California chef won't serve customers wearing MAGA hats

[Ray From Cleveland]

My position on this has been clear and correct all the way around.

This America hater is not
required to give service to MAGA hat wearers.

Bakeries are not required to bake a faggot cake.

It's callwd freedom.

Most of you hate other people's freedom, and so I hate the fuck out of you!!!

.

Your position is confused and without merit.

A dress code has nothing to do with denying service based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. That is codified.
In fact, the MAGA hat wearer is welcome once the hat is removed.

Just like the gay customers are welcome as soon as they drop their demand for a custom congratulatory gay "wedding" cake.

No. Not "just like". Not in any way.

If course it is. There is zero evidence the baker refused to serve gay customers, zero evidence he targeted gay customers. He refused one product and would have refused it had the straight mother of one of the couple come in and requested a cake for a gay "wedding". Thus, it was not gay customers he was refusing (as the customer would be straight), but the event he was objecting to. Same as your claim that the customer is welcome as long as he takes off the hat. Just as with the bakery case, it is not the customer that is objectionable, it is the event or message.

Or is nuance only acceptable in certain cases?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

Because how he is dressed supports a representative. I can only imagine how the left would have reacted six years ago if some Republican restaurant owner said he refused to serve anybody with a Hope and Change shirt on. The Pussy hats would have been marching full force.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jc456]

I can read, but I don't own a TV, and that definitely influences my understanding of the world.

Probably for the better.

I think so.

Our TV viewing is down to an episode of Shark Tank and an Aerial America and that is it.

well I just slammed the door on Hawaii Five O. Every program today has LGBT in it now, and I'm not watching any TV trying to force an agenda. just ain't. shame. but hello netflix on my old tv programs before the tied of the ram the gays down my throat objective.

what's even funnier, is I have a couple friend that have a gay son, and they can not stand the ram it down our throats gay crap.

Newsflash...it ain't just TV..."the gays" are all around you and always have been

flash, I don't care, i choose my places of interest, I choose my tv, I choose my restaurants. I choose, I don't do forced. i give two shits they exist. They get to live with the fear of Aids for unhealthy sex.

 

[jc456]

My position on this has been clear and correct all the way around.

This America hater is not
required to give service to MAGA hat wearers.

Bakeries are not required to bake a faggot cake.

It's callwd freedom.

Most of you hate other people's freedom, and so I hate the fuck out of you!!!

.

Your position is confused and without merit.

A dress code has nothing to do with denying service based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. That is codified.
In fact, the MAGA hat wearer is welcome once the hat is removed.

Just like the gay customers are welcome as soon as they drop their demand for a custom congratulatory gay "wedding" cake.

No. Not "just like". Not in any way.

If course it is. There is zero evidence the baker refused to serve gay customers, zero evidence he targeted gay customers. He refused one product and would have refused it had the straight mother of one of the couple come in and requested a cake for a gay "wedding". Thus, it was not gay customers he was refusing (as the customer would be straight), but the event he was objecting to. Same as your claim that the customer is welcome as long as he takes off the hat. Just as with the bakery case, it is not the customer that is objectionable, it is the event or message.

Or is nuance only acceptable in certain cases?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

again, he didn't refuse the cake. He refused the message on the cake. fk can't you idiots ever get the facts correct?

Baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding: 'I don't discriminate'

"“I don't discriminate against anybody — I serve everybody that comes in my shop,” Phillips said. “I don't create cakes for every message that people ask me to create."

 

[hadit]

My position on this has been clear and correct all the way around.

This America hater is not
required to give service to MAGA hat wearers.

Bakeries are not required to bake a faggot cake.

It's callwd freedom.

Most of you hate other people's freedom, and so I hate the fuck out of you!!!

.

Your position is confused and without merit.

A dress code has nothing to do with denying service based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. That is codified.
In fact, the MAGA hat wearer is welcome once the hat is removed.

Just like the gay customers are welcome as soon as they drop their demand for a custom congratulatory gay "wedding" cake.

No. Not "just like". Not in any way.

If course it is. There is zero evidence the baker refused to serve gay customers, zero evidence he targeted gay customers. He refused one product and would have refused it had the straight mother of one of the couple come in and requested a cake for a gay "wedding". Thus, it was not gay customers he was refusing (as the customer would be straight), but the event he was objecting to. Same as your claim that the customer is welcome as long as he takes off the hat. Just as with the bakery case, it is not the customer that is objectionable, it is the event or message.

