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

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

white is a race, so no, you can't refuse to sell to someone who is white..
christian is a religion, so no, you can't refuse to sell to a christian...

now.... what if a smoker wants to open a bar, and only hire smokers and only accept smokers in??

nope still can't, even though non-smokers aren't a protected group!! sorry!!!

a reply to: kaylaluv

First of all you didnt answer my question. You said "They are refusing to deal with him because of his actions and comments". What kind of standard are you appealing to in order to justify their protest of the inauguration? Is it because the things he said are UNSEEMLY? Offensive? Or politically incorrect? According to what authority or standard are you basing your defense of their protest? So far you are not offering anything REAL.


And by the way, your reference to LAW is an appeal to authority and it is an authority and law that is ONLY found in a few countries in the world, countries that, I would submit, have afforded their citizens unusual latitude and freedom in contriving the nonsense that many now regard as mandatory social decorum. You would NEVER get away with resorting to these rationalizations in many countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the like. Those places still function in many ways the same as humans have functioned since the beginning.

To the point of sexual orientation....you are approaching that in the profoundly limited way in which the GOVERNMENT has chosen to deal with it, not even CLOSE to the vastly larger picture researchers (sexologist, sociologists, etc) represent in academia. Right NOW the government is STILL changing and expanding how it deals with sexuality and sexual orientation in the LAW and therefore all a person like you is able to do is point to the gov and say "see, according to this entity thus and so is legal or illegal" missing the entire point of the discussion which is to provide a sound rational basis for why a behavior is allowed and even praiseworthy when conducted by a certain group, and detestable when performed by another. THAT is duplicitous, hypocritical and profoundly illogical.

I also think people who think the way you seem to think about this issue are incredibly limited in your imagination. According to your logic a person should have the right to refuse service if the customer/client behaves or speaks in an offensive manner. Well how in the world is that any kind of standard? There IS no standard when it comes to what is or is not offensive UNLESS you again are appealing to the Almighty Gov (God) and the standards DICTATED by them through law. If for example a person walked into my shop and reeked of vomit, dirty diapers, stale cigarette smoke, rotten fish, and was farting and burping copious quantities of gas I by all rights SHOULD be allowed to refuse them service, since their behavior is offensive. After all, i would not be judging the PERSON, merely the behavior that allowed them to become such a disgusting garbage dump on legs, polluting the very air im breathing with their stench.

Give me a logical ,rational basis for your position please, without resorting to appeals to authority.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Who is given special rights? What are you talking about?

I tried to make it as simple as possible. Anyone involved in public accommodations cannot refuse service to a customer because of their race, religion, nationality or (in some states) sexual orientation.

If you make and sell cakes to the general public, you can't refuse to sell a cake to a black person because they are black or a white person because they are white. You can't refuse to sell a cake to a Muslim because they are a Muslim, or a Christian because they are a Christian. In some states, you can't refuse to sell a cake to a gay person because they are gay. We are not talking about being forced to sell special cakes. We are talking about selling the same kind of cake that you would sell to other customers.

a reply to: tribal

I don't think Entertainers are considered to be "Public Accommodations" business meaning they aren't obligated to follow the same rules as a "Public Accommodations" business.

a reply to: tribal

first of all has either group refused to perform??
or is it more like some of it's members have refused to perform?
the women from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir refused and resigned and by the way... these people are volunteering their time anyways, as far as the actual singers... she is no longer part of the group that will be performing...
the rockettes, well their boss, manager, whatever, decided to change their policy so that participation wasn't mandatory..
both groups, unless you can show me otherwise, plan to perform!!

so are you saying that people who actually volunteer like the women in the mormon group shouldn't have the option to pull out for any reason they desire???
or that the managers of rockettes shouldn't have the ability to decide just what policies they will have in running their group??
both have contracted to perform, and unless you can prove otherwise, both plan on performing..
many of the rockettes are wondering just what effect a decision to pull out will have on their position..
and the mormon volunteerily gave up hers.
unlike little kimmy davis who wasted hours of court time because she didn't want to do her job and give out marriage licenses!

as far as all the other entertainers that were approached by the trump administration..
can you show me where they are legally obligated to accept all the offers that they get to begin with?
because I don't think they have to.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: kaylaluv

First of all you didnt answer my question. You said "They are refusing to deal with him because of his actions and comments". What kind of standard are you appealing to in order to justify their protest of the inauguration? Is it because the things he said are UNSEEMLY? Offensive? Or politically incorrect? According to what authority or standard are you basing your defense of their protest? So far you are not offering anything REAL.

