It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Left Hypocrisy on Serve / No Serve; Don't Tell Me 'Both Sides Do It'

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

The gay couple were not refused a birthday cake. Good try.




posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A moral objection to someone who is perfectly willing to hurt others who haven't done anything. It is not because of who he is or how he lives his life. It is because of what he will do to others.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But Ketsuko said the baker refused because they couldn't sell a wedding cake for an event that wasn't recognized as a wedding?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So it is okay for an individual to refuse service based on political ideology.


If that person is running a service of public accommodation, no.


Now, now. Entertainment is a service industry.

She can refuse service because there are others that can provide that service.

She has a right to refuse because her ideology does not match the ideology of the customer requesting service.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So it is okay for an individual to refuse service based on political ideology.


If that person is running a service of public accommodation, no.


But the Rockettes are contractually obligated to a business that is one that works for the public.


How many times do I have to say that I don't know much about that issue?

The Rockettes may be in the wrong. I don't know.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

My problem is not with you, it's the left, who demand everyone do as they do and think how they think and the rules only apply in the ways they want.

It's complete hypocrisy. I think the baker should be able to refuse an event. I think a singer should be able to as well. I think the refusal needs to be based on the event, and not the person making the purchase.

No hypocrisy from me. The left is incredibly hypocritical. It's the reason I left Massachusetts after 30 years.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A moral objection to someone who is perfectly willing to hurt others who haven't done anything. It is not because of who he is or how he lives his life. It is because of what he will do to others.


Oh, than you agree we should takes strong steps to keep Muslim radicals out of this country. You know, the ones like the guys running wild in Europe who keep driving large trucks through crowded venues or showing up to public places with guns (in countries with strict gun control mind you) and shooting as many as they can or invading churches and slitting the priests' throats in front of their parishoners or planting bombs or raping women or ...

Because I can understand why you'd be all over finding ways to keep those people out.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But Ketsuko said the baker refused because they couldn't sell a wedding cake for an event that wasn't recognized as a wedding?


No. I explained what the baker's moral objection was based on.

The state now recognized it as a wedding, but to a devoutly religious Christian, God does not.

And that has nothing to do with any other kind of anything and you well know it. Don't play coy to avoid thinking about the entirely of the post I wrote.
edit on 31-12-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Right, well it is slightly different if they refused and they were contracted to do so. Some of the facts of this story seem a little confused.


“For a Rockette to be considered for an event, they must voluntarily sign up and are never told they have to perform at a particular event, including the inaugural,” the company said in a statement. “It is always their choice. In fact, for the coming inauguration, we had more Rockettes request to participate than we have slots available.”


source



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: twfau

My understanding is that there are two levels of Rockettes: full-time and part-time. There is also a contract. My understanding is that the full-time Rockettes are contractually obligated to perform and the part-time ones can pick and choose, but they don't get paid for the appearances they don't appear at.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Terrorists? Sure. Innocent Muslims? No.

Should we refuse service to terrorist gays? Absolutely.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



She can refuse service because there are others that can provide that service.


She can refuse to perform because the choir is completely voluntary and she is not asking anyone else to bear the burden of her decision.



She has a right to refuse because her ideology does not match the ideology of the customer requesting service.


Correct. Now if she was an employee of an entity of public accommodation, it would be a different story.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

Terrorists? Sure. Innocent Muslims? No.

Should we refuse service to terrorist gays? Absolutely.


OK, since you are so smart, how do you tell which is which when there is no paper trail?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Should we refuse service to terrorist gays? Absolutely.


I'm not afraid of them. I mean, come on, what are their suicide vests filled with, sparkle and glitter?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But when does a person become a service-based employer as opposed to an employee of public accommodation?

Remember the photographer who was sued?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: twfau
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Right, well it is slightly different if they refused and they were contracted to do so. Some of the facts of this story seem a little confused.


“For a Rockette to be considered for an event, they must voluntarily sign up and are never told they have to perform at a particular event, including the inaugural,” the company said in a statement. “It is always their choice. In fact, for the coming inauguration, we had more Rockettes request to participate than we have slots available.”


source


No they don't. You just cherry picked the part you like. The Rockettes are made up of some who are under contract and must show up, and others who sign up for the events they want.

Because of the left wanting people to cancel, they were forced to tell the CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED Rockettes they did not have to show up. The left sees this as a win .. because they are hypocrites.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Should we refuse service to terrorist gays? Absolutely.


I'm not afraid of them. I mean, come on, what are their suicide vests filled with, sparkle and glitter?


FABULOUS!

And the jazz hands ...



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You are correct.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Someone has to take her place.

I'm glad to see that we can agree that it is okay to refuse service to those with different beliefs.




posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

So Trump is not a terrorist .. so they have to provide service. Thanks for clearing that up.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join