Or is nuance only acceptable in certain cases?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

Really? Are you convinced that had a straight relative of one of the gay men ordered the cake and told the baker it was for a gay "wedding" that he would have been fine baking it? Not likely. Thus, your complaint that he was targeting gay customers is falsified, especially as there is no evidence he refused gay customers ordering things other than "wedding" cakes. Accommodation laws that apply only to subgroups of people put the government in the position of picking winners and losers, something I don't want.

 

[hadit]

Your position is confused and without merit.

A dress code has nothing to do with denying service based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. That is codified.
In fact, the MAGA hat wearer is welcome once the hat is removed.

Just like the gay customers are welcome as soon as they drop their demand for a custom congratulatory gay "wedding" cake.

No. Not "just like". Not in any way.

If course it is. There is zero evidence the baker refused to serve gay customers, zero evidence he targeted gay customers. He refused one product and would have refused it had the straight mother of one of the couple come in and requested a cake for a gay "wedding". Thus, it was not gay customers he was refusing (as the customer would be straight), but the event he was objecting to. Same as your claim that the customer is welcome as long as he takes off the hat. Just as with the bakery case, it is not the customer that is objectionable, it is the event or message.

Or is nuance only acceptable in certain cases?

More imagination as fact.
It's not the same in any way. It was in fact a gay couple he refused. Regardless, accommodation laws apply to people, not attire. Some resaurants require a jacket. Some don't allow shorts or flip flops. They aren't refusing anyone for who they are but for how they're dressed.

again, he didn't refuse the cake. He refused the message on the cake. fk can't you idiots ever get the facts correct?

Baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding: 'I don't discriminate'

"“I don't discriminate against anybody — I serve everybody that comes in my shop,” Phillips said. “I don't create cakes for every message that people ask me to create."

Bingo. Thus, the mantra that he targets gay customers, refuses gay customers, hates gay customers, etc. Is false. It's easy to identify if you simply replace the customer. If a straight person ordered a wedding cake as a favor to a gay friend for a gay "wedding", he/she would be refused. In that scenario, there's no gay customer involved.

 

[Olde Europe]

Because how he is dressed supports a representative. I can only imagine how the left would have reacted six years ago if some Republican restaurant owner said he refused to serve anybody with a Hope and Change shirt on. The Pussy hats would have been marching full force.

Couldn't get anywhere with your false analogy before, so you had to have another go.

Of course, the divisive message of White supremacy and exclusion associated with MAGA is exactly as disruptive and contemptible as "Hope and Change". Or is it?

Ludicrous. But then, look at you! Without the constant stream of false analogies and equivalences you would be buried under the depravity you feel compelled to defend, 24/7.

 

[jc456]

Because how he is dressed supports a representative. I can only imagine how the left would have reacted six years ago if some Republican restaurant owner said he refused to serve anybody with a Hope and Change shirt on. The Pussy hats would have been marching full force.

Couldn't get anywhere with your false analogy before, so you had to have another go.

Of course, the divisive message of White supremacy and exclusion associated with MAGA is exactly as disruptive and contemptible as "Hope and Change". Or is it?

Ludicrous. But then, look at you! Without the constant stream of false analogies and equivalences you would be buried under the depravity you feel compelled to defend, 24/7.

Ludicrous. just plain Ludicrous. see how that works?

 

[dblack]

Being a disgusting bigot is a right. When you start trying to outlaw bigotry, what you are really doing is outlawing thought.

But, if it were about stopping ALL bigotry, dress codes would need to be prohibited too.

When you start trying to carve it up for a particular result, inequality and inconsistency is inevitable.

Freedom requires no bullshit. Freedom brings forth the truth. Freedom exposes the assholes.

Ayup.

 

[dblack]

Thank you for demonstrating my point. YOU want a particular result. You want an outcome. Fuck rights. Fuck equal protection. The outcome is more important to you.

Exactly. Any pretense that these laws are about individual or civil rights is a joke. They are about empowering government to do social engineering.

 

[Circe]

The business owner decides what they will tolerate in their place of work. If you wish to patronize their establishment, you should respect that or move on.

