http://truthfeed.com/back-of-the-bus-restaurant-employees-refuse-to-serve-trump-supporters/7117/
>>77215860
So what
Stop being such a fucking dumbass, if they don't want business that's their fault
Funny how liberals complain about when someone discriminates against a gay couple or a lesbian one and now they just shut people off
either way no one cares, it's his/her bussiness
>>77215860
You should support discrimination.
>>77216061
To more specific you should support the right to discriminate.
>>77215970
>hospitals should be able to discriminate against people who arrive in fatal conditions
>>77215860
Someone got fired that day.
>>77216147
Hospitals are state property
Are you a complete fucking retard?
>burger education
>>77216239
>I don't know what private hospitals are
>turkish rape baby education
>>77216239
>Hospitals are state property
This is the US we're talking about.
>>77216096
If we can't discriminate against fags then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against us
>>77216147
But this is about a burger joint.
>>77215970
Lets have a little thought experiment here. If these girls were wearing kipa and weren't served would you have a problem?
So can they sue like the cake lesbians?
>>77216379
It doesn t matter , you can t refuse to serve people based on their religion or political views
>>77215860
I guess refusing service is still better than "spicing up" the meal in the kitchen though...
>>77216379
I know. I'm just saying it's kind of retarded to say *any* business should be able to discriminate because of examples like hospitals not wanting to treat someone dying.
>>77216379
Remember how everyone cried when a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for some fags?
>>77216239
Maybe they are in your failed state but here in America less than 1/4 are public.
>>77215860
You ppl wont give a tow to a berniefag or bake a cake for a couple of dykes, anti-trump folks dont have to serve you.
Just the free market doing business in the way it sees fit, right?
>Or are your fee-fees hurt cuz its happening to you now?
>>77216239
At least the US can afford education.
It's annudda Shoah
>>77215860
I bet when they'll go bankrupt they're gonna blame Trump supporters for that,, too.
>>77216363
That would be fair but that's not how the state works.
>>77216490
yeah and i know and i find that retarded as well, but from the point of that guy who is refusing profit cuz of muh principles lel
>>77216548
So your saying that the eating establishment should be forced by the government to serve these people?
> Because then your comment would be in context.
>refusing to serve ignorant biggots who believe that all muslims and "illegal mexicans" should be banned from the united states which is a gross trampling of the constitution and the principles this country was founded on
i see no problem with this. anyone voting for trump un-ironically deserves to be scorned for their complete lack of grasp on reality
>>77216427
No, lol
>>77216326
>>77216333
>>77216498
1) The owner isn't at the hospital checking out each patient
2) No moron would deny treatment to a person that needs it
3) "hospital discrimination was widespread throughout the United States and, in many jurisdictions, legally sanctioned."
>>77216566
We can too, what's wrong, too much syrian semen in your head?
>>77216472
you should be able to refuse service based on whatever
>>77216548
You got both of those people fired. So I assume you'll be wanted the heads of this bigoted burger joint? Oh wait, no, you don't, because you're a hypocritical piece of shit.
>>77216479
Why shouldn't hospitals be able to discriminate in that case? If they do and they are still visited then it seems society is fine with their decision. So why should they accept your opinion as law?
>>77215970
The problem is that double standard mate. It's either OK to discriminate based on Sex/Gender/Race/Beliefs/Religion/ or it's not. I'd prefer the former. But either would be better then this "It's OK to discriminate, but only on certain things" thing that's going on.
>>77216680
aren't you the fag that the constitution is a "300 year old paper that no one gives a shit about"?
>biggots
Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously?
Banning TERRORISTS and CRIMINALS isn't anti-constitutional in any way
>we won't serve trump supporters
>but you have to bake cakes for gays
the hypocrisy just oozes from a liberal's every orifice
>>77216644
>that would be fair
Being a Trumpfag isn't an orientation.
There is plenty of shit that is fine and dandy to discriminate based on (state of dress for example).
And just for the record, gay liberal bastions like California and New York actually do disallow political discrimination so the gays are one of the few groups actually defending your right to not be discriminated against.
>>77215860
Private business, so they can. It would be nice to see the Trump supporters sue them for discrimination like the cake fags did however and see the verdict
>>77216680
weak b8 desu senpai
>>77216688
>1) The owner isn't at the hospital checking out each patient
Doesn't matter. If it's a private religious hospital for example, they could deny service to people that aren't accepted in their beliefs as a policy.
>2) No moron would deny treatment to a person that needs it
You don't know that, you're just pulling an assumption out of your ass.
>3) "hospital discrimination was widespread throughout the United States and, in many jurisdictions, legally sanctioned."
The ACLU would like to have a word with you
>>77216939
>There is plenty of shit that is fine and dandy to discriminate based on (state of dress for example).
And some people don't want to serve others because of their political believes or sexual orientation. Why is one fine and the other is not? Why should the business owner not be allowed to choose for himself who he does business with? He is not a slave, is he?
>>77215970
Not serving trump supporters is ok but if some cake business refuse to serve fags they have to file chapter 7
>>77216789
It's not a double standard precisely because you are dealing with DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
Nobody is claiming all discrimination is wrong. To use an extreme example, that's why we jail murderers. Fuck murderers. But obviously the state of having murdered someone or not is a different standard than sex. Just as sex is a different standard than orientation, which is a different standard than state of dress.
>>77216548
yeah and those faggots did everything they could to ruin that bakery including taking them to court and made the owner pay for emotional damages
>>77216680
Who the fuck votes ironically?
