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.

 

Judge rules New York City bar can refuse service to Trump supporter wearing MAGA hat

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Last I checked it worked out just fine for them since the judge ruled in their favor.
California judge rules in favor of baker who refused to make cake for same-sex couple




posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheJesuit

But a bakery can refuse to serve a gay couple.
That's just fine.


No they couldnt, thats the point.

I think both should be allowed to refuse service.

But we have a legal system that thinks its ok to refuse service based on one and not the other


Because one is a human rights issue and the other is political. The former is protected by law, the latter isn't.


I havent read most of the thread, and I feel the guy in this case may have been full of it, but I wanted to comment on this because I think its a very interesting area.

Where do we draw the line between what is political and what is a human right?

Here is what I mean.

The orginal bakery that got in troubl refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it was against their religous beliefs. NOw keep in mind, the store owners didnt say you cant come in my store because you are gay, they said we will not make a cake for gay marriage, because we dont believe in it religously.


the idea of gay marriage, although I fully support it, doesnt seem to be a human right to me. It seems to mostly be a political belief.
Now you may say that is not the case, but then things get tricky.,

What if a mormon comes in and wants me to bake three cakes for the wedding he is having where he is marrying three wives?

Am I allowed to object? You may say polygamy is against the law, therefore I could refuse.

But then the distinction becomes what is legal and what is not, which is an extension of political belief, not human rights.

OS look at it from the angle of the bar in the OP.

Ok, I can theoretically refuse service to a trump supporter, or hillary supporter, etc.

Can I refuse service for someone coming in to my bar with a shirt on that says support gay marriage, because I politically disagree with that?

To me I would allow these people to refuse service for any of these reasons, and if it was me, I would refuse service for none of the reasons.

But it is a very interesting area to look into to determine what is legal and what is not.
edit on 26-4-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Last I checked it worked out just fine for them since the judge ruled in their favor.
California judge rules in favor of baker who refused to make cake for same-sex couple


The original case of the colorado bakers I believe the court ruled against them.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

They are two separate incidents. The Colorado one is at the Supreme Court level at this time and a ruling is said to come this Spring. The court did rule against them.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Damn interesting points. Definitely something to think on. Maybe a thread?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Last I checked it worked out just fine for them since the judge ruled in their favor.
California judge rules in favor of baker who refused to make cake for same-sex couple


The original case of the colorado bakers I believe the court ruled against them.



The court I believe ruled in favor of the 10th where Colorado law dictated they have to serve gay people.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

'Oral' arguments were made but the original case from 2012 in Colorado is on the Supreme Docket for this year. California and Oregon have had similar cases.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

If you operate a business you should either pay a lawyer or learn the state laws. In this case they wanted to be above the law.

Now I don't agree with all laws. But I can't exactly just ignore them without risk either.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Grambler

Damn interesting points. Definitely something to think on. Maybe a thread?




Maybe I will make one.

I am fascinated by such questions, and dont think there is a clear easy answer, so it makes for a fun discussion.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJesuit
What would you do if it happens to you say...for the color red.. because of it's perceived affiliation..... What then?


Happens all the time.

Downtown Austin... I can't wear certain clothing and colors in most bars. Caps are often forbidden. Anything that could be considered gang related is not allowed in most bars. Hoodies are sometimes turned around as well.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

Any business can refuse service except for blatant discrimination, eg religion, sex, race, etc. Being affiliated with a political party is not covered at all.

Looks like the anti snowflake crowd is very much the snowflake crowd.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: TheJesuit
What would you do if it happens to you say...for the color red.. because of it's perceived affiliation..... What then?


Happens all the time.

Downtown Austin... I can't wear certain clothing and colors in most bars. Caps are often forbidden. Anything that could be considered gang related is not allowed in most bars. Hoodies are sometimes turned around as well.



Which colors, those that are gang affiliated or just random colors?

As far as hats, there are often dress codes (rightly) at some bars/clubs. Several years ago I went to this place in Buckhead with a few friends, and was told they had a blanket no hats policy. I was wearing a very nice fur felt fedora and was told I could not wear it inside. Not a stupid ball cap, not a visor, but a pricey fedora, not one of those cheap trendy ones. I took it off when entering, but put it on while inside. Thirty minutes or so later, some guy comes up to me and says "No hats, gotta take it off." I told him # you, and left. It's a GD fedora.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   
honestly imo if a business owner wants to refuse service to anyone for any reason they have that right just as we the consumer have the right to boycott the business if we dont agree with them. on top of that its not like there wasnt another bar within a couple minute jaunt for the guy to take his business to if he wanted a drink that bad. beyond laws protecting employees from horrible employers i believe people should be able to run their business how they want for who they want. the despicable people will earn themselves the appropriate reputation while the good ones thrive.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

There's a ghetto mall in one of the shadier parts of Anchorage that has apparel policies. No sports team affiliated gear, no doo rags, some ball caps are banned as is wearing one in particular ways (cockeyed, backward, etc)... The mall has a major issue with violence. Little thugs shooting each other frequently in the parking lot, scheming on women that are just trying to get to their cars, dealing drugs, etc.

