California chef won't serve customers wearing MAGA hats

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

Really? Are you convinced that had a straight relative of one of the gay men ordered the cake and told the baker it was for a gay "wedding" that he would have been fine baking it? Not likely. Thus, your complaint that he was targeting gay customers is falsified, especially as there is no evidence he refused gay customers ordering things other than "wedding" cakes. Accommodation laws that apply only to subgroups of people put the government in the position of picking winners and losers, something I don't want.

Hypotheticals are irrelevant to the case in point.
Accomodation laws protect those who have been historically discriminated against.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

again, he didn't refuse the cake. He refused the message on the cake. fk can't you idiots ever get the facts correct?

Baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding: 'I don't discriminate'

"“I don't discriminate against anybody — I serve everybody that comes in my shop,” Phillips said. “I don't create cakes for every message that people ask me to create."

Bingo. Thus, the mantra that he targets gay customers, refuses gay customers, hates gay customers, etc. Is false. It's easy to identify if you simply replace the customer. If a straight person ordered a wedding cake as a favor to a gay friend for a gay "wedding", he/she would be refused. In that scenario, there's no gay customer involved.

Great. That's not the scenario that occurred.

 

[hadit]

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?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

Really? Are you convinced that had a straight relative of one of the gay men ordered the cake and told the baker it was for a gay "wedding" that he would have been fine baking it? Not likely. Thus, your complaint that he was targeting gay customers is falsified, especially as there is no evidence he refused gay customers ordering things other than "wedding" cakes. Accommodation laws that apply only to subgroups of people put the government in the position of picking winners and losers, something I don't want.

Hypotheticals are irrelevant to the case in point.
Accomodation laws protect those who have been historically discriminated against.

And the case in point is a baker who serves gay customers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Exactly. Any pretense that these laws are about individual or civil rights is a joke. They are about empowering government to do social engineering.

Yes, by codifying civil penalties for systematic discrimination that historically excluded groups from pursuing their freedoms.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The business owner decides what they will tolerate in their place of work. If you wish to patronize their establishment, you should respect that or move on.

Ummmmmm………...what if he doesn't want to tolerate blacks or homosexuals or trannies in his place of work? Does he get to show them the door, post a "No Trannies" sign and such, and no problem?

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

Christ, you dopes are dense. Obviously
my statement was made in reference to a hat. Not public accomodation laws.

The way you dopes pine for a return to racial discrimination only serves to reinforce the obvious white supremacist undertones of the MAGA hat.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The business owner decides what they will tolerate in their place of work. If you wish to patronize their establishment, you should respect that or move on.

Ummmmmm………...what if he doesn't want to tolerate blacks or homosexuals or trannies in his place of work? Does he get to show them the door, post a "No Trannies" sign and such, and no problem?

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

no, he's saying only he gets to decide who gets served.

I'm not saying that at all, dope. There are clear laws that have decided that for more than fifty years. A hat is not protected by those laws. People are.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The business owner decides what they will tolerate in their place of work. If you wish to patronize their establishment, you should respect that or move on.

Ummmmmm………...what if he doesn't want to tolerate blacks or homosexuals or trannies in his place of work? Does he get to show them the door, post a "No Trannies" sign and such, and no problem?

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

He's a hypocrite. He wants it both ways.

No, I simply understand the law, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It appears that you are advocating for government force in some situations when you are sympathetic to the cause or beliefs of the person being excluded from services, but you're okay with government sitting on its ass in other situations.

I am within my right to refuse to serve fat people. But, fat black people are protected by government force.

Amazon sells a pink (!) baseball cap with the words printed on it TRUMP 2020. I'm seriously considering getting one and wearing it in public; remember, women get to wear hats inside, though men aren't supposed to. So I could wear it anywhere ----

What do people think of that? I can remember when people wore "I Like Ike" buttons in church. Political expression just was not viewed as a problem---it was considered mildly humorous. Now women get on TV and say a MAGA hat is "triggering," whatever that means. Upsetting, I guess. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone shocked or upset me by what they said or did; I'd be a rich lady. Now I guess people are supposed to walk on tiptoe, and in fact, that's what we're all doing. There are NO political bumper stickers anymore: at least not in Maryland, I can tell you. How much trouble will I get into if I wear my pink Trump hat? Might be fun to try it and see.

Great way to highlight the fact that dopes like yourself wear these for no other reason than to flame and incite.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

no, he's saying only he gets to decide who gets served.

So...…...he can decide that he doesn't want to serve Irish men in his bar and post a sign? And that's okay? If you think that's where we are, I doubt that.

No, dope. Public accomodation laws protect from discrimination based on national origin.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

no, he's saying only he gets to decide who gets served.

So...…...he can decide that he doesn't want to serve Irish men in his bar and post a sign? And that's okay? If you think that's where we are, I doubt that.

I said that he thinks he can, yes.

I've said just the opposite, loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Your idea of "freedom" is certainly fair for some. History has shown that.

History hasn't. I agree.

Can you make that argument today?

Have you lost that much faith in the average Joe that you believe a black guy can't get a hotel room or a gay couple can't get a wedding cake?