I haven't heard the detailed answers of all the celebrities, but I imagine the fact that he has promised to hurt minorities, women, Muslims and Hispanics might have something to do with it.

And by the way, your reference to LAW is an appeal to authority and it is an authority and law that is ONLY found in a few countries in the world, countries that, I would submit, have afforded their citizens unusual latitude and freedom in contriving the nonsense that many now regard as mandatory social decorum. You would NEVER get away with resorting to these rationalizations in many countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the like. Those places still function in many ways the same as humans have functioned since the beginning.

First world countries tend to have laws to protect all its citizens. Third world countries don't. Your point?

To the point of sexual orientation....you are approaching that in the profoundly limited way in which the GOVERNMENT has chosen to deal with it, not even CLOSE to the vastly larger picture researchers (sexologist, sociologists, etc) represent in academia. Right NOW the government is STILL changing and expanding how it deals with sexuality and sexual orientation in the LAW and therefore all a person like you is able to do is point to the gov and say "see, according to this entity thus and so is legal or illegal" missing the entire point of the discussion which is to provide a sound rational basis for why a behavior is allowed and even praiseworthy when conducted by a certain group, and detestable when performed by another. THAT is duplicitous, hypocritical and profoundly illogical.

Not even sure what all that was about, but gay people are here and they are U.S. Citizens like everyone else, so they deserve the same rights to public accommodations that everyone else does. Just like black people or white people or Christians or Muslims.

I also think people who think the way you seem to think about this issue are incredibly limited in your imagination. According to your logic a person should have the right to refuse service if the customer/client behaves or speaks in an offensive manner. Well how in the world is that any kind of standard? There IS no standard when it comes to what is or is not offensive UNLESS you again are appealing to the Almighty Gov (God) and the standards DICTATED by them through law. If for example a person walked into my shop and reeked of vomit, dirty diapers, stale cigarette smoke, rotten fish, and was farting and burping copious quantities of gas I by all rights SHOULD be allowed to refuse them service, since their behavior is offensive. After all, i would not be judging the PERSON, merely the behavior that allowed them to become such a disgusting garbage dump on legs, polluting the very air im breathing with their stench.

We are a nation of laws, whether you like it or not. We do not live in anarchy. Those laws are here for a reason, so yes, I will refer to laws. Yes, if someone comes into your shop reeking, or drunk, or naked, you have every right to refuse them service. There is no law that says you can't.

Give me a logical ,rational basis for your position please, without resorting to appeals to authority.

U.S. Citizens deserve certain civil rights regardless of their race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. This is a tenant that our country was founded on (all men are created equal). Bad or stinky behavior doesn't fall under that protection.

a reply to: kaylaluv

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868.

Why (in your opinion) did it take more than 140 years to get people "equalized" ?

A public SERVICE message to all the PROGS...
Dear MoveOn member,

In three days, the new Congress will be sworn in, controlled by a Republican Party willing to shred longstanding political standards and conventions for pure partisan advantage. Its leaders—who just stole a U.S. Supreme Court seat—are gearing up to repeal the Affordable Care Act before Donald Trump is even sworn in.

And 20 days from today, Donald Trump is set to be inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States—giving Republicans control of the House, the Senate, and the White House.

No matter what happens—and no matter how bad it gets—our community of millions of MoveOn members will be there to resist, sound the alarm, and tirelessly work to win back power and build a stronger progressive movement. Seven days a week, 365 days a year.

From THE ACTUAL MOVE ON mailer service ,you lousy nutcases.

The fact of it's DESPERATE wording is so savory...DIE already

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't know, because people are crappy and like to treat other people like crap?

Why did we have to abolish Jim Crow laws in the South?

Why did we have to rule the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional?

Why did we have to rule the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional?

People are always trying to find ways to treat other people like crap.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: pianopraze

Trump will have a lot more power than any rap singer, and he has promised to do some pretty bad things with that power.

Like what? Anything he says is spun to some extreme level, so it is rather hard to suggest he has said all these "bad" things that he plans on doing. Obama promise a lot and failed to act on most, and actually went 180 degrees on many as example of what happens then they get into office.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
A public SERVICE message to all the PROGS...
Dear MoveOn member,

In three days, the new Congress will be sworn in, controlled by a Republican Party willing to shred longstanding political standards and conventions for pure partisan advantage. Its leaders—who just stole a U.S. Supreme Court seat—are gearing up to repeal the Affordable Care Act before Donald Trump is even sworn in.

Love the part stole...lol It is 4 to 4 right now with the chance of 2 republicans retiring in the next 4 years. The liberals wanted the chance to have a 7 to 2 ratio for the next 20 years.... so sorry it didn't happen.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A gay person has the right to public accommodations, which means they have the right to buy a cake for their event, no matter what the event is.

