What happens when you reveal your power level

truthfeed.com/back-of-the-bus-restaurant-employees-refuse-to-serve-trump-supporters/7117/

Other urls found in this thread:

cookout
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

So what
Stop being such a fucking dumbass, if they don't want business that's their fault
Funny how liberals complain about when someone discriminates against a gay couple or a lesbian one and now they just shut people off
either way no one cares, it's his/her bussiness

You should support discrimination.

To more specific you should support the right to discriminate.

>hospitals should be able to discriminate against people who arrive in fatal conditions

Someone got fired that day.

Hospitals are state property
Are you a complete fucking retard?
>burger education

>I don't know what private hospitals are
>turkish rape baby education

>Hospitals are state property
This is the US we're talking about.

If we can't discriminate against fags then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against us

But this is about a burger joint.

Lets have a little thought experiment here. If these girls were wearing kipa and weren't served would you have a problem?

So can they sue like the cake lesbians?

It doesn t matter , you can t refuse to serve people based on their religion or political views

I guess refusing service is still better than "spicing up" the meal in the kitchen though...

I know. I'm just saying it's kind of retarded to say *any* business should be able to discriminate because of examples like hospitals not wanting to treat someone dying.

Remember how everyone cried when a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for some fags?

Maybe they are in your failed state but here in America less than 1/4 are public.

You ppl wont give a tow to a berniefag or bake a cake for a couple of dykes, anti-trump folks dont have to serve you.

Just the free market doing business in the way it sees fit, right?

>Or are your fee-fees hurt cuz its happening to you now?

At least the US can afford education.

It's annudda Shoah

I bet when they'll go bankrupt they're gonna blame Trump supporters for that,, too.

That would be fair but that's not how the state works.

yeah and i know and i find that retarded as well, but from the point of that guy who is refusing profit cuz of muh principles lel

So your saying that the eating establishment should be forced by the government to serve these people?
> Because then your comment would be in context.

>refusing to serve ignorant biggots who believe that all muslims and "illegal mexicans" should be banned from the united states which is a gross trampling of the constitution and the principles this country was founded on

i see no problem with this. anyone voting for trump un-ironically deserves to be scorned for their complete lack of grasp on reality

No, lol

1) The owner isn't at the hospital checking out each patient
2) No moron would deny treatment to a person that needs it
3) "hospital discrimination was widespread throughout the United States and, in many jurisdictions, legally sanctioned."

We can too, what's wrong, too much syrian semen in your head?

you should be able to refuse service based on whatever

You got both of those people fired. So I assume you'll be wanted the heads of this bigoted burger joint? Oh wait, no, you don't, because you're a hypocritical piece of shit.

Why shouldn't hospitals be able to discriminate in that case? If they do and they are still visited then it seems society is fine with their decision. So why should they accept your opinion as law?

The problem is that double standard mate. It's either OK to discriminate based on Sex/Gender/Race/Beliefs/Religion/ or it's not. I'd prefer the former. But either would be better then this "It's OK to discriminate, but only on certain things" thing that's going on.

aren't you the fag that the constitution is a "300 year old paper that no one gives a shit about"?

>biggots
Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously?

Banning TERRORISTS and CRIMINALS isn't anti-constitutional in any way

>we won't serve trump supporters
>but you have to bake cakes for gays

the hypocrisy just oozes from a liberal's every orifice

>that would be fair
Being a Trumpfag isn't an orientation.

There is plenty of shit that is fine and dandy to discriminate based on (state of dress for example).

And just for the record, gay liberal bastions like California and New York actually do disallow political discrimination so the gays are one of the few groups actually defending your right to not be discriminated against.

Private business, so they can. It would be nice to see the Trump supporters sue them for discrimination like the cake fags did however and see the verdict

weak b8 desu senpai

>1) The owner isn't at the hospital checking out each patient
Doesn't matter. If it's a private religious hospital for example, they could deny service to people that aren't accepted in their beliefs as a policy.

