Once a CAKE was not made for a gay couple...

SO ladies and gentlemen and you other s##ts, hello.
HERE we are FINALLY with the Muslim version that got a couple SEVERLY burned and an attempt to force them into RE EDUCATION.
Now we have this ...patriotupdate.com...
WELL obviously this bigot must burn TOO right?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

There is no doubt that he is a bigot, but simply displaying his bigotry like that is legal.

The headline said he banned certain people for their faith, but that was just the headline. If he actually did that the state would shut him down because that would be illegal.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
SO ladies and gentlemen and you other s##ts, hello.
HERE we are FINALLY with the Muslim version that got a couple SEVERLY burned and an attempt to force them into RE EDUCATION.
Now we have this ...patriotupdate.com...
WELL obviously this bigot must burn TOO right?

Nowhere does it show he refuses service to Hindus. He has put some outrageous signage up. I am not sure about the laws in regard to that, if he has one hanging off a sign at the street, I am sure the city would find that illegal, if not simply against zoning laws.

The article, from a source I have never seen or heard of, mainly tells me a crazy man has opened a Dairy Queen.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I found this story for ya. It is the DailyMail, so take it for what it is worth. According to this the guy is giving up his store. He really, REALLY doesn't like Hindus.

DailyMail Mohammad Dar story

So long as they are deluded into thinking they can live above a country's laws there will be a fight..www.truthandaction.org...

if he has one hanging off a sign at the street

a reply to: reldra

Per this article he had them on the street.

From article:

Homemade signs at his drive-through window, at the side of the road, and elsewhere in the store compared Hindus to monkeys and said that Hinduism was a kind of racism.

Also, this dude is selling the store because, he states, there are some new corporate fees.

The strange part is that Dairy Queen apparently hasn't and isn't forcing the current owner to remove the signs.

After speaking with Dairy Queen's spokesperson, Dean Peters, we applaud Dairy Queen for taking action to move up the timing of the sale of this location in Kemah to another franchisee owner in order to have these anti-Hindu signs removed swiftly, and we encourage the new owner to remove those signs as their first action,"

That leads me to believe they are still up?

To the OP: Sorry... color me naïve but I'm pretty sure if the signs were put up about one of a select group of protected classes.... this would have gone down in a completely different way and a much more expedited way.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I think he should have the freedom express his views (regardless of how unpopular they are), and he should have the freedom to refuse service, even if its based on a prejudice. That is a the answer that harmonizes with the Bill of Rights. Its his business, let him run it to the ground himself.

originally posted by: eluryh22

if he has one hanging off a sign at the street

a reply to: reldra

Per this article he had them on the street.

From article:

Homemade signs at his drive-through window, at the side of the road, and elsewhere in the store compared Hindus to monkeys and said that Hinduism was a kind of racism.

Also, this dude is selling the store because, he states, there are some new corporate fees.

The strange part is that Dairy Queen apparently hasn't and isn't forcing the current owner to remove the signs.

After speaking with Dairy Queen's spokesperson, Dean Peters, we applaud Dairy Queen for taking action to move up the timing of the sale of this location in Kemah to another franchisee owner in order to have these anti-Hindu signs removed swiftly, and we encourage the new owner to remove those signs as their first action,"

That leads me to believe they are still up?

To the OP: Sorry... color me naïve but I'm pretty sure if the signs were put up about one of a select group of protected classes.... this would have gone down in a completely different way and a much more expedited way.

You are right. I was mainly focusing on a sign attached to a large business sign at the street..those signs are more highly regulated. As to height, width sometimes color and the city would probably object more to an offensive sign on that sign.

And as for signs still being up, it would depend on what is in the franchise contract. Maybe Dairy Queen just decided it was useless to take him to court over the contract if the franchise were being sold soon anyway.

CcmvmmMxzCna reply to: reldra

And as for signs still being up, it would depend on what is in the franchise contract. Maybe Dairy Queen just decided it was useless to take him to court over the contract if the franchise were being sold soon anyway.

I don't know you well enough to know where you stand on some of these issues.... but I will say something after my disclaimer...

Disclaimer: One huge social problem I notice in the US these days is that we sort of have an "Animal Farm Complex" in that we are all equal... EXCEPT... some of us are more equal than others. If someone is very wealthy and they commit a crime, they have lawyers that can hire all sorts of experts to get them off while regular folks will pay the fine or do the time. If someone is in politics their indiscretions get swept under the rug (same goes for major contributors but they are already covered under wealthy).

As it pertains to this article and what I suspect the OP was implying.... This DQ owner made some offenses against Hindus and basically the response was tepid. No outrage. No media coverage. If anything, people sort of turn the other way and say "Well, it depends on what the law is."

