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

originally posted by: matafuchs
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......

No, he's definitely a Trump supporter. If you do some poking around, you can see this clearly.

If you recall, though, this was at the same time as several other efforts by Trump supporters -- such as the faked knife attack that we talked about here. You can also see the "ironic" approach like this (pretend outrage and ridiculous claims) over on 4chan and 8chan (I take it you don't hang out there and look at the "ironic" posts.

And you're right. It's ridiculous.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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?

Do you have a link about this? I haven't heard this one.

a reply to: dawnstar

What about the gas provider that wouldnt ship to Trump supporters in Maine I believe it was.

People either need to agree that a private business can refuse service to anyone they want for any reason or not. This story may well not be true, but it doesn't change people's responses. If you were for the baker and against the bar owner on this your a hypocrite, but same can be said of the opposite.

Personally I don't care if private business owners refuse service, unless the service is vital or they accept government funding. I don't believe state employees have the right to refuse service to those who are lawfully accepted for that service.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Last time I checked, "Trump supporter" isn't a protected class of citizen, so denying service to one should be 100% legal. I see nothing wrong with this ruling.

Protected classes of citizens you say? Tell me more..

Outrage for the banning of a hat that supports a moron but total support for a bakery not serving a gay couple...hmmm I think this is called hypocrisy.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
So you cant refuse someone service based on race, religion, sexual preference or citizenship status but its perfectly ok to do so if you dont agree with their political affiliation.

I would be willing to bet if the hat had of been a Hillary one the outcome of the court case would have been very different.

He wasn't refused service. He racked up a $186 tab and left a $36 tip.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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?

Do you have a link about this? I haven't heard this one.

Here ya go.



Now before you get upset over the source, I'd ask how it edited, or why the bakeries would be in on its.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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?

Do you have a link about this? I haven't heard this one.

Here ya go.

Now before you get upset over the source, I'd ask how it edited, or why the bakeries would be in on its.

I don't trust free-range videos. Do you have a news story source for this?

a reply to: TheJesuit

You think the government has the right to tell private business owners who they have to serve?

That's not a power I want the government to have.

How did you feel about the cake maker being forced to make cakes for gay weddings?

a reply to: TheLead

What about the gas provider that wouldnt ship to Trump supporters in Maine I believe it was.

think I already raised that one up in one of my posts, I would put that one in the same basket as the tow truck driver, if your personal feeling about a person is interfering with your ability to do you job to the point where you are endangering others.... then you should find another job or business!

Personally I don't care if private business owners refuse service, unless the service is vital or they accept government funding.

in most cases, I would agree... as long as they make their policies known through signs on the business entrance and notices on their advertising. and as long as it doesn't produce pockets where groups of people can get no service without traveling too far.

unless the service is vital or they accept government funding

there is one group that can even get exemption from this little bit now... can you guess who it is? and can you guess which party is working hard to expand their ability to legally to deny services, while still receiving gov't funds, even if the service is vital?

this is why I see the trump supporters whining about some poor guy being refused service in a bar over a hat he is wearing as snowflaky and hypocritical!! even if it happened just they way him and his lawyer wishes to portray it.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

so, if an employee of that business, let's say it's a bakery, really feels that they are just adding more heartache and pain into the world, which would be wrong in her moral scope of things, for no danged good reason...
should the employer have the power to force the employee to betray her moral compass? would your answer be the same if it was reversed and the employer was expecting a christian employee to make the wedding cake?
but, let's make the stakes a little higher....
let's say we have a doctor, and he has a cancer patient... he knows he has to start this patient on chemo and radiation treatments, he knows that because of this it would not be advisable for the patient to become pregnant at this time, so he wants to, feels it's his moral duty to advise her that the best course of action would be to discuss the best choice of birth control and suggest she chose a method..
but, he can't, because well he happens to work for a healthcare provider that prohibits such discussion, under any circumstances, and it's not like he has a choice as to where he works, it's the only provider in the area.
should the employer have the right to prevent him from having that discussion with his patient even though every moral fiber in his body is telling him he needs to have it?
now, reverse the situation, is your answer different? is reality different... in fact, isn't there laws protecting those with certain moral beliefs so they can live their lives more in tune with their beliefs? and, by doing so, aren't they in fact telling us what moral beliefs are proper and acceptable and what aren't?

originally posted by: DerBeobachter
I think the following is much more interesting atm:

Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen will plead the fifth in Stormy Daniels case

plead the fifth in Stormy Daniels case President’s personal attorney says he will exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination in lawsuit brought by porn actor

Maga, Maga...

Pleading the 5th


It rediculous that this is even permissable

Try to wear any hat in a Legion. Just sayin.

a reply to: dawnstar

should the employer have the power to force the employee to betray her moral compass?

He can't force them but he can fire them for not doing the job they were paid to do.

would your answer be the same if it was reversed and the employer was expecting a christian employee to make the wedding cake?

Yes.

should the employer have the right to prevent him from having that discussion with his patient even though every moral fiber in his body is telling him he needs to have it?