>2) No moron would deny treatment to a person that needs it
You don't know that, you're just pulling an assumption out of your ass.

>3) "hospital discrimination was widespread throughout the United States and, in many jurisdictions, legally sanctioned."
The ACLU would like to have a word with you

>There is plenty of shit that is fine and dandy to discriminate based on (state of dress for example).

And some people don't want to serve others because of their political believes or sexual orientation. Why is one fine and the other is not? Why should the business owner not be allowed to choose for himself who he does business with? He is not a slave, is he?

Not serving trump supporters is ok but if some cake business refuse to serve fags they have to file chapter 7

It's not a double standard precisely because you are dealing with DIFFERENT STANDARDS.

Nobody is claiming all discrimination is wrong. To use an extreme example, that's why we jail murderers. Fuck murderers. But obviously the state of having murdered someone or not is a different standard than sex. Just as sex is a different standard than orientation, which is a different standard than state of dress.

yeah and those faggots did everything they could to ruin that bakery including taking them to court and made the owner pay for emotional damages

Who the fuck votes ironically?

Nice meme.
Also, why do liberals always leave out the part where the ban applies until we fix the vetting process? Being disingenuous is not helping your cause, and will actually result in further harm to the lgbq community down the road, in the form of more horrific attacks from muslims.

Liberals.

>being a trumping isn't an orientation

Speak for yourself.

If people can unironically be considered a different gender, or race or species or whatever based on "muh feelings" and supported in this delusion by law then being a trumpfag can be an orientation too.

You know if this happened to hillary supporters this would be national news and they'd be crying about it

I sexually identify as a Trump supporter.

hahaha Trumplets got owned

are the burger joint owners behind this or is it just one butthurt employee who is most likely gonna fired anyways.

You've got it backwards. I'm saying all discrimination is right, not wrong. A business should be able to sell, or not sell to anyone for any reason they wish. There is no difference between not selling to someone because they are gay, then not selling because they are a murderer, a black man, a member of mesa, anything you want.

Don't particular care for this but at least it's better than a bunch of dirty fucking mexican loyalists chimping out on them.

We both know that's not going to happen

>temperary ban
>months go by and there's no perfect vetting option
>years go by and mudslimes still blowing shit up around the world
>better not risk it yet
>8 years later and no terrorist attacks on Donald's watch
>Donald Trump Jr elected president
>8 more years of prosperity
>America is great again

Not hypocritical dipshit

>Why is one fine and the other is not?
Immutable or near immutable trait is generally the standard for discrimination bans.

That said, not all immutable or near immutable traits are covered everywhere, some states don't have protection for orientation, others don't have protection for political ideology.

I believe both forms of discrimination are wrong since political ideology is a near immutable trait similar to religion, but the fact remains that as long as the classification in question is different, there's no hypocrisy.

See
>Why should the business owner not be allowed to choose for himself who he does business with?
He does, just don't operate as a public accommodation. Sam's Club can turn away whoever the fuck they want for race, sex, whatever, because they aren't structured as a public accommodation.

Structuring your business as a public accommodation is agreeing to operate under anti-discrimination laws.

To be fair, to your average American burger resturants are just as vital as hospitals.

>And just for the record, gay liberal bastions like California and New York actually do disallow political discrimination so the gays are one of the few groups actually defending your right to not be discriminated against.

for the record, the case about serving gays was shot down even when it was tied to religious rights

so apparently it's fine and dandy to kick people out for having different political views

but fuck you if your religion makes you feel like you can do the same to gays

>I'm saying all discrimination is right
Well then what's your problem? Your opinion on discrimination is being discriminated against.

It's discrimination and it's in the constitution that you won't be discriminated against on the basis of your political beliefs.

Well, if that turns out to be the case, then we have pretty much isolated the cause of the terrorist actions to everyone's benefit.

