MAGA Hat Discrimination is OK

[dblack]

I agree with the OP... But... Last paragraph:

The Happiest Hour denied that Piatek had been removed in the first place, stating Piatek “was sufficiently pleased with his service at the bar [and] that he added” a $36 tip onto the $186 tab, according to The New York Post. The bar owners suggest Piatek’s lawsuit was a “publicity stunt.”

That's... Weird.

It is? Most of these cases are making some political point. There's no real justice involved.

 

[TNHarley]

I dont refuse anyone. A buck is a buck. I don't even care if you're a communist.

I've refused customers. I had a guy who wanted a gymnastics outfit for his 12-year old daughter and he wanted it made so it was uncomfortable, tight and she'd hate wearing it. I also reported the guy.

Reported him for what?
Are all of you canadians ignorant assholes?

Child abuse. He wanted to force the child to wear a tight uncomfortable outfit every hour of the day at home as punishment for something she had done. That's both physical and emotional abuse, and given the age of the child and the fact that she would be basically wearing a bathing suit at all times when home with her single parent father, possibly sexual abuse as well.

Doesn't the whole scenario strike you as ultra creepy?

The one you just made up? Absolutely.

 

[dblack]

This is part of the reason I am against PA laws. Govt OKs certain discrimination while criminalizing others.
Blatantly unconstitutional

Exactly.

 

[Muhammed]

His bar, his rules.

If he doesn't want political slogans in his bar, that's his prerogative.

It reminds me of this bar down the street from my first house. They had a big sign on the wall that said...

NO COLORS
NO FIGHTING
NO GAMBLING
NO POLITICS

You could fire up a joint, snort lines of coke off the bar or bend a girl over a barstool and fuck her and they wouldn't say a thing about it. But if you started arguing about politics they would ask you to take it elsewhere.

And there was this other bar down the street that was totally decked out in old political memorabilia and political discussion was actively encouraged. They had a sign that said...

YOU MUST BE 26 TO ENTER

And of course idiots called that policy racist and it got burned down by a negro during a riot.

The bottom line is that every proprietor knows what causes problems in their own establishment and they make the rules accordingly. One bar owner noticed that when people argued about politics, it led to fights and animosity. So she banned it.

Another bar owner noticed that it was the 18-25 year old guys that were always causing problems in his establishment, so he banned them. (but ladies of any age were allowed, of course).

Found an old pic of the bar that burned down during the 2005 riot.

 

[dblack]

Should political affiliation be a protected class?

Pretty simple question. Over the last couple of years there have been a number of incidents in the news of business owners refusing to serve people they disagree with politically. MAGA hat wearers are common "victims". Clearly this is discrimination. Is it time to add political affiliation to...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[colfax_m]

Protecting political affiliation as part of nondiscrimination laws leads to problematic results.

Turns out there are some political affiliations that are pretty universally agreed upon as deplorable. For instance, do you really want the law to protect neo-Nazis or Klansmen?

Juxtapose that with other nondiscrimination laws. We don't think that being gay is deplorable. We don't think that being a black person is deplorable. We don't think that being Jewish is deplorable. There aren't sexual orientations, ethnicities or religions that have the same kind of connotation as some political affiliations.

 

[colfax_m]

On a side note, I hope that Greg Piatek had to pay the court fees of the bar.

 

[dblack]

Protecting political affiliation as part of nondiscrimination laws leads to problematic results.

Turns out there are some political affiliations that are pretty universally agreed upon as deplorable. For instance, do you really want the law to protect neo-Nazis or Klansmen?

Juxtapose that with other nondiscrimination laws. We don't think that being gay is deplorable.

Some people do. Is it their right to think that? Or not? How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

 

[colfax_m]

Some people do. Is it their right to think that? Or not? How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

Some people do, that is their right, and no one is preventing their association with these groups. The problem is that I think it's quite different denying service to a black person than denying service to a neo-Nazi. Monumentally different.

 

[dblack]

Some people do. Is it their right to think that? Or not? How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

Some people do, that is their right, and no one is preventing their association with these groups. The problem is that I think it's quite different denying service to a black person than denying service to a neo-Nazi. Monumentally different.

How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

 

[colfax_m]

How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

I guess you kinda just know it when you see it. I don't think it's a stretch that a political group that supports, you know, genocide is legitimately deplored. Of course, there's a lot of grey area when not in an extreme, but I'm just using this as an example because there would be very unintended consequences.

 

[22lcidw]

Protecting political affiliation as part of nondiscrimination laws leads to problematic results.

Turns out there are some political affiliations that are pretty universally agreed upon as deplorable. For instance, do you really want the law to protect neo-Nazis or Klansmen?

Juxtapose that with other nondiscrimination laws. We don't think that being gay is deplorable. We don't think that being a black person is deplorable. We don't think that being Jewish is deplorable. There aren't sexual orientations, ethnicities or religions that have the same kind of connotation as some political affiliations.