If a gay person came in screaming and shouting obscenities and physical threats, the baker would have every right to kick them out.

Trump is not being refused because he is a straight white male. He is not being refused because he is wanting services for a specific event. He is being refused because of the horrible things he says.

Abused logic. Trump has not walked into anywhere screaming obscenities. You just don't like what he has to say. Just like the bakers don't like gay people getting married or being gay in the first place. You are just being a hypocrite. I don't think it's right to refuse service to a gay person having a wedding, but I don't think anyone should have forced them to legally. Same thing here. I think it's stupid to refuse the president service but whatever, no should be allowed to force them to.

a reply to: ElGoobero


Long before this "Progressives" already condoned a islamic bakery to not serve gay's. They always have been the biggest racists and bigot's themselves, This is nothing new really.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
The difference is, the entertainers aren't discriminating against Trump because of his race, nationality or his sexual orientation. They are refusing to deal with him because of his actions and comments.

The left doesn't have a problem with a baker or pizza maker turning away someone who comes in with obnoxious, unruly and disruptive behavior. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to refuse service to someone.

It is discrimination and intolerance, full stop

www.lifesitenews.com...

Muslim bakers don’t want to make your gay ‘wedding’ cake

This i had seen liberals defend to no end here on ATS and elsewhere. I would love to see you guys back pedal on it now.

EARBORN, MI, April 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Homosexual activists have painted Christian bakers, florists, and photographers as veritable hatemongers for refusing to participate in a same-sex “wedding” on religious grounds – but it is not only Christianity that teaches that homosexuality is immoral. In a new video, Steven Crowder discovered numerous Muslim bakeries refused to bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage” – and Crowder is calling homosexuals out for not being equally aggressive toward the Religion of Peace.

Last week, Crowder posted an undercover video in which he visited several Muslim-owned bakeries in the Islamic hotspot of Dearborn, Michigan, posing as a man who planned to “wed” his boyfriend and wanted a cake made to honor their homosexual relationship.

a reply to: everyone

It wasn't the cake they refused to do, you idiot. It was the fact that he asked them to decorate it in an offensive way. No baker is forced to decorate a cake in a way that is personally offensive to them.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Your whole argument is moot! Hillary called us deplorable irredeemable. Obama called us a bunch of redneck nascar fans. It is alright if the left does it, but not the right?

Yet Madonna would be chompin at the bit to perform for Hillary hell she would even give them a nobjob.

Yet that is the way the left is. Talk about hypocrisy. Yet you still argue




Sorry grammatical error for the person that has no real argument.

a reply to: Diisenchanted

Mute means silent. Are you sure that's the word you want?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: everyone

It wasn't the cake they refused to do, you idiot. It was the fact that he asked them to decorate it in an offensive way. No baker is forced to decorate a cake in a way that is personally offensive to them.

He asked him to portrait 2 man holding hands on the cake and then you say :
"he asked them to decorate it in an offensive way"

Gay people will be quite appalled by you right now for even just suggesting that such a thing is offensive. (and men who just hold hands as friends)

It cannot get more bigoted then what you just displayed here.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
The difference is, the entertainers aren't discriminating against Trump because of his race, nationality or his sexual orientation. They are refusing to deal with him because of his actions and comments.

The left doesn't have a problem with a baker or pizza maker turning away someone who comes in with obnoxious, unruly and disruptive behavior. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to refuse service to someone.

Does not matter. EVERYONE should be judged by the same standards. All human beings are equal. The moment I see inequality and iniquity from one side; it simply spells out war.

If the left is gonna refuse service we should all have the right to refuse service. It is called fairness. It is also called a mirror. The left is showing intolerance with this action which means, it automatically should apply to everyone else.

If you're gonna be a hypocrite,(for example) then you deserve the backlash. Either live by example or shut up. Is the motto about; teaching love? Can't teach love while being a hypocrite. (See where I am going?) You can't have authoritarian and love in the same motto, either choose one because they will never mix.

This is how the world works

Refuse to serve me? I refuse to service you and you can't do a damn thing about it. Oh is it bias and only one sided? Am I being forced to serve you like a slave? Okay, then this means war. (that is how Wars begin. The one and only thing humans have mastered. Death. because of lack of compromise, and you only have your greedy power hungry selves to blame. And frankly I'd rather watch the world burn than for the world to fall in the hands of a few who wants to enslave us into having ONE way of thinking.

Choose your side wisely, because the tensions as I see it is rising to a point of no return. In the end, everyone loses and there are no winners.