Their hate doesn't end
Does this fall under the left's "inclusion" or "understanding of other views"?
Comments
-
It’s a private business that can do what it wants, no?
-
Not the argument, at all.
-
They're just trying to save the planet
-
Not if they're a bakery that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay marriage.allpurpleallgold said:It’s a private business that can do what it wants, no?
-
Boom
-
Roasted?
-
-
You can’t find any differences between homosexuality and a hat?SFGbob said:
Not if they're a bakery that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay marriage.allpurpleallgold said:It’s a private business that can do what it wants, no?
-
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.
-
I can find a difference between homosexuality and a hat, but I see no difference from restaurant that wants to ban someone because of a hat and a bakery that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Most of those bakeries had no problem with having gay customers they just didn't want to be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This restaurant is banning anyone who wears the hat under all circumstances.allpurpleallgold said:
You can’t find any differences between homosexuality and a hat?SFGbob said:
Not if they're a bakery that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay marriage.allpurpleallgold said:It’s a private business that can do what it wants, no?
-
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.
-
Please, the left's go to attack is accuse the other side of being racist. There's no "confusing" with racism. Every single Republican President and Republican Presidential candidate since Nixon, including the Sainted McCain and even Romney were called racists by the left.allpurpleallgold said:
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.
-
So why try to take this into the weeds by bringing it up?allpurpleallgold said:
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.
-
Fun History Fact of the Day: Slaves were taken away from Democrats.allpurpleallgold said:
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.
Hope this helps.
-
Before or after they magically became R's?pawz said:
Fun History Fact of the Day: Slaves were taken away from Democrats.allpurpleallgold said:
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.
Hope this helps.
This is so confusing. I'll ax George Wallace. -
Because I hate libertarians.Blu82 said:
So why try to take this into the weeds by bringing it up?allpurpleallgold said:
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.
-
allpurpleallgold said:
Because I hate libertarians.Blu82 said:
So why try to take this into the weeds by bringing it up?allpurpleallgold said:
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.
-
Your rainbow is pretty.
-
Why? They basically want the same thing you do with regards to the establishment - save the size and scope of government.allpurpleallgold said:
Because I hate libertarians.Blu82 said:
So why try to take this into the weeds by bringing it up?allpurpleallgold said:
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.
-
This is actually trueSFGbob said:
Please, the left's go to attack is accuse the other side of being racist. There's no "confusing" with racism. Every single Republican President and Republican Presidential candidate since Nixon, including the Sainted McCain and even Romney were called racists by the left.allpurpleallgold said:
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. -
Because you know what’s best for other people and like to use the force and violence of government so individuals will comply with your good ideas.allpurpleallgold said:
Because I hate libertarians.Blu82 said:
So why try to take this into the weeds by bringing it up?allpurpleallgold said:
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.