Please take this with a grain of salt because I'm not about to go and compile a bunch of links to come up with statistics.... but... What I'm thinking (with my "some protected groups are MORE equal than others" remark) is that if someone were to hang up signs blasting homosexuals or transgendered people or Muslims or Illegal Immigrants.... I sincerely believe this entire conversation would be different and it would be the leading story for a lot of MSM news websites/shows. I also do honestly believe if the "bad guy" in the story was not Muslim the reaction would be different as well.

I think it is a valid point. However, I also agree with what a previous poster said in that this guy should be allowed to put up whatever moronic sign he wants (provided it is on his property). He has a right to put himself out of business. I would make one exception to that when it comes to utilities/necessities. (For example, people should not be able to refuse service to people for electricity or groceries based on ______).

Yep, a total bigot.

Gay, Hindu, one legged, black, white, male female or in between, we all deserve service when we've got money to pay for it.

originally posted by: markosity1973
Yep, a total bigot.

Gay, Hindu, one legged, black, white, male female or in between, we all deserve service when we've got money to pay for it.

The Bill of Rights does not guarantee your right to be served. If someone wants to be prejudice, its their right as long as they are not representing the Federal/State/Local government.

And you have the same right to spend your money elsewhere. I realize that the Civil Rights Act says otherwise, but that law is unconstitutional and would not stand in an OBJECTIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Marbury vs Madison

a reply to: cavtrooper7

WTF does this guy think he is? The Muslim Ted Cruz? In other news, Patriot Update has finally found some bigotry they're willing to denounce so I guess that's something, right?

Yeah this guy obviously sucks, he's a bigot and I hope he doesn't find a bunch of other assholes to crowd fund him like some of these other bigots have. I'm not seeing where the "segregation" comes in or refusal to serve though? I mean, I can only imagine if that were the case, Mike Huckabee would be in the picture holding his hand. Hell, Piyush Bobby Jindal isn't even there to explain how he's actually a Christian now so he's no longer a monkey person or whatever.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I agree. The business owner should be protected by law to look any patron in the eye and say GTFO. This site does just that with certain topics, and is privately owned. Should people sue for the right to post on certain topics and force the site owners to relinquish their right to run a business how they choose?

This guy is a #bag, but he should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason, and so should bakers be allowed to not bake a cake that offends their beliefs.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I agree. The business owner should be protected by law to look any patron in the eye and say GTFO. This site does just that with certain topics, and is privately owned. Should people sue for the right to post on certain topics and force the site owners to relinquish their right to run a business how they choose?

This guy is a #bag, but he should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason, and so should bakers be allowed to not bake a cake that offends their beliefs.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

People are to emotional to see that. The American legal system was founded on Liberty, not Morality. The two can not co-exist as a legal code.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

There is a line where the the owner should have a right to deny service but all of the things I listed are within that line.

Drunkenness, inappropriate dress and threatening behavior are all over the line and I agree the owner has a right to deny service.

a reply to: markosity1973

Whats wrong with serving ice cream to a drunk? There is line is violence. Once you attack another person's free will, the line is crossed.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Nothing.

But if the drunk starts being difficult, then they can be asked to leave. I'm talking discretion here, not mandatory policy.

a reply to: markosity1973

Well, the shop owner could do that, or he could just stay, "NO ICE CREAM FOR YOU!", to whoever he pleases for whatever reason because its his Constitutional right to do so regardless of how you feel. That's simply the way it is.

When a Christian cake shop owner decided not to offer their services to a gay couple the PC crowd went insane. There were death threats, boycotts, news coverage, etc. All because a small business owner tried to enforce their own religious belief through their privately owned business. Now this muslim guy is doing the same thing. Where is the outrage? The responses to the Christian couple in that thread were downright rabid. Not so much here. Just a few people calling him a bigot. No death threats. No calls for boycotts. No parades and picketing in front of his business.

Its not that the guy was a bigot. It is the difference in the mainstream PC crowd reaction when a muslim does it and when a Christian does it. THAT is the REAL bigotry.

a reply to: eluryh22

Yes, you know it would. Look at what happened to that tiny pizza parlor in Podunk, IN, who got caught with the gotcha during that religious freedom debate. They got a teenage cashier to say they likely wouldn't cater a gay wedding, and the entire country erupted as though she admitted the secret ingredient in their marinara was the blood of babies sacrificed under the pale moonlight.

As if anyone ever asked them to cater weddings in the first place ... and as if they ever refused to sell pizzas to people based on sexual orientation on a daily basis.