Ummmmmm………...what if he doesn't want to tolerate blacks or homosexuals or trannies in his place of work? Does he get to show them the door, post a "No Trannies" sign and such, and no problem?

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

 

[jc456]

The business owner decides what they will tolerate in their place of work. If you wish to patronize their establishment, you should respect that or move on.

Ummmmmm………...what if he doesn't want to tolerate blacks or homosexuals or trannies in his place of work? Does he get to show them the door, post a "No Trannies" sign and such, and no problem?

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

no, he's saying only he gets to decide who gets served.

 

[dblack]

The business owner decides what they will tolerate in their place of work. If you wish to patronize their establishment, you should respect that or move on.

Ummmmmm………...what if he doesn't want to tolerate blacks or homosexuals or trannies in his place of work? Does he get to show them the door, post a "No Trannies" sign and such, and no problem?

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

He's a hypocrite. He wants it both ways.

 

[Circe]

It appears that you are advocating for government force in some situations when you are sympathetic to the cause or beliefs of the person being excluded from services, but you're okay with government sitting on its ass in other situations.

I am within my right to refuse to serve fat people. But, fat black people are protected by government force.

Amazon sells a pink (!) baseball cap with the words printed on it TRUMP 2020. I'm seriously considering getting one and wearing it in public; remember, women get to wear hats inside, though men aren't supposed to. So I could wear it anywhere ----

What do people think of that? I can remember when people wore "I Like Ike" buttons in church. Political expression just was not viewed as a problem---it was considered mildly humorous. Now women get on TV and say a MAGA hat is "triggering," whatever that means. Upsetting, I guess. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone shocked or upset me by what they said or did; I'd be a rich lady. Now I guess people are supposed to walk on tiptoe, and in fact, that's what we're all doing. There are NO political bumper stickers anymore: at least not in Maryland, I can tell you. How much trouble will I get into if I wear my pink Trump hat? Might be fun to try it and see.

 

[Circe]

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

no, he's saying only he gets to decide who gets served.

So...…...he can decide that he doesn't want to serve Irish men in his bar and post a sign? And that's okay? If you think that's where we are, I doubt that.

 

[Correll]

It isnt the same thing really. There are connotations around maga that would make a reasonable business owner concerned.

Only if you are an anti-American piece of shit.

 

[Correll]

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

Your side's race baiting is tearing this nation apart. Why are you so divisive.

 

[jc456]

I think we should go back to that, but …..are you saying we're already there?

no, he's saying only he gets to decide who gets served.

So...…...he can decide that he doesn't want to serve Irish men in his bar and post a sign? And that's okay? If you think that's where we are, I doubt that.

I said that he thinks he can, yes.

 

[jc456]

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

Your side's race baiting is tearing this nation apart. Why are you so divisive.

cause he's a racist bigot. and he doesn't want to stop being that.

 

[Circe]

I said that he thinks he can, yes.

Okay. Apparently his staff and partner have weighed in and now he's not at all sure he can, at least if he wants to keep the restaurant open.

The question I have is, is this legal? Apparently not if it's a black. Maybe not if it's a campy homosexual or weird tranny --- not clear. Can he ban people who come in without shirt or shoes? It's a long-standing convention, but it probably has never been tested in law (because it would be silly). So.....what about a hat? What about a hat with a political slogan? Does anyone know whether you can just ban someone from your place of business pour les beaux yeux, as the French say---for his blue eyes? If I wear my pink TRUMP 2020 hat, can people throw me out with impunity or can I sue them? This is suddenly a big issue in our society, and I don't think we know the answer!

 

[jc456]

I said that he thinks he can, yes.

Okay. Apparently his staff and partner have weighed in and now he's not at all sure he can, at least if he wants to keep the restaurant open.

The question I have is, is this legal? Apparently not if it's a black. Maybe not if it's a campy homosexual or weird tranny --- not clear. Can he ban people who come in without shirt or shoes? It's a long-standing convention, but it probably has never been tested in law (because it would be silly). So.....what about a hat? What about a hat with a political slogan? Does anyone know whether you can just ban someone from your place of business pour les beaux yeux, as the French say---for his blue eyes? If I wear my pink TRUMP 2020 hat, can people throw me out with impunity or can I sue them? This is suddenly a big issue in our society, and I don't think we know the answer!

so no shirt and shoes is a health issue, so every business has that option.