California chef won't serve customers wearing MAGA hats

[skews13]

Americans have come to oppose the racism, bigotry, and hate Trump and his supporters represent – and appropriately so.

For Christ sake, your business sense indicates you're a total idiot.

It’s his business. I believe that’s what the defenders of the fundies bakery crowd said. This is what’s called setting a precedent. Something Trump has been doing since being in office. Which by the way thanks for that because “believe me” the Democrats will now be using those precedents in the future, but I’ll save that for another thread. The country is changing, and this precedent will be used more and more in the future. It is the constant marginalization of the white power crowd you see every day on the news. These people will no longer have a country except in the most rural and marginalized places in the country. In a few more years their voting numbers will become irrelevant on the national level, so business owners hardly need to worry about boycotts from them. But don’t worry there will always be a truck stop somewhere you can take the kin folk to.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, you're lying to yourself by believing you know something you don't. The story speaks to a hat and not the wearer

Yeah. It also speaks to a klan hood, not the racist motherfucker wearing it. As long as the klanny removes the hood, no problem, right?

Keep lying to yourself.

LOL
Your imagination is not evidence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't wear a MAGA hat out in public because democrats are insane, violent, and full of hate.

Then you probably have no problems getting a table.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL
Your imagination is not evidence.

Go on record now, you pussy.

Klannies should be allowed to eat at that restaurant, as long as they take off their klan hood when they enter the establishment, right?

It's only a dress code thing, right? Just remove the hood when you walk in, klannies.

Hutch wants klannies in his restaurants. Let it be known.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Several things here.

First, in deep blue California, this is a PR ploy, getting in the news, at least creating a twitter storm.

Second, "they started it" is not a good justification. In fact, it isn't one at all.

Third, the question the owner has to answer is, "Are there reasonable grounds for denying service?" Such as a reasonable assessment of an elevated likelihood of strife - don't serve drunks - for instance. I, for one, cannot find any reasonable ground, which leads me back to #1. It's a PR ploy, and more so, since no customer with such a hat has ever shown up.

And no, MAGA is not an equivalent of a swastica or a KKK hood. Unpleasant and dumb as it is, it doesn't even fall into the same category. Let's keep things in perspective, no?

The dress code is whatever the owner wants it to be. They are certainly within their rights to create the environment and experience their patrons expect. Whether it's requiring a jacket after 5pm or banning flip flops.

I am not familiar with the law regulating public accommodations, and thus I rendered no judgment as to the legality the chef's now-reversed decision. Assuming you are right, I still see no reasonable justification for the MAGA ban, and the chef's dislike for those who wear the hat in public based on throwing the hat into the same category as the swastika or the KKK hood, doesn't make things better, or more reasonable, in my assessment.

Your assessment is not relevant to the decision made by the owner or the article. Banning attire that could create a disruptive situation that in turn could turn off his patrons is certainly reasonable to his bottom line. Simply leave the hat in the car.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I will go on record now.

If you are a member of the fucking klan, you are not welcome in my restaurant, period. Get the fuck out.

Shouldn't I have that right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establishment. There's only their rules.

Unless we're dealing with a most-favored minority. Hypocrisy much?

What does that mean?

 

[dblack]

I will go on record now.

If you are a member of the fucking klan, you are not welcome in my restaurant, period. Get the fuck out.

Shouldn't I have that right?

Not if they're log-cabin KKK members.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I will go on record now.

If you are a member of the fucking klan, you are not welcome in my restaurant, period. Get the fuck out.

Shouldn't I have that right?

You do.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your assessment is not relevant to the decision made by the owner or the article. Banning attire that could create a disruptive situation that in turn could turn off his patrons is certainly reasonable to his bottom line. Simply leave the hat in the car.

But, that's not what the fucking chef said, dildo. Go read his statement again.

The same applies to klan hoods. Just leave it in the car.

Klannies are welcome in your restaurant, as long as they leave that hood in the car, right?

I am consistent. Fuck klanny. I have the right to serve whomever I want. Hood or no hood, get the fuck out.

