posted by iclfan2Except that they could have bought anything from the bakery. They couldn't get a CUSTOM cake. So no, not really the same thing. I'm cool with a company refusing to serve someone for any reason though, so I'm fine with the MAGA hat ban. The market will decide if he stays in business or not.
I didn't say it was the same thing. It just reminds me of that case. It brings up a similar question of a business owner's right to refuse someone service base upon the owner's opinion.
posted by iclfan2Except that they could have bought anything from the bakery. They couldn't get a CUSTOM cake. So no, not really the same thing. I'm cool with a company refusing to serve someone for any reason though, so I'm fine with the MAGA hat ban. The market will decide if he stays in business or not.
Agreed. But had an owner banned the shirt below the media and leftists would have gone nuts until they shut the place down. The left simply can’t handle alternative thought.
posted by QuakerOatsSan Fran restaurant bans MAGA hats...
Fun times
Boo-hoo dude. “Wahhh, a restaurant won’t allow people to wear a hat.” No one whines quite like you.
posted by QuakerOats
Agreed. But had an owner banned the shirt below the media and leftists would have gone nuts until they shut the place down. The left simply can’t handle alternative thought.
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, you seem to be there. We all get that you think the mainstream media (whatever that is) is biased to the left and has been for awhile. So do you really see any point to continually showing outrage for every new story that comes along and reemphasizes your opinion?
On top of that, I bet there are a bazillion conservative-leaning news sites I could visit right now with stories about this topic that will have opinions that perfectly align with yours. If the New York Times was the only news outlet available, I would understand your point. Today, anyone can get their news from anyplace that espouses an agreeable viewpoint. So this Media conspiracy seems like a huge stretch.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI didn't say it was the same thing. It just reminds me of that case. It brings up a similar question of a business owner's right to refuse someone service base upon the owner's opinion.
I'll side with the business owner's right to deny service to anyone for any reason he sees fit.
posted by queencitybuckeyeI'll side with the business owner's right to deny service to anyone for any reason he sees fit.
It's a tricky one though. Cake or a restaurant meal is not a very important purchase. But what about a scenario where there was something more critical that needed to be purchased, maybe something not easily found elsewhere, and the owner refused to sell because he/she found something objectionable about the customer?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieIt's a tricky one though. Cake or a restaurant meal is not a very important purchase. But what about a scenario where there was something more critical that needed to be purchased, maybe something not easily found elsewhere, and the owner refused to sell because he/she found something objectionable about the customer?
I would prefer that the laws deal with those exceptions rather than granting de facto "rights" to customers in general.
posted by SportsAndLadyBoo-hoo dude. “Wahhh, a restaurant won’t allow people to wear a hat.” No one whines quite like you.
Maybe you should look at the post again; there is no outrage or whining.
Get in the game.
posted by QuakerOats
Maybe you should look at the post again; there is no outrage or whining.
Get in the game.
Uh huh
Well she did it, she out-retarded AOC. Omar says the 1% should pay 90% in taxes (marginal or not, stupid). You never go full retard! In most states the 1% is not a lot, $335k in Ohio.
https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/1091178672940232704?s=12
posted by iclfan2Well she did it, she out-retarded AOC. Omar says the 1% should pay 90% in taxes (marginal or not, stupid). You never go full retard! In most states the 1% is not a lot, $335k in Ohio.
https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/1091178672940232704?s=12
I scratch my head and wonder 2 things:
1. Who in the hell votes for these people?
2. Why is anyone shoving a microphone in there face?
posted by queencitybuckeyeI'll side with the business owner's right to deny service to anyone for any reason he sees fit.
Same here, if he is in San Fran type of area it will help their business. If he is anywhere else it will hurt. It is their right as an owner to refuse business to anyone (outside of race, creed, etc).
Might I just add that there are probably more restaurants in SF where wearing hats inside of the establishment is not acceptable than there are restaurants that allow it?
In my mind, this is a non-issue to begin with.
posted by jmogSame here, if he is in San Fran type of area it will help their business. If he is anywhere else it will hurt. It is their right as an owner to refuse business to anyone (outside of race, creed, etc).
Exactly. In DC, it is beneficial for businesses to virtue signal considering the clientele. They eat that shit up. I hate virtue signaling, but if I owed a business in DC, I would probably do it too if it meant more business.
posted by Spock1. Who in the hell votes for these people?
I was interested in this too. Lol it's the same district who elected Keith Ellison repeatedly. The most democratic district in the state.
People like being stuck in ruts. It's strangely comforting to them.
posted by Spock
2. Why is anyone shoving a microphone in there face?
$$$
posted by jmog
Same here, if he is in San Fran type of area it will help their business. If he is anywhere else it will hurt. It is their right as an owner to refuse business to anyone (outside of race, creed, etc).
I would say they have the right to refuse business for any reason, including those that make them prejudicial assholes. The US legislature disagrees, of course.
posted by CenterBHSFan
People like being stuck in ruts. It's strangely comforting to them.
I think it's because they see miserable familiarity is more comforting than promising unfamiliarity.
I cant believe other dems really want her out there spewing that shit
posted by SpockI cant believe other dems really want her out there spewing that shit
They won't say anything to her. Intersectionality rules the day with them. She's female, not white, non-Christian. That's a huge amount of points scored in their minds.
What I would like to know is who her puppet master is? It costs millions to win local elections to the house if not tens of millions.
Someone is pulling her strings and I am sure its not in the better interest of 99.9% of the US
posted by SpockI cant believe other dems really want her out there spewing that shit
The responses I've seen have been that it would be in the best interest of the economy, because it would force profits back into the company, a la more hiring, better equipment, etc.
These same people apparently don't know the difference between corporate profits and personal income. It seems as though they believe that they're the same thing once you make a certain amount.
So this is becoming a big story:
Obviously he should be taken down and put in a museum!
posted by CenterBHSFanSo this is becoming a big story:
Obviously he should be taken down and put in a museum!
Nothing to see here.....move along.
LOL, he has confirmed it is him and apologized. I am very interested to see how the media treats him (already seeing some delegates saying he can't be judged for something he did 20+ years ago). We all know how this would be handled if this were a Republican.
Prediction: Northam will be treated much more fairly than Kavanaugh. The irony is there are similarites. Kavanaugh was attacked for a HS yearbook photo (not when he was 25 years old in a medical photo like Northam), and he was attacked for drinking/liking beer (Northam has quite the yearbook quote about beer).