>>77216680
Nice meme.
Also, why do liberals always leave out the part where the ban applies until we fix the vetting process? Being disingenuous is not helping your cause, and will actually result in further harm to the lgbq community down the road, in the form of more horrific attacks from muslims.
>>77217303
Liberals.
>>77216939
>being a trumping isn't an orientation
Speak for yourself.
If people can unironically be considered a different gender, or race or species or whatever based on "muh feelings" and supported in this delusion by law then being a trumpfag can be an orientation too.
You know if this happened to hillary supporters this would be national news and they'd be crying about it
>>77216939
I sexually identify as a Trump supporter.
>>77215860
hahaha Trumplets got owned
are the burger joint owners behind this or is it just one butthurt employee who is most likely gonna fired anyways.
>>77217290
You've got it backwards. I'm saying all discrimination is right, not wrong. A business should be able to sell, or not sell to anyone for any reason they wish. There is no difference between not selling to someone because they are gay, then not selling because they are a murderer, a black man, a member of mesa, anything you want.
>>77215860
Don't particular care for this but at least it's better than a bunch of dirty fucking mexican loyalists chimping out on them.
>>77217337
We both know that's not going to happen
>temperary ban
>months go by and there's no perfect vetting option
>years go by and mudslimes still blowing shit up around the world
>better not risk it yet
>8 years later and no terrorist attacks on Donald's watch
>Donald Trump Jr elected president
>8 more years of prosperity
>America is great again
>>77216892
Not hypocritical dipshit
>>77217246
>Why is one fine and the other is not?
Immutable or near immutable trait is generally the standard for discrimination bans.
That said, not all immutable or near immutable traits are covered everywhere, some states don't have protection for orientation, others don't have protection for political ideology.
I believe both forms of discrimination are wrong since political ideology is a near immutable trait similar to religion, but the fact remains that as long as the classification in question is different, there's no hypocrisy.
See
>>77217290
>Why should the business owner not be allowed to choose for himself who he does business with?
He does, just don't operate as a public accommodation. Sam's Club can turn away whoever the fuck they want for race, sex, whatever, because they aren't structured as a public accommodation.
Structuring your business as a public accommodation is agreeing to operate under anti-discrimination laws.
>>77216239
To be fair, to your average American burger resturants are just as vital as hospitals.
>>77216939
>And just for the record, gay liberal bastions like California and New York actually do disallow political discrimination so the gays are one of the few groups actually defending your right to not be discriminated against.
for the record, the case about serving gays was shot down even when it was tied to religious rights
so apparently it's fine and dandy to kick people out for having different political views
but fuck you if your religion makes you feel like you can do the same to gays
>>77217523
>I'm saying all discrimination is right
Well then what's your problem? Your opinion on discrimination is being discriminated against.
>>77215970
It's discrimination and it's in the constitution that you won't be discriminated against on the basis of your political beliefs.
>>77217639
Well, if that turns out to be the case, then we have pretty much isolated the cause of the terrorist actions to everyone's benefit.
I just wish being *tolerant* didn't also have to mean forcing vulnerability on a given populace.
>>77217798
I'm not a business mate.
>>77217707
>for the record, the case about serving gays was shot down even when it was tied to religious rights
Because the operators religious rights don't trump the customer's civil rights.
>so apparently it's fine and dandy to kick people out for having different political views
To be fair, if your religion make you feel like you can do the same to Trumpfags in NY or CA, you're equally fucked as the baker.
>>77215860
Who cares, they should be happy they didn't give money to some cuck.
>>77215860
Freedom of association
>>77215860
Dumb whiteys
>>77217677
>the fact remains that as long as the classification in question is different, there's no hypocrisy
What is this even supposed to mean? And how are you determining immutable traits? What do they have to do with business?
Are escorts going to be forced to accept any gender or race by your proposal?
http://www.cookout com/contact-us/
A free meal?
Let them know you won't be back until all employees who allowed this to happen are fired for bigotry
>>77217991
>civil rights
it's still dubious if having a cake baked for you by anyone you want is a civil right
>>77217974
And?
You said all discrimination.
>>77217872
Yes, by the state or federal governments and even then it's a very limited protection since political believes have never been elevated to suspect or quasi-suspect class, effectively reducing the standard for allowing any such discrimination to rational basis.
Discrimination in private businesses is actually enforced by state and federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act. And even then political believes are only covered by a few state laws.
they have gone too far with this one. you cannot deny an american their right to consume burger.
Trump will tweet this I hope.
>>77216379
yeah an american hospital.
then they should just sue the shit out of the restaurant for denying them service, like that gay couple who sued the bakery for refusing to serve them a wedding cake.
>tfw no cutie conservative girls near me
How do I find cuties that aren't degenerate, /pol/?
>>77217991
>Because the operators religious rights don't trump the customer's civil rights.
What civil rights were infringed by the refusal to bake the gays a cake? Were they the only bakery around?
>>77217086
I respect you. You would never allow to lose an internet argument
![IMG_0223[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Gp3mXT4.jpg "IMG_0223[1].jpg")
You're all missing the point
Just how goddamn good is Cook Out. They do no lie when they say they have the best combo around and to be honest I've never seen anyone come close to the amount of food you get for $4.25
>>77215860
i dont see the problem with a business being able to choose who they associate with.
the only problem here was some lazy assed uppity burger flipper was trying to make a management decision.