I just wish being *tolerant* didn't also have to mean forcing vulnerability on a given populace.

I'm not a business mate.

>for the record, the case about serving gays was shot down even when it was tied to religious rights
Because the operators religious rights don't trump the customer's civil rights.

>so apparently it's fine and dandy to kick people out for having different political views
To be fair, if your religion make you feel like you can do the same to Trumpfags in NY or CA, you're equally fucked as the baker.

Who cares, they should be happy they didn't give money to some cuck.

Freedom of association

Dumb whiteys

>the fact remains that as long as the classification in question is different, there's no hypocrisy

What is this even supposed to mean? And how are you determining immutable traits? What do they have to do with business?

Are escorts going to be forced to accept any gender or race by your proposal?

cookout com/contact-us/

A free meal?

Let them know you won't be back until all employees who allowed this to happen are fired for bigotry

>civil rights

it's still dubious if having a cake baked for you by anyone you want is a civil right

And?

You said all discrimination.

Yes, by the state or federal governments and even then it's a very limited protection since political believes have never been elevated to suspect or quasi-suspect class, effectively reducing the standard for allowing any such discrimination to rational basis.

Discrimination in private businesses is actually enforced by state and federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act. And even then political believes are only covered by a few state laws.

they have gone too far with this one. you cannot deny an american their right to consume burger.

Trump will tweet this I hope.

yeah an american hospital.

then they should just sue the shit out of the restaurant for denying them service, like that gay couple who sued the bakery for refusing to serve them a wedding cake.

>tfw no cutie conservative girls near me
How do I find cuties that aren't degenerate, Sup Forums?

>Because the operators religious rights don't trump the customer's civil rights.

What civil rights were infringed by the refusal to bake the gays a cake? Were they the only bakery around?

I respect you. You would never allow to lose an internet argument

You're all missing the point

Just how goddamn good is Cook Out. They do no lie when they say they have the best combo around and to be honest I've never seen anyone come close to the amount of food you get for $4.25

i dont see the problem with a business being able to choose who they associate with.

the only problem here was some lazy assed uppity burger flipper was trying to make a management decision.

>What is this even supposed to mean?
Double standards don't apply because you are dealing with inherently different shit meriting or at least allowing for different treatment.

It's not a different standard to treat a child different from a pet for example.

>And how are you determining immutable traits?
Immutable is a word that means something, look it up.

>What do they have to do with business?
A person can still achieve economic participation by altering mutable traits, whereas immutable traits by definition cannot be changed. Lawmakers also include quasi-immutable traits which would unduly burden someone to expect them to change them.

>Are escorts going to be forced to accept any gender or race by your proposal?
If they've structured their escort service as a public accommodation, yes.

how the fuck do we still have world hunger?

The gay couple had a state law backing them up.

I'm like 95% certain Virginia has no such law backing up political groups since they only exist in a few states.

>be openly and unironically racist
>complain when people don't want to serve you

>What civil rights were infringed by the refusal to bake the gays a cake?
Equal access to public accommodations among all orientations
>Were they the only bakery around?
That building? Probably. When did we put a geographic buffer on civil rights beyond legal borders?

A lack of infrastructure to allow for produced food and water to reach areas of food deficiency.

We produce more than enough food to feed everyone.

didnt the bakery also have laws backing them up?

or are muslims the only ones who can get away with playing that card?

It's not public though. It's a private business.

Why do liberals keep extending what "rights" are until they are meaningless: healthcare, education, the internet, having cakes baked for you on demand.

i was just making a shitty joke mang

>didnt the bakery also have laws backing them up?
Yes. They just didn't take advantage of them.

Had they not structured their business as a public accommodation they could have turned away all the gays they wanted.

>or are muslims the only ones who can get away with playing that card?
A Muslim bakery structured as a public accommodation couldn't discriminate against gays in that state either.

>be in canadian emergency
>die

I would never wear a trump hat to a restaurant. What a way to invite spit and pubes into your food. You know those psychos have no morals against it.