You, on the other hand, want to protect people you like and force people you don't like to serve them. You are the inconsistent motherfucker in this scenario.

Or, do you want klannies in your restaurant?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You do.

Do I?

What if he is a gay klannie?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

San Mateo restaurant owner says customers will not be served if they are wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat.

Kenji Lopez-Alt of Wursthall Restaurant tweeted that it would be the "same as if you come in wearing a swastika, white hood, or any other symbol of intolerance and hate."

The tweet has gotten mixed reactions. Some people say refusing to get to know someone or serve someone based on what they're wearing is unfair. Other replies on Twitter support the chef and say they're now more likely to go to the restaurant.

Restaurant owner won't serve customers wearing MAGA hats

If bakeries can refuse to serve LGBTQ customers - why can't this restaurant refuse to serve racists? Sounds reasonable to me. What do you think?

Mods: I tried to do a search but couldn't find an existing thread. I apologize if I have duplicated.

Ah...so if you walk in with a t-shirt with his restaurants logo - you can't be served.

 

[dblack]

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establishment. There's only their rules.

Unless we're dealing with a most-favored minority. Hypocrisy much?

What does that mean?

I'm saying your defense of the rights of the business owner is hypocritical.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL
Your imagination is not evidence.

Go on record now, you pussy.

Klannies should be allowed to eat at that restaurant, as long as they take off their klan hood when they enter the establishment, right?

It's only a dress code thing, right? Just remove the hood when you walk in, klannies.

Hutch wants klannies in his restaurants. Let it be known.

LOL
More imagination. Where do you imagine that would ever be a real-life scenario. 1948?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL
More imagination. Where do you imagine that would ever be a real-life scenario. 1948?

What a pathetic cop out.

I have exposed your authoritarian bias and you know it. Now you're running from the argument.


You want GOVERNMENT to pick and choose who can exclude whom from his or her business. You want GOVERNMENT to decide which reasons for exclusion are valid and which are not.

YOU want to use GOVERNMENT to force YOUR way because it's what YOU believe, but FUCK everybody else.

At least you admit that you are an inconsistent motherfucker.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Your assessment is not relevant to the decision made by the owner or the article. Banning attire that could create a disruptive situation that in turn could turn off his patrons is certainly reasonable to his bottom line. Simply leave the hat in the car.

But, that's not what the fucking chef said, dildo. Go read his statement again.

The same applies to klan hoods. Just leave it in the car.

Klannies are welcome in your restaurant, as long as they leave that hood in the car, right?

I am consistent. Fuck klanny. I have the right to serve whomever I want. Hood or no hood, get the fuck out.

You, on the other hand, want to protect people you like and force people you don't like to serve them. You are the inconsistent motherfucker in this scenario.

Or, do you want klannies in your restaurant?

Who the fuck would know you were a "klanny" without the hood, dope?

Obviously a business owner can deny service to anyone who is disruptive.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establishment. There's only their rules.

Unless we're dealing with a most-favored minority. Hypocrisy much?

What does that mean?

I'm saying your defense of the rights of the business owner is hypocritical.

Ok. I asked what that meant. Explain.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who the fuck would know you were a "klanny" without the hood, dope?

Obviously a business owner can deny service to anyone who is disruptive.

If the klanny walks to the door with the hood on, removes it, and leaves it outside on the sidewalk, he is not walking in with the hood on.

If he says he is a klanny, that's not a dress code issue.

What is "disruptive" in your opinion? Let's get a definition so we can all be on the same page.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You do.

Do I?

What if he is a gay klannie?

You might be. Certainly gay. Probably more of a proud boy though.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We all know David Duke is a klanny.

His mere presence could be "disruptive" but still waiting on a definition.

.

 

[dblack]

There is no freedom of speech in someone elses establishment. There's only their rules.

Unless we're dealing with a most-favored minority. Hypocrisy much?

What does that mean?

I'm saying your defense of the rights of the business owner is hypocritical.

Ok. I asked what that meant. Explain.

Protected classes? Do I really have to drag you through it?