Is it really that important to teach those bigots a lesson by force, at the expense of liberty?

Liberty is the path forward.

I fight for the liberty of those with whom I disagree.

I find very few redeeming qualities of the New Black Panthers, but when they march carrying rifles, I will grab my rifle and march with them for their right to do so. We will never agree on much, but at least they can see my respect for their rights.

People are more likely to be united through mutual and reciprocal support of rights. Don't you agree? That is the REAL cure for bigotry.

.

You rely too heavily on your own flawed imagination.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Making America great again is about paying American workers a living wage.

It would be much easier for American workers to demand such a wage when the job market is not flooded by non-Americans who are not investing in America, but sending their earnings to their homeland.

LOL

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

Really? Are you convinced that had a straight relative of one of the gay men ordered the cake and told the baker it was for a gay "wedding" that he would have been fine baking it? Not likely. Thus, your complaint that he was targeting gay customers is falsified, especially as there is no evidence he refused gay customers ordering things other than "wedding" cakes. Accommodation laws that apply only to subgroups of people put the government in the position of picking winners and losers, something I don't want.

Hypotheticals are irrelevant to the case in point.
Accomodation laws protect those who have been historically discriminated against.

And the case in point is a baker who serves gay customers.

No. Your "what ifs" are hypothetical and not related to the chef in any way.

 

[hadit]

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?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

Really? Are you convinced that had a straight relative of one of the gay men ordered the cake and told the baker it was for a gay "wedding" that he would have been fine baking it? Not likely. Thus, your complaint that he was targeting gay customers is falsified, especially as there is no evidence he refused gay customers ordering things other than "wedding" cakes. Accommodation laws that apply only to subgroups of people put the government in the position of picking winners and losers, something I don't want.

Hypotheticals are irrelevant to the case in point.
Accomodation laws protect those who have been historically discriminated against.

And the case in point is a baker who serves gay customers.

No. Your "what ifs" are hypothetical and not related to the chef in any way.

It's not a hypothetical that the baker serves gay customers. It's also not a hypothetical that the chef stated he would not serve anyone who displayed a message he did not like. Nor is it a hypothetical that the baker did not want to be forced to write a message he did not like. It is not a hypothetical that accommodation laws that do not include everyone put the government in the position of picking winners and losers.

The only hypothetical is the very intriguing and illuminating one in which a straight person orders a cake for a gay "wedding", which destroys the myth that the baker doesn't serve gay customers.

 

[Circe]

Christ, you dopes are dense. Obviously
my statement was made in reference to a hat. Not public accomodation laws.

The way you dopes pine for a return to racial discrimination only serves to reinforce the obvious white supremacist undertones of the MAGA hat.

What you said wasn't at all clear: you need to write more clearly. The one thing that IS clear about the restaurant furor(s) is that public accommodation laws are whacking up against the established customs of hats off inside, no-shirt-no-shoes-no-service, no colors, such customs as that. This kind of political discrimination by businesses never happened before and we do not have a cultural process to follow.

Your calling names doesn't cast any light on the issue, except that to show you are not just an unclear writer, but probably not very able generally.

 

[jc456]

Your idea of "freedom" is certainly fair for some. History has shown that.

History hasn't. I agree.

Can you make that argument today?

Have you lost that much faith in the average Joe that you believe a black guy can't get a hotel room or a gay couple can't get a wedding cake?

Is it really that important to teach those bigots a lesson by force, at the expense of liberty?

Liberty is the path forward.

I fight for the liberty of those with whom I disagree.

I find very few redeeming qualities of the New Black Panthers, but when they march carrying rifles, I will grab my rifle and march with them for their right to do so. We will never agree on much, but at least they can see my respect for their rights.

People are more likely to be united through mutual and reciprocal support of rights. Don't you agree? That is the REAL cure for bigotry.

.

You rely too heavily on your own flawed imagination.

and imagination escapes you.

 

[Circe]

I'm not saying that at all, dope. There are clear laws that have decided that for more than fifty years. A hat is not protected by those laws. People are.

Wrong. There are no laws requiring men to take off hats inside. It's purely a custom. And for many, such as blacks wearing do-rags, it is no longer followed. And the custom never applied to women.

 

[Avatar4321]

If he wants to be stupid enough to do that, he is free to.

Be hilarious if a bunch of people in Maga hats walkers in and waited for service

 

[Circe]

I've said just the opposite, loser.

Nobody can figure out WHAT you are saying. Maybe some of those "how to write" self-help books?

 

[jc456]

I'm not saying that at all, dope. There are clear laws that have decided that for more than fifty years. A hat is not protected by those laws. People are.

Wrong. There are no laws requiring men to take off hats inside. It's purely a custom. And for many, such as blacks wearing do-rags, it is no longer followed. And the custom never applied to women.

If I recall from my childhood correctly, women were to put scarfs or hats on inside. But it was respectful for a man to take his hat off after entering a building. I still do that. That's called tradition and one handed down from my father god rest his soul. I honor my dead father by continuing that tradition.