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

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Now who's making up silly scenarios that would never happen? Okay, I'll bite. If the painter agrees to paint a wall white for a non-Muslim but won't paint a wall white for a Muslim, then he's not offering the exact same service for one person that he was willing to offer to everyone else, is he? However if he never agrees to paint a wall white for whomever wants it, he's okay in my book.

You're really stretching, robot boy.

As for the Muslim baker in the other silly scenario that would never happen, as long as he's consistent and doesn't agree to decorate two men's names on a cake for non-gay men either, he's okay in my book.

Nice try - well actually it wasn't, but sometimes I can be nice.

I gave you two examples of blatant discrimination, realistic or not, and you think they are ok... all because you are entrenched.
These examples are no more and no less discriminatory than the Christians who refused to bake a cake for a gay person. Hiding behind excuses about being offended by completely normal words is part of your liberal diseased mind.

All you had to say was, "yeah, these Muslim bakers are bigots too", as they so obviously are. But no, you couldn't bring yourself to put them in the same category as the Christian bakers because it does not fit your agenda. Simple.

In fact the two examples, on a moral level, could be said to be : same, same

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

You are aware that the conservatives invented political correctness?

Like fighting for equal rights, like civil rights and the like?

Or the 'labels' given to everyone like 'african-american' or 'economically-challenged' person?

Do some reading if you care at all about facts:
Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy

a reply to: UKTruth

Nope. I'm being consistent.

Switch it to a Muslim refusing to paint a wall white for a Christian, and I'll say the same thing. If he agrees to paint a wall white for another Muslim, but not for the Christian, then I got a problem.

Same thing for switching the Muslim baker to a Christian baker in your second silly scenario. My answer would be the same.

Same same.

"liberal diseased mind" - oh brother.



Keep it up with the personal insults. It lets me know how frustrated you are at losing the argument.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Do I have to have a reason to like someone? What if I just don't like them? Can I refuse them service? Just curious.
P.S. only ten pages into this thread.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

You can not like them all you want. But if your business is considered a "Public Accommodation" business then you have to treat them equally whether you like them or not. If you choose to refuse business to them then yes you need a valid reason for it.

If he takes you to court and you tell the judge, "I just don't like him." You will most likely be fined for discrimination because that isn't a reasonable excuse to refuse him service.

a reply to: mOjOm
So a judge dictates how I should run my business. Thanks all I wanted to know.
I bet that judge has never been in a biker bar.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope. I'm being consistent.

Switch it to a Muslim refusing to paint a wall white for a Christian, and I'll say the same thing. If he agrees to paint a wall white for another Muslim, but not for the Christian, then I got a problem.

Same thing for switching the Muslim baker to a Christian baker in your second silly scenario. My answer would be the same.

Same same.

"liberal diseased mind" - oh brother.

Keep it up with the personal insults. It lets me know how frustrated you are at losing the argument.

No, insults are fine when directed at libtards, it will just be the common address in a while. It's not a sign of frustration, it's a sign of utter contempt.
I do find it funny, and yes oh so satisfying, that you have said 'I won the argument' eight times to various people in this thread. Now that, sweetheart, is a sign of desperation. Liberals seem to be getting a name for themselves for declaring victories when they lose...November 8th being the prime example

I do think you definitely did prove one thing. Your moral compass has some inconsistencies

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, insults are fine when directed at libtards

Aren't you British?

Curious that "libtards" has made its way into your vernacular. I wonder why you even are commenting on American laws.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Not exactly. He decides whether or not your reasoning was actually just you discriminating against someone.

A biker bar is a good example though. If you have a reason not to allow someone in like he's been trouble before or whatever then that would change the situation. You just can't discriminate or treat someone unfair because of personal bias and things like that.

Does that makes sense??

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: UKTruth
No, insults are fine when directed at libtards

Aren't you British?

Curious that "libtards" has made its way into your vernacular. I wonder why you even are commenting on American laws.

Oh we have plenty of libtards in the UK too. It's a Western disease and so far no cure has been found...and no, I am not British...and no I am not commenting on American laws, though I would feel comfortable doing so If I chose to.

originally posted by: UKTruth


No, insults are fine when directed at libtards, it will just be the common address in a while.

When they go low, we go high. You have nice day now!

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: UKTruth


No, insults are fine when directed at libtards, it will just be the common address in a while.

When they go low, we go high. You have nice day now!

OK sweetheart.
I think 'high' would be a good description indeed.

a reply to: ElGoobero

no entertainer is experiencing any fallout for refusing.

the entertainers from the mormon tabernacle chior and the rockettes who refused were subject to the discipline of those in higher position of those organizations, the one from the mormon group ended up resigning. the rockettes were lucky that the policy was changed making their participation not required. still some of the rockettes are fearful that their might be repercussions if they opt out.

you are comparing apples and oranges, and still your statement isn't true!!!

originally posted by: ElGoobero
consider this; the baker and pizza maker faced legal punishment for their decisions.
no entertainer is experiencing any fallout for refusing.

Actually, they are.

They lose economically - they don't get a fee paid for their performance and in some cases the scorn affects their sales.

It would be as if the bakery you mentioned voluntarily closed down and went out of business in that town rather than make a cake. Both the musicians and bakery can spend their resources and reopen elsewhere. Both lose economically.

a reply to: Byrd

the singers in the mormon tabernacle choir are all volunteers, they are unpaid positions..
so it would be more like a bakery decides to bake a cake for a person in need free of charge, but then decides not to volunteer their services to someone else for free...
and yes that little volunteer opted to resign from her volunteer position rather than sing for trump...
she didn't actually lose anything financially, matter of fact she gain some free time!!
but the irony here is that these people have been arguing for awhile now that county clerks and judges should be allowed to follow their conscious instead of their laws and still be paid, that employees in hospitals and pharmacies shouldn't have to do certain things they find offensive, and still be paid....
but, the little volunteer singer should be forced to sing!!! so of course it is the liberals that are hypocrites!!!

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

You are aware that the conservatives invented political correctness?

Like fighting for equal rights, like civil rights and the like?

Or the 'labels' given to everyone like 'african-american' or 'economically-challenged' person?

Do some reading if you care at all about facts:
Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy

Well, the info directly would have been suffice...condescension is a stinky cologne...