Yes.

now, reverse the situation, is your answer different? is reality different... in fact, isn't there laws protecting those with certain moral beliefs so they can live their lives more in tune with their beliefs? and, by doing so, aren't they in fact telling us what moral beliefs are proper and acceptable and what aren't?

It doesn't matter what hypothetical you give, the answer is still the same. If I am paying you to do a job and you refuse to do that job or do not do the job in the manor that I told you to do it, then I have the right to fire you.

No one is owed anything in this word and the sooner people realize that the better off they will be.

Just because I am a chef doesn't give you the right to eat my food if I don't want you to.

I'm a white supremacist that you just saw screaming in the face of my 8 year old daughter. Do you want to be forced by the government to serve me?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

at least your consistent...
but I'm pretty sure the laws aren't (or the desires of the religious right).. I do believe in many states, the law protects those who claim religion when it comes to women's reproductive health issues and well, no they can't be fired for not doing what their boss tells to do. heck, it might even be a federal law now. and they are working hard to extend their right to claim "religious beliefs" over more.

I am just pointing out, that this will lead to more instances like what happened in this case... where a judge or legislatures are deciding which "religious beliefs" are valid and worthy of being protected and which aren't. or to put another way, deciding just what beliefs are appropriate and good...
my example of the doctor and his cancer patient, which is a reality in our country, it happens, shows that sometimes, both sides can have really valid strong beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong..
if those working in non-secular health providers should be protected from the wrath of their employers when they refuse to prescribe the birth control or participate in the necessary abortion, then those doctors working in a religious oriented establishment should enjoy the same protection, shouldn't they?
keep in mind that something like one in seven hospital beds are now in these religious oriented establishments now, that they get funding from the gov't just like planned parenthood does, and in some areas of the country, they are the only place to go within over a 100 miles!

a reply to: dawnstar

I am just pointing out, that this will lead to more instances like what happened in this case... where a judge or legislatures are deciding which "religious beliefs" are valid and worthy of being protected and which aren't. or to put another way, deciding just what beliefs are appropriate and good...

This happens because we foolishly give to much power to the government. The only time the government should have any say at all about religion is when one person is physically harming another. Otherwise if I want to open up a stanic baker and refuse to sell to christians that is my business.

if those working in non-secular health providers should be protected from the wrath of their employers when they refuse to prescribe the birth control or participate in the necessary abortion, then those doctors working in a religious oriented establishment should enjoy the same protection, shouldn't they?

I don't think ether of them should be protected.

a reply to: chrismarco

It is in the Bill of Rights...take the time to take a look at ALL of the politicians and lawyers of the past who have done it. The only difference is since it is Trumps lawyer people are up in arms about it.

Let's look at the last administration and who did it...Eric Holder would be first...Lynch did also...here are some more...

Nine Obama administration officials also invoked the Fifth Amendment. Here’s a list in case you forgot: Who can forget about IRS Director, Lois Lerner who pled the Fifth Amendment twice over allegations that the IRS had “targeted conservative nonprofit groups for additional scrutiny of their applications for tax-exempt status.”

The first time Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment was in May 2013, while appearing before the Senate Finance Committee.

The second time Lerner pled the Fifth Amendment was in March 2014 while appearing before the House Oversight Committee.

In April 2012, General Services Administration (GSA)’s Jeffrey Neely invoked his Fifth Amendment right when the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called Neely to testify about improper spending. Neely also invoked his Fifth Amendment right after photos emerged of Neely sitting in a bathtub with wine at GSA’s Western Regions Conference in 2010 in Las Vegas, which spent $822,000 in taxpayer money.

Patrick Cunningham, chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, invoked his Fifth Amendment in January 2012 in connection with the Fast and Furious scandal.

Deputy Director of the IRS Greg Roseman pled the Fifth in January 2013, after Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) started asking Roseman about “panel findings that he helped a friend procure potentially $500 million worth of IRS contracts.”

Then there is the former State Department Employee Bryan Pagliano, who famously invoked his Fifth Amendment right over his involvement in setting up Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server in September 2015.

Former Department of Veterans Affairs officials John Sepulveda, Diana Rubens, and Kimberly Graves, as well as former Environmental Protection Agency official John Beale, all invoked their Fifth Amendment rights as well.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: TheJesuit

You think the government has the right to tell private business owners who they have to serve?

That's not a power I want the government to have.

How did you feel about the cake maker being forced to make cakes for gay weddings?

Well to be honest they can already. The can refuse to let them use the banking system because of their discriminatory practices. Or they can incur tax penalties to force compliance.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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?

Do you have a link about this? I haven't heard this one.

Here ya go.

Now before you get upset over the source, I'd ask how it edited, or why the bakeries would be in on its.

I don't trust free-range videos. Do you have a news story source for this?

I didn't ask you to trust it. But you'll ignore video evidence because you don't see it in print?

Did it violate their dress code? Some "bars" and the like have strict dress codes, like even in Florida some "clubs" during the hottest months of summer even, guys MUST wear pants to even get in the door. Not even 'nice' shorts will cut it.