But Prog hate groups including BLM and Antifa outnumber those by a hundred to one. You already have pinpointed other groups for propaganda purposes. Ironically by your own actions, these groups may grow into large numbers. Tribalism will bring safety.

 

[dblack]

How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

I guess you kinda just know it when you see it.

LOL - exactly. It's entirely subjective.

Of course, there's a lot of grey area when not in an extreme, but I'm just using this as an example because there would be very unintended consequences.

Yes. Lots of unintended consequences.

A related question: How do we decide which minority groups are worthy of protection and which aren't? Take a vote?

 

[colfax_m]

How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

I guess you kinda just know it when you see it.

LOL - exactly. It's entirely subjective.

Of course, there's a lot of grey area when not in an extreme, but I'm just using this as an example because there would be very unintended consequences.

Yes. Lots of unintended consequences.

A related question: How do we decide which minority groups are worthy of protection and which aren't? Take a vote?

Of course it's subjective.

As for the related question, yes kind of. These are laws passed by elected officials, so in an indirect way, we do.

 

[dblack]

How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

I guess you kinda just know it when you see it.

LOL - exactly. It's entirely subjective.

Of course, there's a lot of grey area when not in an extreme, but I'm just using this as an example because there would be very unintended consequences.

Yes. Lots of unintended consequences.

A related question: How do we decide which minority groups are worthy of protection and which aren't? Take a vote?

Of course it's subjective.

As for the related question, yes kind of. These are laws passed by elected officials, so in an indirect way, we do.

Maybe, instead of a list of protected classes, we should make a list of deplored classes.

 

[colfax_m]

How do we decide which groups can be legitimately deplored? Take a vote?

I guess you kinda just know it when you see it.

LOL - exactly. It's entirely subjective.

Of course, there's a lot of grey area when not in an extreme, but I'm just using this as an example because there would be very unintended consequences.

Yes. Lots of unintended consequences.

A related question: How do we decide which minority groups are worthy of protection and which aren't? Take a vote?

Of course it's subjective.

As for the related question, yes kind of. These are laws passed by elected officials, so in an indirect way, we do.

Maybe, instead of a list of protected classes, we should make a list of deplored classes.

Not possible. For starters, a class is a characteristic, not a group. A class is "religion" or in this example, "political affiliation". We decide that there are characteristics of people which are not rational basis for discrimination against. Race is not a rational basis for discrimination given that every race has the same legal rights and no race is inferior or superior.

 

[colfax_m]

Cult?

What Cult?

One thing in the lawsuit that doesn’t get much attention is that the plaintiff stated the Trump hat was religious for him.

 

[dblack]

Maybe, instead of a list of protected classes, we should make a list of deplored classes.

Not possible. For starters, a class is a characteristic, not a group. A class is "religion" or in this example, "political affiliation". We decide that there are characteristics of people which are not rational basis for discrimination against.

I understand the rationale offered for the original concept - carefully lawyered to maintain the pretense of equal protection. But that's not it plays out and the even courts have largely given up on that conceit. It's about protecting specific groups from discrimination.

Race is not a rational basis for discrimination given that every race has the same legal rights and no race is inferior or superior.

So if we can take a vote defining a list of irrational reasons for discrimination, why not make a list of the rational reasons for discrimination? Isn't that what we're doing implicitly with the protected classes?

 

[Dragonlady]

I agree with the OP... But... Last paragraph:

The Happiest Hour denied that Piatek had been removed in the first place, stating Piatek “was sufficiently pleased with his service at the bar [and] that he added” a $36 tip onto the $186 tab, according to The New York Post. The bar owners suggest Piatek’s lawsuit was a “publicity stunt.”

That's... Weird.

Hardly "weird" at all. The guy went in looking for trouble, in order to play the "victim" card, because that's what the Trump Cult. Trump's entire administration was a 4 year howl of white grievance. When this gambit to get himself treated badly failed, the Cultist does what the Trump Cult always does - he pretended it happened anywyay, and proceeded as if it had.

Just Trump pretends he won the election, and proceeds as if he did, even though everyone who was there said he lost - bigly.

 

[Crepitus]

It's no secret that I despise the Trump cult.

Having said that, simply because you support Trump does not mean you should be booted from an establishment.

If it were my establishment, I'd welcome all MAGA dudes and dude-ettes, even though I fundamentally disagree with them.

Judge rules New York City bar can refuse service to Trump supporter wearing MAGA hat

Greg Piatek of Philadelphia claims he was refused service and then eventually removed from a New York City bar in January 2017 for wearing a “Make American Great Again” hat.

www.foxnews.com

In all fairness, it's not really discrimination. We aren't labeling them, they are labeling themselves.