking about attire.

What if a black dude is wearing a MAGA hat? And, therein lies your pretext.

I can kick a gay dude who is dressed inapproriately as I'm kicking him for his attire and not soley for being gay.

You can see how "inappropriately dressed" can be set up as a pretext for kick him out because he is gay, right?

I guess that's a concept that is a bit too mature and nuanced for you to understand.

Cut the bullshit. I know you're no idiot and I expect you know the same about me.

Jackasses have a right to not be a jackass.
Blacks can't not be black.

Black jackasses have a right to be jackasses and still force service because they are protected.

I know you see the problem. You just won't admit it because you want a particular result.

Pretext has to be proven in court. If the dresscode is posted and the person is not compliant and was made aware of that, there is no other argument.

 

[hadit]

Ultimately, freedom is messy, chaotic, and dangerous. It cannot survive when those who would be free abuse their freedom and harm others, so it is very difficult to keep.

It is, however, highly preferable to the alternative. I would rather someone have the freedom to offend me than the law ba able to muzzle him and me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Pretext has to be proven in court. If the dresscode is posted and the person is not compliant and was made aware of that, there is no other argument.

What about a dress code that prohibits any head covers of any kind?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ultimately, freedom is messy, chaotic, and dangerous. It cannot survive when those who would be free abuse their freedom and harm others, so it is very difficult to keep.

It's the people who value their own agenda above freedom who cannot be trusted.

 

[bodecea]

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establisbment. There's only their rules.

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. Fuck your law.

They did? Let's see that decision.

Simple solution....can't follow business law, get your license yanked. Easy Peasy.