>>77218136
>What is this even supposed to mean?
Double standards don't apply because you are dealing with inherently different shit meriting or at least allowing for different treatment.
It's not a different standard to treat a child different from a pet for example.
>And how are you determining immutable traits?
Immutable is a word that means something, look it up.
>What do they have to do with business?
A person can still achieve economic participation by altering mutable traits, whereas immutable traits by definition cannot be changed. Lawmakers also include quasi-immutable traits which would unduly burden someone to expect them to change them.
>Are escorts going to be forced to accept any gender or race by your proposal?
If they've structured their escort service as a public accommodation, yes.
>>77218441
how the fuck do we still have world hunger?
>>77218238
The gay couple had a state law backing them up.
I'm like 95% certain Virginia has no such law backing up political groups since they only exist in a few states.
>>77215860
>be openly and unironically racist
>complain when people don't want to serve you
>>77218270
>What civil rights were infringed by the refusal to bake the gays a cake?
Equal access to public accommodations among all orientations
>Were they the only bakery around?
That building? Probably. When did we put a geographic buffer on civil rights beyond legal borders?
>>77218561
A lack of infrastructure to allow for produced food and water to reach areas of food deficiency.
We produce more than enough food to feed everyone.
>>77218607
didnt the bakery also have laws backing them up?
or are muslims the only ones who can get away with playing that card?
>>77218739
It's not public though. It's a private business.
Why do liberals keep extending what "rights" are until they are meaningless: healthcare, education, the internet, having cakes baked for you on demand.
>>77218822
i was just making a shitty joke mang
>>77218844
>didnt the bakery also have laws backing them up?
Yes. They just didn't take advantage of them.
Had they not structured their business as a public accommodation they could have turned away all the gays they wanted.
>or are muslims the only ones who can get away with playing that card?
A Muslim bakery structured as a public accommodation couldn't discriminate against gays in that state either.
>>77216147
>be in canadian emergency
>die
I would never wear a trump hat to a restaurant. What a way to invite spit and pubes into your food. You know those psychos have no morals against it.
>>77218933
>It's not public though. It's a private business.
Public accommodation is a legal term referring to certain kinds of private businesses that are open to the general public.
It has nothing to do with government ownership and the public bit refers exclusively to clientele.
>>77218988
a special order by appointment only type business seems like its already out of the realm of public accommodation.
would that not be like forcing an artist to paint some shit they didnt want to?
>>77218995
are the waiting limits really that bad?
>>77218691
then the people that refused service are just like them :^)
>>77218497
>Double standards don't apply because you are dealing with inherently different shit meriting or at least allowing for different treatment.
A pet and a child are two different things. Persons old enough to do business with you are not. You are defending one discrimination by explaining that it is not an immutable trait. So you are fine with discrimination along the lines of opinions but where is the difference if you don't want to serve someone who likes the color green or somebody who has an illness making him green?
>Immutable is a word that means something, look it up.
You are automatically ignoring the possibility opinions are immutable. How?
>A person can still achieve economic participation by altering mutable traits, whereas immutable traits by definition cannot be changed.
So all the person has to do is change his mutable trait and he can do business because then he won't be discriminated against? Can't you see that this would be a much more effective and conflict save approach? When business owners are left with the decision to discriminate then those discriminated against will turn to other businesses. No law needed.
>If they've structured their escort service as a public accommodation, yes.
It does not matter. They offer a service and they may only want to offer this service to people they choose are appropriate. We can go through the same scenario with a brothel.
>>77219230
>a special order by appointment only type business seems like its already out of the realm of public accommodation.
If anyone can make a special order, it isn't. Businesses can be fairly similar in structure and still vary on whether or not they are a public accommodation. Sam's v Walmart for example.
>would that not be like forcing an artist to paint some shit they didnt want to?
Sure.
>>77218739
>Equal access to public accommodations among all orientations
That's the lawyer explanation. They were able to access the place and if I remember correctly it was done over the phone.
>That building? Probably. When did we put a geographic buffer on civil rights beyond legal borders?
Because if they weren't the only bakery around then the gays could have taken their business elsewhere.
>>77219566
so all of this could be avoided if they simply told the faggots they were booked solid?
>>77218183
>>77219433
>A pet and a child are two different things.
So are sexual orientation and political orientation you stupid shit.
>Persons old enough to do business with you are not.
Which is why you can discriminate against individuals on the basis of their individual identity.
>So you are fine with discrimination along the lines of opinions but where is the difference if you don't want to serve someone who likes the color green or somebody who has an illness making him green?
I'm not actually fine with political orientation. I'm merely pointing out that it's a different standard than other standards, thus making any claims of hypocrisy nonsensical.
>but where is the difference if you don't want to serve someone who likes the color green or somebody who has an illness making him green?
Whether or not you like a particular color and whether or not you are a sickly green are different standards. That's the difference.
I'm comparing discriminations; you're pointing out discrimination.
>How?
By living in reality. But once again, I consider political views a near immutable trait and believe they should be protected.
>So all the person has to do is change his mutable trait and he can do business because then he won't be discriminated against? Can't you see that this would be a much more effective and conflict save approach?
Yes, which is why the only mutable traits that are protected by law are political orientation in a few states, religion, and sex. Because expecting a person to change any of those to get service is being unreasonable.
>When business owners are left with the decision to discriminate then those discriminated against will turn to other businesses.
You act like Civil Rights legislation doesn't have a historical context wherein these laws were completely necessary.
