Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes it does. And here are some of the reasons service can be refused:
◾People who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
◾People that may overfill capacity if let in
◾People who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
◾People accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
◾People lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
With the exception item four, which is unclear, those things have nothing to do with what Senator Paul..or this thread was referring too.
You said it didn't work that way and I showed that it did.
You're welcome.
If we nominate Paul, we will lose to the Dems again: no doubt about it.
I think we'd add more independents than we'd lose democrats.
Not that you care.
I want to win. We would lose more independents than we can afford. The great center of American voters are terrified of reactionary and libertarian nonsense.
Due tell Starkey, who should be nominated? Let me guess, Susan Collins?
Christie, Jindal, Martinez. Who do you think? We need to win in order to balance the tilt to the left, but if we get a reactionary (1) who won't win or (2) will dip it far too far to the right.
Uh all 3 of those guys are way to far right for you.......I mean if a reactionary like myself likes them, then they have to be.
actually, he has a point. what difference does it make?
now, if you're going to make the argument that the drone would cause collateral damage, then RP is a nutcase. but that really is not his point. his point is, if a drone can kill the guy, just like a cop can shoot the guy, what difference does it make.
tell me, would it matter if a cop killed the guy with a shotgun or a pistol?
With the exception item four, which is unclear, those things have nothing to do with what Senator Paul..or this thread was referring too.
You said it didn't work that way and I showed that it did.
You're welcome.
Essentially you are getting into behavior that's close to being against the law with the first 2. The last one is iffy. The fourth one makes no sense.
What Rand Paul was talking about was business being able to decide who to do business with based on race/religion/ethnic background.
That's, explicitly against the law.
You said it didn't work that way and I showed that it did.
You're welcome.
Essentially you are getting into behavior that's close to being against the law with the first 2. The last one is iffy. The fourth one makes no sense.
What Rand Paul was talking about was business being able to decide who to do business with based on race/religion/ethnic background.
That's, explicitly against the law.
Makes no sense to you.
You own a high class restaurant and a groups of seven to eight men came in fresh off the job at the landfill and fouling up the air so bad that other patrons are visibly starting to get ill. Would you A) ask them to leave or B) seat them and risk the 40 or so other patrons leaving?
Another example is going to a high classed establishment and being turned away for not wearing a jacket.
Ever see signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
I know it's a difficult concept for your limited intelligence to comprehend, but do try.
You said it didn't work that way and I showed that it did.
You're welcome.
Essentially you are getting into behavior that's close to being against the law with the first 2. The last one is iffy. The fourth one makes no sense.
What Rand Paul was talking about was business being able to decide who to do business with based on race/religion/ethnic background.
That's, explicitly against the law.
Makes no sense to you.
You own a high class restaurant and a groups of seven to eight men came in fresh off the job at the landfill and fouling up the air so bad that other patrons are visibly starting to get ill. Would you A) ask them to leave or B) seat them and risk the 40 or so other patrons leaving?
Another example is going to a high classed establishment and being turned away for not wearing a jacket.
Ever see signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
I know it's a difficult concept for your limited intelligence to comprehend, but do try.
Essentially you are getting into behavior that's close to being against the law with the first 2. The last one is iffy. The fourth one makes no sense.
What Rand Paul was talking about was business being able to decide who to do business with based on race/religion/ethnic background.
That's, explicitly against the law.
Makes no sense to you.
You own a high class restaurant and a groups of seven to eight men came in fresh off the job at the landfill and fouling up the air so bad that other patrons are visibly starting to get ill. Would you A) ask them to leave or B) seat them and risk the 40 or so other patrons leaving?
Another example is going to a high classed establishment and being turned away for not wearing a jacket.
Ever see signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
I know it's a difficult concept for your limited intelligence to comprehend, but do try.
Here's the thing. And it makes your claim that you own a business, suspect.
The law ALREADY allows for the circumstances you illustrated.
What the law DOES NOT allow, is business owners to turn away people for their race, religion or ethnic background.
And THAT'S what RAND PAUL took issue with..
Yesterday, Rand Paul, Mr. Anti-Drones, came out in favor of using drones to obliterate guys who rob liquor stores:
Heres the distinction I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on, Paul said. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I dont care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but its different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.
No, Rand Paul Didn?t Just Switch His Position on Drones | The American Conservative
Welcome to Rand Paul's Police State lololol
Essentially you are getting into behavior that's close to being against the law with the first 2. The last one is iffy. The fourth one makes no sense.
What Rand Paul was talking about was business being able to decide who to do business with based on race/religion/ethnic background.
That's, explicitly against the law.
Makes no sense to you.
You own a high class restaurant and a groups of seven to eight men came in fresh off the job at the landfill and fouling up the air so bad that other patrons are visibly starting to get ill. Would you A) ask them to leave or B) seat them and risk the 40 or so other patrons leaving?
Another example is going to a high classed establishment and being turned away for not wearing a jacket.
Ever see signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
I know it's a difficult concept for your limited intelligence to comprehend, but do try.
No has a problem with public health or endangerment issues.
You cannot refuse folks because of their protected status: race, etc.
End of this argument, period.
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
Makes no sense to you.
You own a high class restaurant and a groups of seven to eight men came in fresh off the job at the landfill and fouling up the air so bad that other patrons are visibly starting to get ill. Would you A) ask them to leave or B) seat them and risk the 40 or so other patrons leaving?
Another example is going to a high classed establishment and being turned away for not wearing a jacket.
Ever see signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
I know it's a difficult concept for your limited intelligence to comprehend, but do try.
No has a problem with public health or endangerment issues.
You cannot refuse folks because of their protected status: race, etc.
End of this argument, period.
Keep you liberal trap shut moron.
I understand what the law is. The discussion is about changing the law to protect the freedom of association for business owners.
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
But its OK for government to decide for a business what kinds of contracts it may sign, right?
No has a problem with public health or endangerment issues.
You cannot refuse folks because of their protected status: race, etc.
End of this argument, period.
Keep you liberal trap shut moron.
I understand what the law is. The discussion is about changing the law to protect the freedom of association for business owners.
Shut up, you reactionary loon. You are no conservative as I am no liberal.
You will not discriminate against protected classes at the expense of "freedom of association for business owners."
What Rand was getting at, is that it shouldn't be against the law for a business owner to decide who he wishes to do business with.
But its OK for government to decide for a business what kinds of contracts it may sign, right?
When you start making sense. I'll start answering your stupid questions.
Now piss off retard!
If a black is denied service because of his skin color he can choose another place of business.
If a black is denied service because of his skin color he can choose another place of business.
Keep you liberal trap shut moron.
I understand what the law is. The discussion is about changing the law to protect the freedom of association for business owners.
Shut up, you reactionary loon. You are no conservative as I am no liberal.
You will not discriminate against protected classes at the expense of "freedom of association for business owners."
A loon calling me a loon, how ironic. And yes you are liberal it's clearly visible in every one of your post.
Why does any class need protection? And protection from who?
Are we not all equal?
If a black is denied service because of his skin color he can choose another place of business.
Keep you liberal trap shut moron.
I understand what the law is. The discussion is about changing the law to protect the freedom of association for business owners.
Shut up, you reactionary loon. You are no conservative as I am no liberal.
You will not discriminate against protected classes at the expense of "freedom of association for business owners."
A loon calling me a loon, how ironic. And yes you are liberal it's clearly visible in every one of your post.
Why does any class need protection? And protection from who?
Are we not all equal?
If a black is denied service because of his skin color he can choose another place of business.
