The picture of the guy with his lawyer is hilarious.
I don’t think he should win a lawsuit over it (if it actually happened). I don’t think it’s a good idea for a business to do it. Though if they are going to do it, they should announce right up front what their rules are to let people make informed decisions.
OP asked a question.
Yes I would. On a purely practical level, the only way they would know is if someone is wearing one of those idiot hats or something. That means that, not only did this person probably vote for Trump, but is proud of the fact and still supports him in spite of everything that has come to light since the election. I think it’s perfectly possible for someone to have voted for Trump for misguided reasons and/or through being ill-informed. That slack is no longer being cut by me for current supporters.
I’m not actually a Democrat so maybe I don’t get any say in this thread. But I’m not particularly worried about divisiveness when that is the chief stock in trade of the Trump side. Anyone who expects the anti-Trump side to make nice while the Trumpists continue to divide and oppress wherever they can is incredibly naïve.
I am not a lawyer, but as others have already said, political groups are not protected when it comes to discrimination, and I fully expect his silly suit to be thrown out at the first opportunity. Any lawyer who took it on should have to go back and pass the bar exam again.
I don’t support not serving that guy. I wouldn’t hang out with a guy who wears such a hat. He wouldn’t be welcome in my home. I’d sell him a beer if I was working as a bartender and he asked for a beer.
Heavens no!
We should all be required to be ideologically pure to have a place in society. Whatever could go wrong?
But how and why would that work? I mean, if I saw a sign at a restaurant that said “If you support Planned Parenthood, you are not welcome here” (which is not inconceivable in my part of the country!), my reaction would NOT be “Oh, I didn’t realize Planned Parenthood freaked people out so much, maybe I’d better rethink that monthly donation,” it would be “Great, more Bible-belt fuckwittery.” I’m pretty sure a hypothetical Trump supporter in Hawaii would have a very similar reaction, and would be totally justified in doing so.
Religion is as much of a choice as politics.
Although coincidentally “your kind is not wanted here” is precisely the message Trump is sending to millions of potential immigrants, in exactly those words – “we don’t want them here” – and represents the actions already exercised against many blameless travelers.
That said, I wouldn’t support such a business for the same reason I don’t believe that any business open to the public has the right to engage in arbitrary discrimination of any kind. If a business benefits from the custom of the general public then the owner’s personal proclivities and politics have some limitations imposed by the public interest.
The beginning of a talent drain on the part of those who are the targets of his vicious bigotry, just for one example.
No. The specific nature and depth of one’s beliefs may be a choice, but religion is deeply intertwined with culture and society. Either that, or it’s an amazing coincidence that so many people in particular countries all seem to have the same religion.
Of course people learn by indoctrination and proximity. That doesn’t make religion any more special or deserving of protection than any other ideology other than the power religion has via sheer numbers or threat of violence.
Our own history, which includes significant discrimination by religion (but not political beliefs) is the difference.
We don’t outlaw racial discrimination by private businesses because it’s wrong (though it is, of course) - we outlaw it because it has been so widespread that at various points black people (or others) were unable to get basic goods and services in communities. Same for religious discrimination (to a lesser but still significant degree). This is not the case for political beliefs. If it became the case, then we should consider outlawing this form of discrimination as well, IMO.
Do you think it would be wrong for a Jewish business owner to refuse to serve Neo-Nazis?
I mean, I think there are similarities between religion and political ideology. But since religious has a sharp nexus with ethnicity/race/culture, I’m fine granting it some gravitas. Political ideology isn’t deserving of the same treatment.
I don’t have a problem with the “we’re supposed to be better than that!” contigent here. But I am curious. Do you think that Trump supporters just aren’t that bad to warrant discrimination–but you’d feel differently if they were actual jackboot thugs? Or do you think that discrimination is bad no matter what?
First of all, note that the sign said “If you voted for Trump…”, not “If you support Trump…”. We’ve been thru this umpteen times on this MB-- one might have voted for Trump for a specific reason (repeal Roe, SCOTUS appointments, 2nd amendment issues, etc.) without being a “supporter” of all of Trump’s positions or policies. “Trump voter” is too broad a category to know that the person is, as many here like say, a “deplorable”.
