Their hate doesn't end
Comments
-
For all the talk of inclusion that's the left has forced down our throats the last decade, making a distinction here is antithetical to those mores.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
You want to actually be inclusive, fine. But don't be a fucking hypocrite when it doesn't serve your agenda. -
Being a hypocrite doesn’t make you wrong.pawz said:
For all the talk of inclusion that's the left has forced down our throats the last decade, making a distinction here is antithetical to those mores.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
You want to actually be inclusive, fine. But don't be a fucking hypocrite when it doesn't serve your agenda.
I do not think the MAGA hat is a symbol for hate or like a KKK hood. I would prefer people not banning it but I understand why some do view it that way.
Maybe you guys should try doing a better job explaining your positions so it isn’t so easily confused with racism.
-
We all need to hear what the other person is saying and respect it
Not really -
Both rely upon how the person identifies at a particular time.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
-
Technically, you can't discriminate against a person for being straight either.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Both rely upon how the person identifies at a particular time.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
-
Let's take a moment to recognize the braveryIt hasn’t happened yet, but if you come to my restaurant wearing a MAGA cap, you aren’t getting served, same as if you come in wearing a swastika, white hood, or any other symbol of intolerance and hate.
— J. Kenji “Individual Fun” López-Alt (@kenjilopezalt) January 27, 2019
With perhaps tens of dollars in lost business at stake, he chose to make a stand. -
An individual being forced to do art for someone for any reason is aggression on that individual. Not surprised the leftists have no issue with it.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
-
And this is how you justify whites only restaurants.MikeDamone said:
An individual being forced to do art for someone for any reason is aggression on that individual. Not surprised the leftists have no issue with it.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
-
We have a lot of them, don't we?allpurpleallgold said:
And this is how you justify whites only restaurants.MikeDamone said:
An individual being forced to do art for someone for any reason is aggression on that individual. Not surprised the leftists have no issue with it.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
-
No, we don’t. Because libertarians can’t win elections.Blu82 said:
We have a lot of them, don't we?allpurpleallgold said:
And this is how you justify whites only restaurants.MikeDamone said:
An individual being forced to do art for someone for any reason is aggression on that individual. Not surprised the leftists have no issue with it.greenblood said:I agree with APAG here. I find the banning of the hat childish and quite frankly cowardly. But, there is a difference between discriminating against somebody's sexual preference and somebody's political affiliation, in that one is federally protected and the other isn't.