>It does not matter.
It does since structuring your business as a public accommodation is a completely voluntary act that creates a legal and societal expectation of service.
>>77215860
Poor Trump supporter.
Must be hard to be retarded
>>77215970
>You must make this gay couples wedding cake even though it is your business and you should he able to choose who you sell to
>they didn't serve trump supporters? Meh it's their business they can choose who they sell too why are you mad?
THE LEFT EVERYBODY, KINGS OF DOUBLETHINK!!
>>77216644
>Germany
You and France are gonna be the first to fall the jihadism, since you guys are negotiating and pandering to them.
>>77215860
>lazy burger flipper fucks around like this
>MUH 15 DOLLARZZZZ!1!!!11!!!!!
>>77218350
Why the fuck would you just say "no you are right" when someone is wrong and trying to dispute you being right with more inccorect facts?
>>77215860
They seem to need to skip a couple of hamburger meals so not a bad thing.
>>77215860
I think a business should be allowed to choose their customers, so nothing wrong with this. As long as lefties also keep their dirty mouths shut when someone won't bake a faggot cake.
>>77219662
>Because if they weren't the only bakery around then the gays could have taken their business elsewhere.
Civil Rights laws don't have exceptions for situations where people are able to take their business elsewhere within a set distance.
>They were able to access the place and if I remember correctly it was done over the phone.
By access I meant use of, not means of entering.
>>77220004
Yes, they could also have lied instead of outright admitting to violating a law they didn't have to even put themselves under in the first place. Not sure how you got that out of my post.
Admittedly they still would have violated the law in that scenario, but they could never have been prosecuted.
>>77220400
Pierre please, don't keep your black bull waiting to be prepped.
>>77216680
Well over half of America is bout to MAGA with or without your dumbass
>>77215860
>Denying your fellow Americans the right to burger.
It's a fucking disgrace.
>>77220467
>Political and sexual orientation are the same thing
THE RIGHT EVERYBODY, KINGS OF EQUIVOCATION
>>77215860
Trump supporters need to cite the Quran to these uneducated retards to get them to double think their actions.
>>77215860
would be hilarious if they accepted the free meal voucher and used the drive through with trump gear on.
>the look on the burger flippers face when they have to give unadulterated food to trump supporters who roll up at the window.
>>77215860
>YOUR RESISTANCE ONLY MAKES OUR RESOLVE HARDER
>>77220467
They didn't choose to be gay.
>>77216239
>hospitals
>state property
>>77216147
Doctors can decide to not do a risky surgery.
>>77215860
Correct opinion guy here.
It's perfectly okay for businesses to discriminate on whatever metric they wish to.
It is also perfectly fine to single boost that businesses beliefs and opinions and possible fallout from it.
This is what culture is, what we are to expect from our fellow men, and if it grinds against the grains in a field reliant on loyal customers expecting familiarity in beliefs, then your business acumen will fall short and will cause you to lose because you are in a environment with beliefs in which you do not belong in.
>>77220613
this desu senpai
>>77215860
Restaurants are a scam. Their food and drinks are heavily overpriced most of the time. There is nothing better than scamming your enemy.
If i owned a restaurant i would serve shitty food to lefties but send a very polite waiter who would pretend to be on their side. Then retards would tip my restaurant , and pay a lot for shitty food.
>>77220368
>So are sexual orientation and political orientation you stupid shit.
>I'm merely pointing out that it's a different standard than other standards, thus making any claims of hypocrisy nonsensical.
Yes. But one is fine with you for the business owner to discriminate against while you are drawing a line for the other. So one thing is okay and another is not and thereby you automatically raise a problem. By setting standards for others you are opening the door to hypocrisy.
>Whether or not you like a particular color and whether or not you are a sickly green are different standards.
But it doesn't matter to the business owner or the customer. Those two are the only ones whose standard matters and nobody else.
>Because expecting a person to change any of those to get service is being unreasonable.
So what happens when a business owner discriminates against a crippled man because of his taste in music? All these laws would call for is more lawsuits and more lawyers debating this stuff. It is unreasonable.
>You act like Civil Rights legislation doesn't have a historical context wherein these laws were completely necessary.
If the people did not want that business than they were unnecessary. I don't think anybody was starving or not to get by because there were no civil rights before.
>It does since structuring your business as a public accommodation is a completely voluntary act that creates a legal and societal expectation of service.
If the place of business is your private property than you should be allowed to conduct your business the way you choose. I guess I would have to hang a sign outside then saying that this place is no public accommodation.
>>77220614
>Civil Rights laws don't have exceptions for situations where people are able to take their business elsewhere within a set distance.
What are they about then? Feelings?
>By access I meant use of, not means of entering.
They were quite able to use the service. Just not that specific product they asked for.
>>77220675
>IS OK WHEN WE, THE LEFT, ARE INTOLERANT FUCKERS
>IS NOT OK WHEN THE RIGHT DOES IT!
>>77221165
how dare businesses make a profit selling stuff that everyone claims they can make at home for less money (but never do)!!!
>>77215860
apparently this is not illegal
>http://nypost.com/2016/03/21/landlord-refuses-to-rent-apartment-to-trump-supporters-and-thats-legal/
>excluding renters based on their political affiliation isn’t prohibited by federal law
>>77221251
>But one is fine with you for the business owner to discriminate against while you are drawing a line for the other.
Actually I think both are wrong.
There's a difference between acting immoral and acting hypocritical.