But keep up the good work of showing one of the reasons why Trump won in the first place-- telling people who disagree with you, politically, that they are evil.
It is within the restaurant owner’s rights (voters are not a federally protected class), but not a wise business decision.
I am within my rights to wear a “vote for X” button around election time, but since I am in the public eye and represent a business or government entity, it would not be a good idea to do so, so I don’t.
I will wear green on St. Patrick’s Day, however. Pretending to be Irish seems to be much less controversial.
No, it’s not. Even if it wasn’t hatred for everyone who wasn’t a cishet white guy that motivated someone to vote for the second coming of Hitler, the fact that they did vote for him means that they thought that shitting on everyone who wasn’t a cishet white guy was an acceptable means/trade-off/side effect of getting what you want. Which is still nothing more than moral degeneracy.
If evil people don’t like being told they’re evil, then perhaps they should have some personal responsibility and stop being evil.
Owners of public businesses should not be declaring that they will not serve any group.
In the end it doesn’t really matter who, with some small exceptions. Such as saying that you will no longer serve the members of Miserly Baptist Church because they come in every sunday afternoon, monopolize your tables, never tip and are constantly making complaints and demanding free stuff. Then you might have a case that their patronage is actually hurting your business.
Or refusing to allow small children into a dive bar. That sort of thing.
If there’s a good reason, and it has to be more than “I don’t like these people”, then you may be able to build a case. Otherwise you’re just being an ass.
People like you keep saying things like this, but I don’t think there’s any proof that calling bigots bigots somehow kept them from voting for Hillary.
QFT
That’s totally a deflection from the point I was contradicting. I was responding to your point that “religion is a choice as much as politics”. I’m saying that’s wrong because of the way religion is tightly integrated with culture, ethnicity, and the general values of the society one grows up in, which is not a matter of choice. Politics is not entirely different, but the cultural influence is much more diffuse – people in the same society can evolve political beliefs that span the whole spectrum between practically polar opposites.
The question of deserving protection is entirely different from the point I was addressing. On that subject, religion has historically been granted special protection because in earlier times religion has historically been a major basis of discrimination and persecution. Personally I don’t believe a progressive modern society needs special religion-specific protections because it should have general protections of civil liberties that accomplish the same thing in a broader and more reasoned manner. And IMHO if there is some religion-specific practice that isn’t covered by secular civil liberties protections, then it’s probably some archaic nonsense that isn’t worth protecting, like the religion-fueled demand to teach children creationism as part of a standard public school curriculum, or refusing to provide health insurance for your employees if it covers contraception, or stoning an adulterer.
No. When you lie down with Der Hund, you wake up with Der Flöhe. Were you talking about a candidate with a sane platform I’d be inclined to agree with you, but the Republican platform, like the party presenting it, is not sane. It is not normal. Your hypothesis ignores too many elephants in the room.
I didn’t see a lot of people saying they would vote for Trump because people who weren’t about to do so were mean to them. It was all about Muslims and Mexicans and Making America Great Again and email. And all you have to do is peruse a right-leaning message board to see that our vitriol towards a real bastard is nothing compared to what they dish out. Why didn’t that lead to a Clinton landslide?
How are you “working class”, if you don’t work? :dubious:
That’s a pretty soft standard for protection. It allows for all sorts of interpretation which depending on who is doing it could go quite differently. I prefer the standard that says immutable qualities shouldn’t be discriminated against - at least that has some kind of rigor available to be applied. But even then, I hardly think the rightness or wrongness of discrimination should hinge on what is legal or not. If it were permissible by law to discriminate as if there were no protected classes, it would still be wrong, IMO.
Personally, when surrounded by hostile views, it’s my task to persuade others to my side, to show them our shared interests, to be an ambassador for my causes. I need to be better on the facts, better on message, and better all around as an example. YMMV.