California chef won't serve customers wearing MAGA hats

[Circe]

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.

Very nice, IMO.
As for the women thing with scarves, I believe you are thinking of churches, especially Catholic churches. I think that was required for a long time! Not too different from the hijab business Muslim women are oppressed with.
Hats are pretty much out of fashion now, except for sunny situations for protection. But women can still wear any hat inside; we never take them off, unless we want to. When they were in fashion, we got in trouble in theaters, however. People would lean forward and ask us to take them off. Very embarrassing.
Anyway, there's no laws about hats! Just some changing customs. Rapidly changing, if a lot of us, men and women, start wearing MAGA or Trump 2020 hats inside public places---as I think we must, or these Leftists will continue to intimidate everyone, and that's really getting unacceptable. Everyone do it, then they'll have to stop hitting people and will shut up. It wouldn't take too many arrests of women beating up people because they were "triggered" before they'd all stop being triggered. Either we fight back against this or we LOSE, people. I've decided to stop losing.

 

[jc456]

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.

Very nice, IMO.
As for the women thing with scarves, I believe you are thinking of churches, especially Catholic churches. I think that was required for a long time! Not too different from the hijab business Muslim women are oppressed with.
Hats are pretty much out of fashion now, except for sunny situations for protection. But women can still wear any hat inside; we never take them off, unless we want to. When they were in fashion, we got in trouble in theaters, however. People would lean forward and ask us to take them off. Very embarrassing.
Anyway, there's no laws about hats! Just some changing customs. Rapidly changing, if a lot of us, men and women, start wearing MAGA or Trump 2020 hats inside public places---as I think we must, or these Leftists will continue to intimidate everyone, and that's really getting unacceptable. Everyone do it, then they'll have to stop hitting people and will shut up. It wouldn't take too many arrests of women beating up people because they were "triggered" before they'd all stop being triggered. Either we fight back against this or we LOSE, people. I've decided to stop losing.

As for the women thing with scarves, I believe you are thinking of churches, especially Catholic churches.

You are correct, thanks for the direction there.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

What you said wasn't at all clear: you need to write more

It is when you bother to read the whole conversation, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

I never said they were, dope. In fact, I said specifically they were not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Your incompetence is not surprising.

 

[hadit]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

Yes. This is what you said. A hypothetical.

"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."

 

[hadit]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

Yes. This is what you said. A hypothetical.

"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."

Can you not read? I listed things that were NOT hypothetical, then listed the one hypothetical I presented to illustrate a point, one which you choose to ignore, as well as ignoring the non-hypotheticals. Now, you can continue complaining that I presented you with inconvenient truths they you can't deal with, but that won't make them go away.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

Yes. This is what you said. A hypothetical.

"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."

Can you not read? I listed things that were NOT hypothetical, then listed the one hypothetical I presented to illustrate a point, one which you choose to ignore, as well as ignoring the non-hypotheticals. Now, you can continue complaining that I presented you with inconvenient truths they you can't deal with, but that won't make them go away.

I can read very well. Obviously you have difficulty however.

 

[hadit]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

Yes. This is what you said. A hypothetical.

"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."

Can you not read? I listed things that were NOT hypothetical, then listed the one hypothetical I presented to illustrate a point, one which you choose to ignore, as well as ignoring the non-hypotheticals. Now, you can continue complaining that I presented you with inconvenient truths they you can't deal with, but that won't make them go away.

I can read very well. Obviously you have difficulty however.

What then is your difficulty?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

Yes. This is what you said. A hypothetical.

"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."

As long as he didn't have to customize it for a gay wedding, he wouldn't have had a problem with it.

 

[hadit]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

Yes. This is what you said. A hypothetical.

"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."

As long as he didn't have to customize it for a gay wedding, he wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Hence the point that he doesn't refuse to serve gay customers. I also maintain that he would refuse to serve a straight customer if the customer ordered a celebratory cake for a gay "wedding". The hate directed at this guy is insane.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

This is hypothetical, dope.

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.

Which is what I said. Reading comprehension problem?

Yes. This is what you said. A hypothetical.

"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."

As long as he didn't have to customize it for a gay wedding, he wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Hence the point that he doesn't refuse to serve gay customers. I also maintain that he would refuse to serve a straight customer if the customer ordered a celebratory cake for a gay "wedding". The hate directed at this guy is insane.

Exactly. From what I understand, he sold these people products in the past and was very aware of their sexual preference.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Maga fucks are against my religion, which is the true one our founding fathers were all about. If you don't ban maga fucks you aren't a true patriot.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Are you a true Patriot?

 

[Chuz Life]

Maga fucks are against my religion, which is the true one our founding fathers were all about. If you don't ban maga fucks you aren't a true patriot.

Except. . .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maga fucks are against my religion, which is the true one our founding fathers were all about. If you don't ban maga fucks you aren't a true patriot.

Communism is not a religion.

 

[Lakhota]

MAGA hats made in MEXICO. So funny...

 

[hadit]

MAGA hats made in MEXICO. So funny...

I'm sure you'll get over it.