>So what happens when a business owner discriminates against a crippled man because of his taste in music?
The crippled man doesn't get served. You don't automatically get served if you're cripple. Same shit would happen if he had no shirt or shoes.
>I don't think anybody was starving or not to get by because there were no civil rights before.
Yeah cause housing discrimination didn't negatively affect ANYBODY, amirite? You're either retarded or delusional.
>If the place of business is your private property than you should be allowed to conduct your business the way you choose.
Being a public accommodation is completely voluntary. People should be held to the standards by which they agree to abide in a civil society.
>>77221399
>They were quite able to use the service
>just not ALL of the service
Equal access, m8, not access.
>>77215860
>1 post by this ID
>>77221474
The charge was hypocracy, not intolerance.
They were being intolerant assholes and I disapprove wholeheartedly of this sort of shit.
But they weren't being hypocritical.
>>77216490
>Remember how everyone cried when a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for some fags?
You don't choose to be gay, but you do choose to support Donald Trump.
That's what they'll say, anyway, ignoring the deeper question of whether or not it's just to refuse service based on personal ideology, but that's the world we live in these days.
>>77221540
>apparently this is not illegal
Varies by state but yeah in the vast majority of the country it's not illegal.
>>77215860
used to work in a sketchy motel.
whenever some ghetto niggers or hookers showed up we just told them all rooms were booked.
>>77216147
jesus christ america
>>77221907
im not sure what recourse these people have then.
my best idea would be to claim its cause they are lesbians or just ask to speak to an actual manager instead of some lazy nigger working there since i doubt a company that has everything to gain from keeping minimum wage low would be against trump.
>>77219017
>implying spit and pubes in food only happens when someone wears a hat
Spic spit and nigger pubes is what's on the menu, m8.
>>77221682
>There's a difference between acting immoral and acting hypocritical.
Sure, but making laws because they sound morally reasonable like this opens the door to hypocrisy as we can see.
>The crippled man doesn't get served.
And then he can drag the business owner before court and so on. This is exactly the reason this stuff only causes problems.
>Yeah cause housing discrimination didn't negatively affect ANYBODY, amirite?
Good thing there have never been problems with that since civil rights. What a triumph.
>People should be held to the standards by which they agree to abide in a civil society.
That would be nice but since most of the laws are pushed on them it's not that easy.
>>77221728
>Equal access, m8, not access.
So the bakery could have declined to make a wedding cake for people they did not like because of their opinion or whatever, but by not doing the cake for a gay wedding they were breaking the law. This is just too ridiculous for anyone to support those laws.
>>77216566
>
No they literally can't. They fucked up big time with Bernie, despite all his faults, he's the only man that could've saved American education and they just pushed him aside and allowed the memes to take control. Building a fucking wall and having a female president is more important than shit that actually matters to these people. America is literally a meme at this point.
>>77222278
>im not sure what recourse these people have then.
1. lie
2. go somewhere else
3. not bring up their political ideology in the first place
4. change their political ideology
5. get refused service and shittalk/boycott/throw a bitchfit
6. Lobby their state or local legislature for political ideology to be included in their regional civil rights laws, come back, and try again
7. Rob the place
>>77216468
I would if I were them.
>>77221807
What about it. I like to hear what other ppl say about this.
>>77222444
>And then he can drag the business owner before court and so on
And lose because he was refused service for a legal reason.
You can't have courts and not have nuisance lawsuits. I'm sorry to inform you of the grim reality we live in.
>>77222444
>So the bakery could have declined to make a wedding cake for people they did not like because of their opinion or whatever, but by not doing the cake for a gay wedding they were breaking the law.
Yes
>This is just too ridiculous for anyone to support those laws.
No
Many laws have situational exceptions. Actually, I would imagine ALL laws have situational exceptions. If you refuse service to someone based on their race while sleepwalking for example, I think you're legally in the clear.
>>77222511
8. use the drive through
>>77215860
>Liberals refusing money
They do realize that Bernie isn't going to be president, and that capitalism is still a thing, right?
They lost potential profit, and the Trump supports probably ended up just going somewhere else to eat while they waited for the news team to show up.
>>77215860
PRAISE KEK
>>77215860
>I hate fucking money cause these people are wearing red hats with words I don't agree with.
If I hated someones cunts I'd still take their fucking money. Whats wrong? they hating capitalism now?
>>77215860
Dated a doctor (hospital) for a couple of years. She would always inflict some bonus pain on shitskins and turkroaches. Especially when they needed stitches. She would inject the pain killer so it doesn't help much and sew the wound so it would leave an ugly scar.
>>77215970
Employees =/= company
A company has right to choose who they serve, the employees should be fired for not doing their job
You do know what a job is right Greece?
>>77222651
It'd get thrown out.
Orientation was covered in Colorado.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/virginia-employment-discrimination-32158.html
This is employment discrimination but it likely matches public accommodations discrimination.
>>77221897
>You don't choose to be gay
this website is proof against that
>>77215860
fuck, I love cookout, but I'll start going elsewhere I guess...
>>77222959
>dating josef mengele
>>77222959
much as i hate kebabs that is pretty evil considering her profession
>>77216147
Behold, the American puts getting a burger on the same level of importance as getting a lethal condition treated.
>>77216239
lol inbred turk
>>77223114
Eat your filthy burger you bernie voter.
>>77223114
i love how sane people just calmly take their business elsewhere while the faggots and lefties harass and try to ddos a business.