>It's not public though. It's a private business.
Public accommodation is a legal term referring to certain kinds of private businesses that are open to the general public.

It has nothing to do with government ownership and the public bit refers exclusively to clientele.

a special order by appointment only type business seems like its already out of the realm of public accommodation.

would that not be like forcing an artist to paint some shit they didnt want to?

are the waiting limits really that bad?

then the people that refused service are just like them :^)

>Double standards don't apply because you are dealing with inherently different shit meriting or at least allowing for different treatment.
A pet and a child are two different things. Persons old enough to do business with you are not. You are defending one discrimination by explaining that it is not an immutable trait. So you are fine with discrimination along the lines of opinions but where is the difference if you don't want to serve someone who likes the color green or somebody who has an illness making him green?

>Immutable is a word that means something, look it up.
You are automatically ignoring the possibility opinions are immutable. How?

>A person can still achieve economic participation by altering mutable traits, whereas immutable traits by definition cannot be changed.
So all the person has to do is change his mutable trait and he can do business because then he won't be discriminated against? Can't you see that this would be a much more effective and conflict save approach? When business owners are left with the decision to discriminate then those discriminated against will turn to other businesses. No law needed.

>If they've structured their escort service as a public accommodation, yes.
It does not matter. They offer a service and they may only want to offer this service to people they choose are appropriate. We can go through the same scenario with a brothel.

>a special order by appointment only type business seems like its already out of the realm of public accommodation.
If anyone can make a special order, it isn't. Businesses can be fairly similar in structure and still vary on whether or not they are a public accommodation. Sam's v Walmart for example.

>would that not be like forcing an artist to paint some shit they didnt want to?
Sure.

>Equal access to public accommodations among all orientations
That's the lawyer explanation. They were able to access the place and if I remember correctly it was done over the phone.

>That building? Probably. When did we put a geographic buffer on civil rights beyond legal borders?
Because if they weren't the only bakery around then the gays could have taken their business elsewhere.

so all of this could be avoided if they simply told the faggots they were booked solid?

...

>A pet and a child are two different things.
So are sexual orientation and political orientation you stupid shit.

>Persons old enough to do business with you are not.
Which is why you can discriminate against individuals on the basis of their individual identity.

>So you are fine with discrimination along the lines of opinions but where is the difference if you don't want to serve someone who likes the color green or somebody who has an illness making him green?
I'm not actually fine with political orientation. I'm merely pointing out that it's a different standard than other standards, thus making any claims of hypocrisy nonsensical.

>but where is the difference if you don't want to serve someone who likes the color green or somebody who has an illness making him green?
Whether or not you like a particular color and whether or not you are a sickly green are different standards. That's the difference.

I'm comparing discriminations; you're pointing out discrimination.

>How?
By living in reality. But once again, I consider political views a near immutable trait and believe they should be protected.

>So all the person has to do is change his mutable trait and he can do business because then he won't be discriminated against? Can't you see that this would be a much more effective and conflict save approach?
Yes, which is why the only mutable traits that are protected by law are political orientation in a few states, religion, and sex. Because expecting a person to change any of those to get service is being unreasonable.

>When business owners are left with the decision to discriminate then those discriminated against will turn to other businesses.
You act like Civil Rights legislation doesn't have a historical context wherein these laws were completely necessary.

>It does not matter.
It does since structuring your business as a public accommodation is a completely voluntary act that creates a legal and societal expectation of service.

Poor Trump supporter.
Must be hard to be retarded

>You must make this gay couples wedding cake even though it is your business and you should he able to choose who you sell to

>they didn't serve trump supporters? Meh it's their business they can choose who they sell too why are you mad?


THE LEFT EVERYBODY, KINGS OF DOUBLETHINK!!

>Germany

You and France are gonna be the first to fall the jihadism, since you guys are negotiating and pandering to them.