I don't go there. If a business I intend to use is in a part of town occupied or frequented by savages to the degree that they have to start policing the color of clothing worn or what logos are on your damn cap, then it is almost certainly not a business I have any reason to enter (nor is it likely in a part of town I have any business being in.)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

my question would be just what determines what beliefs should be protected when it comes to religion?
obviously, the judge in this case didn't buy the guys claim that his mega hat was religious expression...
so, how many people do you need following the same belief you do before you get to have a judge acknowledge it? and, just who were those rights granted to? was it to those with many members or did they also intend on those with few members also. I mean, if you had one mormon in the whole state, would his beliefs get the same consideration as the main religion of the area? did they intend it for the individuals, or did they expect those rights to be extended to huge corporations also. I mean to some it's wrong to force a bakery owner to offer a cake for a gay couple, but then they seem to want to go beyond that and say that their employees can't make the cake either regardless of how they feel about it..
or, a hospital can decide that they will never offer, or advise birth control and abortion, and force that policy onto their employees, and well, if the hospital doesn't hold that few but some of their employees do, well, they shouldn't be forced to ever take part in anything to do with birth control or abortions... but what about those employees who find they have no option but to work for these hospitals? shouldn't they enjoy the same protection when they run into a case where they feel that it would be immoral, irresponsible, negligent not to offer birth control or abortion as an option? at least our discrimination laws now are designed to protect certain groups of the population that have had a history of being discriminated against on a big scale! they really don't center around what a person thinks or believes, you can believe whatever you want about a person, and still serve them. but when we start protecting peoples rights to act according to their beliefs as much as some seem to want no days... well, it seems that the gov't is being put into a position to decide just what beliefs are worthy of protecting and which ones can be ignored..
they guys belief that his mega hat was a form of religious expression, no matter how crazy it sounds to me, or the judge was just as worthy of being protected as the danged catholic hospital's rights to refuse to inform the women having a miscarriage that there is no outcome to her pregnancy that included a living baby and the best and safest course of action is to abort before infection takes hold. or the doctor of that patient in the catholic hospital then speaking up and saying that he believed that it would be immoral and negligent for him to delay that action inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering, risking her life...
and then where are you at??



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



NSFW....this is CLASSIC!
edit on Aprpm30pmf0000002018-04-26T17:42:44-05:000544 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's understandable all around: A) they have these policies to help cut down on crime/violence and unwanted clientele, and B) that you stay away from those places, which is your choice.

You say that *some* ball caps are banned: are certain *teams* banned, all sports caps, or what? I kinda of understand the policy of not wearing cocked or sideways (int he context you provided), but what's the policy as far as which ones in and of themselves are banned? That's interesting.

Just as there are dress codes for certain restaurants (which probably includes not only jackets and ties for upscale, but also some places will not allow logos or t-shirts), it makes sense these policies are in place in various establishments around the country, for whatever reasons they are in place.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is pathetic. Really. THIS is what our country has devolved into? If you are triggered or upset by a hat get some f'n therapy and grow a set. The ONLY time apparel is not and should not be allowed in bars or restaurants or public places is if they are gang related/colors/cuts otherwise there is no reason to tell someone to leave.

You have two men loitering and refusing to leave a restaurant who say their rights are violated and have been not only on multiple talk shows but is costing a business millions. This is ok. why? Because they are black. Yeah, I said it. Gays are protected. Blacks. Chinese. Everyone but white males.

Bunch of whiny mofos....





If you read the Fox News story linked in the original post, the whole thing seems to be a setup by the guy in the hat.

They didn't refuse to serve him. They served him and his buddies around $130 or so of liquor. He even left a tip.

They don't escort you out the door but let you settle a bill and encourage you to leave a tip. Or put it on your tab without getting your approval (the tab needs your signature.)

Now the guy and the lawyer are trying to claim that wearing the hat is part of his religious beliefs.

And the judge says that "MAGA hats" do not represent a religion (or didn't at the time of the alleged incident.)



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I should have clarified it is pathetic on both sides. I did in a later post.

After further examination and thought this guy seems to be looking for 15 minutes of fame for some reason. Let's think on that shall we? His lawsuit is ridiculous and to be honest by making it religious it paints Trump supporters in a very bad light...almost as if he was not a Trump supporter....hmmm......



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheJesuit

But a bakery can refuse to serve a gay couple.
That's just fine.


Muslim bakeries do. How do you reconcile that?




top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join