>>77216651
jew
>>77216147
>Be American
> Not getting fifth burger of the day is life threatening emergency
>>77216239
>turkish rapebabies
Pay debts faggot
>>77216147
You can't force private business to serve a customer or group of customers.
>>77223547
You can if they are gay apparently.
>>77223201
Logical extremes are fine as long as they are logical. And a counterexample is a counterexample.
Using a logical extreme is not assigning any abstract equivalence to the subjects; it's just taking a structured argument and testing the structure in a new environment to see if the structure of the argument is sound.
i don't have photo shop on this computer.
can someone please correct the name of this establishment???
>>77223547
You are absolutely right.
But we can fine the shit out of them for refusing to serve a customer for a variety of reasons.
>>77223176
>>77223194
I can understand her. When those people come to the hospital they come in groups of 10-15. Screaming, complaining, harassing and completly out of control. She once got punched by a roach woman because more serious patients got attention before her kid. Not doing her best work on those people is just her way of coping with this shit.
>>77223596
When colt servs gays you can too.
>>77223596
Here in Shittugal yes, we have something in our commie Constitution that actually says that. But from a moral standpoint, it is a violation of property rights to use the power of the State to coerce a private business into employing, serving or associating in any other way with someone they simply wish not to. Customers are free to boycott the business if they feel it is any way "bigoted" or whatever.
>most people are stupid to realize these decisions are usually not because of the owners' inner thoughts, but a reflection of the customers' demands
>most people see these issues as a "oppressed" vs. "oppressor" issue; if a jew were to refuse serving a nazi, people wouldn't say anything because of these two being the historically "oppressed" and "oppressor", respectively
Fucking double standards.
>>77215860
That's their right.
But that being said, don't bitch when a bakery doesn't want to make a homosexual wedding cake.
>>77216147
>worried these girls would get a burger deficiency
Calm down yank dont be a faggot you might get shot
>>77223982
It's actually illegal to refuse to serve nazis in some states, notably California and New York.
>>77217517
Most likely the latter. Cookout is a large chain, they'd be fucking stupid to go political.
>>77223701
please see >>77223982
As I said, this "discrimination" is usually about protecting the business rather than the owner's bigotry.
>>77224091
And that is a stupid law and should be abolished.
>>77223663
very well, i'll do it myself then...
>>77224288
fine fine hold on.
>>77224053
>>77215970
Except those bakeries had to pay thousands in fines...
>>77223851
in that case she sounds reasonable. its one thing to be in need of help but to be a dick about it is kind of unacceptable.
whats up with minorities and bringing their entire family along to do mundane shit? had one couple turn up at my store with 4 kids just to buy a fucking laptop charger. kids fucked around all over the store while the father kept wasting my time with stupid questions.
>>77224288
here
>>77215860
>They refuse to serve you
>You collapse because muh blood sugar level too low
>Sue them for everything they have
Could work, couldn't it?
>>77216147
Agreed.
Should be allowed to let niggers die on the street in front of the hospital. It's funnier and more despair-inducing... Assuming niggers are human enough to process despair.
Let's stop debating and just have the fucking war, already.
>>77222278
>im not sure what recourse these people have then.
Grease fires are unfortunately common with restaurants. So many fire hazards in those kitchens. Very unfortunate.
>>77216239
>Hospitals are state property
>>77216472
You should be able to though.
>>77216479
Yes, but you can leave a beggar, a hitchhiker or a drunk person on the side of the road, but if you see someone bleeding to death, you HAVE TO stop and help him.
Life-saving is obviously different than normal day-to-day business.
>>77223611
But you don't actually test the logic in the new situation. If you had, you would find that there is a very real difference that allows for the discrimination in one situation and doesn't in the other and as such eliminates its function as a counterexample. That is, the importance of receiving service. Not giving you a burger because of personal politics is perfectly fine. As a doctor not treating your disease for the same reason is not.
Extremes serve a purpose, yes, but you don't use them correctly. You don't even follow your own justification of it. You don't explore the extreme, but merely posit it.
>>77223851
I have an aunt who work as a nurse and I can confirm, she say shitskins always come with their whole noisy families and muslims mens throw a fit because they don't want a woman to touch them, etc etc...
>>77223351
That man is not a jew, he is a business-oriented Balkan person who probably owns a few small businesses himself and understands the importance of not wasting potential profits because of ideological differences. Or are small businesses part of the international jewry, too? Imbecile.
>>77225307
>come with their whole noisy families
i never understood this phenomenon
>>77215860
>Restaurant Employees Refuse to Serve Trump Supporters
>Restaurant Employees Refuse to Serve
>Refuse to Serve
Restaurants are economically as good as dead, and the few customers they have get kicked out.
Enjoy your unemployment, employees.
>>77221897
Being gay isn't a choice but making a gay wedding is a choice. I won't cater for an interracial bukkake party and it's my choice, but if some individual wants a muffin just for eating a muffin, you shouldn't discriminate. They didn't order food for the next Trump rally, they just wanted to eat.
>>77225174
>That is, the importance of receiving service
No service is completely meaningless, so your argument is that discrimination is okay as long as you aren't inconveniencing someone too badly.
That's a flawed argument without a demonstrable cutoff and an explanation as to why immoral becomes moral or morally neutral behavior below that cutoff.
Stealing a glass marble and stealing a car are both bad, it's just a matter of how bad as another example.
