I’d grab the pot and throw it in his face. And then I’d grab the pot of decaf and throw that in his face too.
As soon as you talk about Hitler or Osama bin Laden, you’re getting into an area that 99.99% of us will never have to deal with.
I could gladly serve all kinds of people I dislike or disapprove of. But Hitler is on such a completely different plane that MOST of us could agree that we wouldn’t serve him, and that would say little or nothing about us. Come on, who DOESN’T think mass murder is evil?
Why not ask about some repulsive people whose offenses fall short of genocide?
If you owned a restaurant, would you provide a big table for Fred Phelps’ family for Sunday brunch, and serve them with a smile? If not, how would you feel about a Christian restaurant owner who wouldn’t serve Cecile Richards and a party of her friends from Planned Parenthood?
If you owned a pizza parlor, and a local chapter of the Klan called and ordered delivery of 10 pies, would you make the delivery? If not, what would you think of a pizza parlor that wouldn’t deliver 10 pies to a meeting of Out Youth?
If its Hitler, I’d leap across the counter and start beating him
I’d say there’s no equivalency. The Ku Klux Klan and Out Youth are not equivalent organizations even though both have enemies. The Ku Klux Klan is a criminal organization. Out Youth is doing nothing wrong.
It’s wrong to discriminate against people who aren’t doing anything wrong. So it’s wrong to discriminate against people because they’re black or gay or female or Hispanic or Muslims.
But being a criminal or a bigot or a child molester or head of the Third Reich is wrong. And you’re not required to ignore what they’ve done and treat them like everyone else.
Maybe I’m just good at compartmentalizing. If I’m serving coffee, then I’m serving coffee. I know Starbucks was encouraging their baristas to start discussions about race relations, but I consider that total nonsense. Unless someone is killing Jews and molesting children right there in the store, just serve them some coffee and get on with your life.
Which tells you what I think about those “Christian” businesses that want to refuse service to gays or whoever.
Nice dodge.
Okay, you think the Klan is too close to Hitler? Fine. Fred Phelps’ family is doing nothing illegal. Do you deliver the pizzas to him or not? If you don’t, explain why you’re not violating laws against religious discrimination.
Does that actually happen in this day and age?
The owner of Chick Fil A lobbied against gay marriage if I remember correctly.
Which is not illegal.
And there is no evidence Cathy’s restaurants ever refused to serve gay customers or to hire gay job applicants.
It’s not a dodge. I’m answering your question by explaining why some forms of discrimination are wrong and some forms are acceptable.
As for the Phelps family, I’d refuse to serve them as well. Not because of their religion but because of their behavior. I’d refuse to serve Osama bin Laden, if he was still alive, for the same reason. Just because a person claims their behavior is motivated by religion doesn’t make it their religion. I wouldn’t have refused to serve Fred Phelps because he was a Christian and I wouldn’t have refused to serve Osama bin Laden because he was a Muslim - I’d have refused to serve them because they were terrible people.
There was the well known Masterpiece Cakeshop incident in Denver, Colorado in 2013. The owner of the bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to a couple that was getting married because they were gay.
And YOU, of course, are the one who gets to decide what a terrible person is.
Nice for you, but inconvenient for the people you insist are NOT entitled to make similar judgments.
Yes, I am.
I’m out there making a stand and declaring Adolf Hitler was a terrible person. And Osama bin Laden and Fred Phelps were terrible people too.
Because I’ve never been one to shy away from controversy.
I think the point you’re missing is that I’ve never called for universal toleration. And I don’t think anyone else is calling for universal toleration either.
I’m all in favor of intolerance - as long as it’s directed against appropriate targets.
It’s wrong to be intolerant because of somebody’s race or religion or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation.
But if you worked for me and I heard you telling racist jokes, I’d fire you. I don’t tolerate bigots and never said I would. And if I heard you were beating your wife or molesting your kids, I fire you and call the cops on you. Zero tolerance for that shit.
Does that make life inconvenient for bigots and wife beaters and child molesters? Good, their lives should be inconvenient.
Depends on the situation. If I know he will be arrested and detained with certainty, then I act such that that happens - detain him myself, call the cops, or what have you.
If there’s a decent chance he will escape before getting arrested, I kill him.
He is (was) evil incarnate. The world is better off without him. If I spend my life behind bars or am executed, so be it, add it to my contributions to society.
I’d happily whip up our special Cyclone B Creme Frappuccino for der Fuhrer.
Well…is this assuming that I’m in a situation where I’m not going to—very literally—get beaten up by the Gestapo if I don’t get him his Frappuccino?
Even then, I’d have to further divide the line between “people I dislike, even hate,” and “people I dislike/hate, who have blood on their hands.” I mean, some internet pundit, or even many political figures I might dislike, are in a different league from some literal cannibal-dictator.
And even then, I’d have to carefully weigh my options between how I’d good I might feel telling them to get lost, versus how I’d feel about seeing that they got a “sneezer”…
But I’m really not good at confrontation. So, if you’re a known mass murderer, I guess I’m saying you probably shouldn’t order anything at my cafe that comes with a swizzle stick.