California chef won't serve customers wearing MAGA hats

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. Fuck your law.

Will he make me a cake if I wore a Fuck Jesus shirt?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The law sucks.

Nobody is arguing that it's not the law. You're blowing away that strawman with a gale.

In your opinion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Simple solution....can't follow business law, get your license yanked. Easy Peasy.

Unless you are a member of a discrete and insular group of people. Then, exceptions can be carved out to get a particular result, regardless of business laws. Right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In your opinion.

My opinion is pro-freedom.

Which means your opinion is what?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Will he make me a cake if I wore a Fuck Jesus shirt?

Should he be required to?

Should he be required to make a cake that says "Fuck Jesus" on it?

 

[BS Filter]

What about the owner's freedom of religion his establishment?

There are federal laws regarding public accomodation of people. Not apparel.

This is not the same in any way. The chef never said the person wasn't welcome without the hat.

What about the Christian cake maker? Does he have the right to practice his religion in his establishment or do you believe anyone can pass a law that overrides his Constitutional rights?

I think they need to be compliant with the law as everyone else is.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker. Fuck your law.

They did? Let's see that decision.

Simple solution....can't follow business law, get your license yanked. Easy Peasy.

Fuck your law. The Christian is doing just fine. You queers and your pawns aren't going to fun this nation.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Wouldn't go anywhere near California.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Again, your imagination is not evidence of reality.

To what are you referring? Government force is not a reality? Where has my imagination gone awry?

The law doesn't exist in a vacuum. They are a result of years of systematic discrimination.

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.

Noble is the cause of shitting on the rights of others.

This way of thinking will end all freedom.

This way of thinking will end all freedom.

LOL

This is where your obtuse turnip logic fails you.

It is exactly these laws that ensure freedom for those who have been historically excluded.

One can only guess why you advocate for wonton discrimination. Freedom is nice codeword for white, christian, male supremacy, I guess.

MAGA!

 

[Unkotare]

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

The fascist is heard from again.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It hasn't. It's still a federal statute. The court simply ruled that it didn't apply in that case.

Yes, it doesn't apply here. It does apply there. Carve out this exception to get the "right" result.

Freedom is the only fair way.

.

Your idea of "freedom" is certainly fair for some. History has shown that.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Hypocrite rationalization.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ultimately, freedom is messy, chaotic, and dangerous. It cannot survive when those who would be free abuse their freedom and harm others, so it is very difficult to keep.

It is, however, highly preferable to the alternative. I would rather someone have the freedom to offend me than the law ba able to muzzle him and me.

LOL
Boo hoo......I didnt get a taco because of my MAGA hat........

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Hypocrite rationalization.

Sure. Explain.

 

[Lumpy 1]

San Metao

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.

San Mateo's an arm pit, lousy parking, lousy restaurants, homeless camps and creeps shooting up and crapping in the streets. I doubt they get many Trump supporters wasting their money in that liberal bastion of filth.

All that moron chef did was create a target....
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Pretext has to be proven in court. If the dresscode is posted and the person is not compliant and was made aware of that, there is no other argument.

What about a dress code that prohibits any head covers of any kind?

More imagination? Really?
Obviously this case is about a MAGA hat.

What if i smeared peanut butter in my ears and slicked my hair with soft cheeses?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Will he make me a cake if I wore a Fuck Jesus shirt?

Should he be required to?

Should he be required to make a cake that says "Fuck Jesus" on it?

So attire can be a valid reason to refuse service then?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In your opinion.

My opinion is pro-freedom.

Which means your opinion is what?

Protection from your idea of freedom.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly and it's the assholes who wear MAGA hats for the sole purpose of flaming.

I wonder if you participated in the recent thread on this.

No one can argue with a straight face that people wearing the MAGA hats are making a fashion statement only, with no underlying political message.

How do you define "inflammatory" in a way that prevents "disruption" in a business so as to legally set up the pretext to discriminate?

Who gets to decide what actions or attire is "flaming" so as to apply equally?

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.

Unless of course you don't bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

[TheDude]

Clearly the owner has been indoctrinated by progressive propaganda. Thus he's clearly weak-minded and has a screw loose.

What's a MAGA hat mean?

To the normal brain it's a campaign slogan supporting what the USA was, say pre-90s and certainly pre-Obama. A powerful country with morals, traditions, honesty and unity, who doesn't bow down to terrorists and political correctness (i.e., oppression & thought control), and who doesn't support crooked politicians.

To a progressive it means the wearer is racist, a white supremacist, and a lessor human whom the Constitution does not apply. There's not a shred of reality to support their bias and belief. It's exactly what prog propaganda wants you to believe. The propaganda and the indoctrinated become precisely what they accuse their opponents of.