>>77215860
>The Trump supporters ask for the number to corporate
>Corporate apologizes and offers a free meal
>Trump supporters decline and decide that they will no longer be customers of cook out
>Media publishes the story, drawing more attention to it. Bad publicity can only ensue
>Somewhere along the lines, I'm certain the employee has been or will soon be fired
This is the best possible outcome
>>77225945
Or all the liberals go there eating and the employe gets a raise.
>>77225945
and since right wingers dont go to plebbit and demand a personal army the company gets to real support from the public.
Stop getting buttblasted because someone didn't want your goddamn money, just to to somewhere else, you're not the one losing some bucks. The owner was in his right to refuse service, the bussiness is his and he do whatever he wants.
>>77225897
I don't agree that denying someone service is an immoral thing to do. And I don't need to be able to exactly define the line to be able to say that denying someone crucial medicine is immoral and denying someone right to trade a burger for money isn't. The importance of what is served and the consequences of withholding is enough to highlight the difference in these two situations.
>>77226066
>Or all the liberals go there eating and the employe gets a raise.
I don't think you understand the mindframe of liberals
It is not that they do their dirty work themselves, it is bitching and moaning until other people do it for them.
That's why Activism is so popular with the left. It consists of nothing more than publicly throwing temper tantrums at the top of their lungs until they get their way.
>>77226066
>vegan and gluten free cucks
>ordering burger
>>77215860
If gays can sue cake sellers for not selling them cakes, why cant they?
>>77226437
>>77227387
political ideology is a choice? but sexuality and religion are not. right?
So? No law supports them, they can pick their customers
>>77221474
not an argument
>>77226439
And I'm not saying the two situations are the same, but you've yet to explain why one is and the other isn't.
Either both are or both aren't or there is a substantive difference between the two other than scale (since scale of immorality does not change whether or not something is immoral).
I posit that both are immoral due to their structural similarity and one being obviously immoral. Burden's on you to disprove my argument.
>>77228170
Actually not an argument.
>>77218441
Carolinian living up north now checking in. I've been trying to redpill my bros on Cookout for ages now. It is god tier. I mean for christ's sake, you can get two corn dogs as your sides.
>>77216239
Sorry but this is where we all shitholes fail
>>77228338
I have already given my argument. The matter at stake is too small in the case of the burger. Discrimination is not inherently immoral. When the act has serious consequences it can become immoral, but just because it can be immoral in one extreme case doesn't mean it can then be said to be immoral in any other case at the opposite end of the act's spectrum.
So I have already given my argument and met my burden. You are simply left unconvinced. Here we arrive at a personal difference in our understanding of morality, ethical maxims and the weight of consequence and their effect on what we view as righteous.
Sadly I don't have to time, nor is this the right medium, to debate our disagreement.
>There are people, right now on pol, who don't know the the left is the more raciest and hypocritical side of the political spectrum.
For fucks sakes people they openly say and display that only Straight White Males are physically able [spoiler]and japs[/spoiler] to succeed and every other race NEEDS the help of them or they will all die off.
>>77215860
Imagine if some Trump supporters did this to some black democrats. Would be all over the news for a week.
>>77218176
>the First Amendment only applies to a few local and state laws
>>77229368
Seriousness of consequences affects degree of immorality, not whether or not something is immoral.
Your argument is shit.
Looks like we need to update this
>>77216548
That is fine. Now when do the people that owned that bakery get their 250k and their business back?
>>77229570
>political beliefs discrimination protection is in the 1st amendment
1/10 apply yourself
But banning gay people from getting wedding cakes is bad enough to kill your business entirely, fuck that. This idea of a moral economy needs to stop.
>>77222993
Can't they just claim to be Trump-gendered?
"As a trans-Trump, wall-phile I find this offensive!"
>>77227557
And yet in a cash transaction where one purchases food, sexuality never becomes an issue. This is the same shit.
>>77229773
So in the end you agree with his point.
>Congratulations, you played yourself
>>77229773
I agree partially. The consequences can certainly be affect the degree. But I do believe that if the consequences are so slight, they can be wholly irrelevant to the matter of morality.
Getting your burger in that specific restaurant isn't so damn important. A business is perfectly justified in reserving its right to withhold service.
My argument not a shit. Yours a shit (and too petty).
>>77215860
Wew, would you look at that, anti-Trumps being prejudiced and discriminating; reminds me of the time when they say they'll flee America to Europe or Canada in case Trump wins the election - the bigoted Liberals will never say they'll flee to the Congo or Zimbabwe for some peculiar reason, even though they claim "we're all the same".
>>77215860
>turning away paying customers
Seems like a self-punishing crime to me.
>>77218933
You obviously don't understand the concept of "protected classes". You legally cannot discriminate against someone based on race, religion or sexual orientation. However, being a Trump supporter is not on that list - thus the "Liberals" you rail against are being entirely ideologically consistent. Please do better, or soon
>Australian education
Will be a meme too.
>>77230435
>posts an image implying logical inconsistency in opposing views
>proceeds to add a caption with even less logical consistency
Most, if not all 3rd world countries are indeed far more conservative and xenophobic than the US. Thus, those seeking a more inclusive, less divisive country would naturally be drawn towards 1st world ones. Fyi a city like London is far more diverse than the US as a whole, and I don't think anyone would have any qualms about moving there whatsoever. Poortugal, you need to focus on paying your debts and re-establishing your education system, not posting your incredibly retarded opinions online.
>>77215970
You clearly dont know about the bakery that wouldn't bake for gays.
