I thought God commanded: “Love your neighbors as yourselves”. Looks like the baker in Colorado(and Sanders) failed that one.
I’ve never had to call the police, usually the threat of doing so is enough.
I have, OTOH, had customers call the police on themselves. That’s always funny.
But, you are under the mistaken impression that you are not allowed to discriminate. That is entirely untrue. You are not allowed to discriminate based on specific criteria due to race, religion, gender, and in some places, sexual orientation. Outside of protected categories, you may discriminate all you want.
For instance, say Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Matt Lauer came into my establishment. I could refuse them service.
Your argument is like saying that that would be racist, because Cosby is black.
…I’m not convinced.
How so?
There are many commonalities that make them a good analog for customers. Both neighbours and customers are humans. You are allowed to say “I don’t want your business here (as long as you are not discriminating on the basis of a protected class)” just as you are allowed to say “I don’t want you to come to my house.”
So I don’t think its a “piss-poor analogy.” I think its a perfect analogy, and I don’t understand your objections.
Factually incorrect, I’m afraid. She didn’t pay.
.
Doesn’t matter. “Asshole” and “liar” aren’t protected categories. And there’s nothing wrong with individuals discriminating against assholes and liars.
Yes, more or less in my case.
I’m in a rural area. Out of 100 people entering my business, I’d estimate 85 are neighbors. When your nearest neighbor is 100 yards away, “neighbors” are people you run into around town, at the gas station or feed store.
However, that’s not a perfect analogy because there’s a difference between the legality of those two situations. The law DOES permit you to say “I don’t want any black people coming to my house.” and even enforce such a rule, turning away any black people and stating quite plainly that your reason is that you don’t like black people. But the law DOES NOT permit you to do the same thing at your place of business. In fact, there’s a whole host of laws that apply to businesses and not to private residences. A newly constructed business has to be accessible to customers who use wheelchairs; a residence doesn’t. The fire marshal can inspect a business and insist they install a panic bar on the back door; fire codes are much more lax regarding private residences and the fire marshal almost never inspects them.
However, I’m not disputing your claim about businesses being allowed to discriminate against a non-protected class. I’m just saying the business-home analogy isn’t a strong enough analogy to support the claim.
True. If you believe in God anyway.
I’d say it’s a pretty fine line there. Discriminating against an actor because they once played a villain on TV would be pretty unreasonable I would think. This is a lot closer to that.
“Paying customer” generally refers to someone who is willing and able to pay, regardless of whether their meal ends up being comped or not.
The same goes for “tax payer” meaning someone who accepts the duty of paying taxes and files the proper forms, even if the balance due at the bottom of the form comes out to be zero. Similarly, a vendor who lacks a required license can be convicted for offering products for sale even if no money actually changes hands. And you are still “operating” a motor vehicle even when your speed is zero.
She would have, had she been allowed to stay. According to your logic, no one who goes to a restaurant is considered a customer until after they have finished their meal and paid for it. I call BS.
…support what claim? Its an analogy, not a “perfect analog.”
Perhaps, but she wasn’t being an asshole and a liar to the owner of the restaurant. Had there been a sign that says “We don’t serve Republicans,” maybe it would have been fair.
I imagine if you refused to serve a neighbor, you could feel the adverse effects from your other customers. Unless that neighbor was drunk and disorderly, for example.
…the restaurant didn’t have a policy of not serving Republicans. So why would they have a sign that said “We don’t serve Republicans?"
Mitt Romney would disagree.
Boo Hoo, life’s not fair. :rolleyes:
No, I’d say it’s more like discriminating against an actor who advocated for morally questionable actions in a documentary, while playing themselves. If Tom Hanks appeared in a documentary called “Kill All the Puppies” and the credits listed “Tom Hanks as himself” and, in the movie, he argued in favor of torturing puppies for fun… yeah I’d think twice about letting Tom Hanks eat in my restaurant.
In the case of SHS, it is assumed that when she stands at the lectern and answers questions she is doing so in a factual way. I don’t think anyone believes that SHS is merely playing a dramatic role of a fictional person and therefore gets a free pass on whatever words come out of her mouth.
You really haven’t been paying attention.
Nope. That fails multiple times.
-
I did not make a similar argument. Your arguments are all in the form “Predecessor was bad, but not as bad as the current guy.” I did not at any point claim that a predecessor was bad. I pointed out only that certain bad actions–ones that any moral person would object to–were unique to the Trump administration.
-
They did not make those arguments. You had to coax actual arguments that were really used into a specific form. When people decried Clinton’s extramarital affairs, they did not reference Carter’s lack of them. When people decried Bush’s War on Terror, they did not reference Reagan’s lack of such wars. And when people referenced Obama’s “failures,” they did not bring up Clinton as better.
-
None of that refutes (or confirms) anything I said. This is one of those tactics that looks like a refutation, but is not one. At no point did you even argue that my claim about Trump and Sanders was wrong. You didn’t at any point argue that Sanders should have been served. Even if everything you said was true, it would mean nothing about my post.
I know most posters seem to have ignored this as the empty rhetoric it was, but sometimes I feel like detailing the problems, in the hopes of inspiring debate with more substance. And there is some pleasure in realizing that the entirety of a post against me can be dismantled.