Background: It seems a hand written note was posted at this Hawaiian cafe. Since then they have had both backlash and supporters. The sign has since been taken down after they took a beating in reviews and in the press.
Now some are saying it’s just a joke from an owner known to be free with his comments and they never really meant it.
But still, I wouldnt eat at a place that said no Hillary voters.
How about you all? When that be a factor or would you just write it off as some sort of prank.
If you voted for Trump, then through either malice or ignorance, you are responsible for a great deal of harm. I have no problem with this sign, any more than I would have a problem with a restaurant in Munich ran by jews in the 30s putting up a sign saying “No NSDAP voters”.
No problem with it at all. The owner gets to do and say whatever he wants as long as it’s not unlawful, especially considering that it’s on his property. I doubt he or she is all that worried about losing business.
“We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone” is still a thing. If others don’t like it, then they don’t have to eat there.
Denying service to Trump supporters is a bad thing to do, even if the store owners were “following their religious beliefs” or other claptrap b.s. excuses. As someone who votes Democratic, I offer my apologies that this sign has “sparked outrage” according to Fox news.
No, I don’t have a problem with it. For one thing, only people who go out of their way to broadcast their Trump supportership will be affected by this. Wanna eat? Don’t wear wear a “I Voted for Trump!” t-shirt and you’ll be a’ight. Secondly, political bent is not a protected class. I wouldn’t have a problem with a business banning actual Nazis, KKK, or ISIS members, so I don’t have a problem with them banning another political group. Third, the average Trump supporter right now is an embarrassment, IMHO. They are marching in lockstep behind a corrupt buffoon. People like this deserve to be discriminated against.
Yes, it is divisive. But I don’t think divisiveness is necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I don’t want to sing “kumbaya” with the asshole who sees nothing wrong with taking food out of the mouths of poor children and their frail grandparents just so we can build a monstrous wall on our southern border. And I shouldn’t have to serve someone who holds such despicable politics if I don’t want to.
Lester Maddox banned all colored people and interstate travelers from his restaurant (and sold axe handles for beating up on black people) and he wrote racist articles in his newspaper ads.
Phenomenally bad idea. It feeds the “conservatives are the real victims of discrimination!11!!!” narrative, and while I think that narrative is mostly BS, it’s a serious, unforced error to do anything to reinforce it, especially in an outrage-driven social media climate that guarantees that any silly thing done by one restaurant owner in Hawaii will go viral nationwide.
I’m a liberal, but I wouldn’t go into the place mentioned in the OP. What if they started questioning me about my politics when I just wanted something to eat? What if the owners decided I wasn’t liberal enough? Who needs that pressure over lunch?
I am! Such a sign would indicate the place is owned by a Republican. Why would I want to give such a person my money? Thanks for the heads up would be my reaction.
In normal times, I would be against this. We’re in extraordinary times, however, and in a fight for the future of our country. Every reminder to the deplorables that they crossed a line is important. Some of them will wonder, “why is everyone so freaked out?” And perhaps they will begin to understand.
This. Not only does the restaurant owner not have to serve those people, but I, as a customer, don’t want to dine next to them. And they should have their own water fountains too.
I think it’s obnoxious, rude, and un-neighborly. Sometimes those sentiments can be appropriate – I’m not sure if that’s the case here (but maybe it is). But it’s legal, and should remain legal (and is different than discrimination by race/religion/etc.) unless there is a historical precedent that demonstrates a certain group is adversely harmed because the sentiment becomes widespread (as occurred for other groups discriminated against).