>>77231523
Wew, would you look at that, a red herring to deliberately avoid my argument and, of course, the usual ad hominem.
>>77229937
>the Constitution only applies to a few local and state laws
I've applied myself, senpai! Please notice me!
>>77223201
Behold, the straw man.
Why are leftists such virulent promoters of hatred and prejudice?
>>77218441
NC checking in. In a way this doesn't surprise me, all the drive thru Cook Outs are staffed by blacks... The one sit down one is a good 20 mins from where I live and it's mostly teenagers that work in it.
>>77232571
Thank you for rising above it by displaying absolutely no hatred or prejudice in your post.
>>77232856
Wilmingtonian checking in, destroyed a quesadilla tray with hush pups last night. The kitchen is slam packed with Mexicans here.
>>77233138
Thank you for failing to come up with an argument.
>>77232050
>tfw when I responded exactly to your post
Poortugal, if you're going to try and shitpost at least appear plausible. There's a reason no one respects your country, and it's cos you're all shitcunts with no subtlety. Also the fact you're pretty much 3rd world at this point. Chile and fucking POLAND have higher HDIs, wew lad.
>>77233348
There's a whole discussion that follows that post if you're interested.
discrimination based on political beliefs.
should be the same as with the bakery refusing to serve gays.
i hope they sue.
>>77232372
>The Civil Rights Act is part of the Constitution
>I didn't already address the limited application of the 14th with regards to political views discrimination to state laws implicitly with reference to limited application and judicial review
I don't know what you're bitching about but odds are you're either wrong or didn't understand what I said due to a limited understanding of constitutional protections an how they function relative laws and courts.
>>77216239
>Is so brainwashed by his own system he thinks American hospitals are owned by the state.
>Insults American education.
Even non-profit hospitals are still privately owned here, dude.
>>77218183
Would you cream yourself if he did?
>>77233626
>responding to my post
>addressing my argument
Jej.
>Also the fact you're pretty much 3rd world at this point. Chile and fucking POLAND have higher HDIs, wew lad.
Oh look, more "accepted bigotry", thus reinforcing my original point; you really need to lay off the haterade, bro, don't you know this is 2016 already?
>>77233685
Yes, and it is basically you grasping at straws in an attempt at rationalizing your virulent promotion of hatred and prejudice.
>>77224835
It's a poor people thing. Hillbillies do the same thing. Pile maw, paw, meemaw, peepaw, the brats, and their brat in the pick up to go buy random, useless shit. When your only hobbies are abusing drugs and watching tv, a trip to walmart is major excitement.
>>77234327
>It's a poor people thing.
Pretty much. Not everyone can afford a sitter
>>77216147
Just so people know, since this may not be common knowledge, it is highly illegal for an American hospital (even private ones) to refuse emergency treatment, regardless of the patient's ability to pay.
Look up the Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act of 1986 if you want to know more.
It's amazing how many people (Burgers and non-Burgers) think hospitals over here can just let you die on the pavement outside if you don't have a credit card on you.
Not saying this is very capitalistic, or that I approve of it. But that is the law.
>>77215860
>>77215970
What a smart debnt payer. It's a private business, let them serve whoever the fuck they want. You like freedom right?
>>77216147
ehhh. if you've ever worked in an ED (public or private) in any capacity, then one of the last things you'll ever think about it is whether an incapacitated patient can pay his or her bills.
>>77234320
You make a large point out of arguments, yet haven't presented any yourself. You've just made a lot of undefended statements.
>>77216688
>The owner isn't at the hospital checking out each patient
>implying that makes it state-owned
Well, dang. I guess 4chan is federal property too, since Hiro doesn't check every post.
And Shell/Exxon-Mobil are state-owned, since the CEO doesn't pump the gas for each customer at the station.
>>77217639
Do you realise right now there is a ban on Venezuelan entering the US?
>>77216096
It's called freedom of association kraut, and it was bulldozed decades ago by the Civil Rights Act of 1964
>>77216147
Except you can friend. If a person is in bad enough condition they'll just write off "injuries unsustainable with life".
>>77216379
I don't think you understand the fucking gravity of this situation. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT fuck with an American's burgers. Do you think this is some kind of FUCKING joke!??
>>77215970
This.
I had no problems when the trump supporter refused to tow a Bernie supporter, and I have no problem with this either.
Business owners have the right to reuse business, even if it isn't smart to do so.
>>77234992
Why do you love to project when you pretend that this: >>77223201 and others are even actual arguments?
>*knock knock*
>"Who is it?"
>Leftist promotion of hatred and prejudice - it's A-OK when we say so.
Let them discriminate, they will lose business the same way Target's stock has dropped incredibly. Defend their right to do so or else when we have faggots trying to deride Christian businesses we have less of a leg to stand on
>Trump supporter refuses to toe broken down car for Bernie supporter.
>/pol/ cheers and calls man a hero.
>Bernie supporter refuses to service Trump supporter.
>HOW DARE THEY
I mean, I'm a Trump supporter but really guys?
>>77215970
A buisness owner shouldn't have to serve anyone they don't want to.
>>77234320
SHITCUNT
>SHITCUNT
SHITCUNT
>SHITCUNT
SHITCUNT
There needs to be a range-ban on all countries with an HDI lower than Lithuania.
>>77235713
That post was merely a (poor attempt at a) joke. So your response to me calling you out is basically
>no u
Goodbye Portugal. You were... something.
