"I’m not a huge fan of confrontation,"

[SamSpade]

Last week it was " yeah that baker shouldn't have to serve those filthy gay's and this week its poor honest angelic MS. Huckabee just wanted a quiet meal"

The difference being the first one was dragged into court when two customers who asked for custom work were refused. They cursed and fussed and tried
to get the government to compel him to do it.

The second is Sanders quietly getting up and leaving without threats or confrontation.

Please she was judged on the content of her character and asked to leave because she is a liar and a goon for a stooge of a president. Being a bigot is not a protected class.

Neither is being an ####### on the Internet, yet you get to post here.
You don't know anything about her character, just that you disagree with her views.
And I'm pretty sure you'd throw a fit were you in her shoes - say, over your behavior *HERE*.
Such is the behavior of snowflakes.

 

[Sapidus]

Please see below:

​

You forgot to add " In my opinion"


Fortunately the world doesnt work the way you want it to. We have laws that protect minorities that are discriminated against because of traits they can't control. Unlike Sanders who can control her behavior or quit her job.

 

[Sapidus]

Now let's just look at the irony here. We're a bunch of babies for calling the restaurant out, yet the workers and owner of said restaurant was acting like babies because big ole mean Sarah dared to step foot in their establishment.

You're obvious to your own bigotry.

No they were standing up for their community which she and the president have repeatedly attacked.


They didnt just decide out of nowhere to not let her in because they don't like her.

 

[Gilligan]

No they were standing up for their community which she and the president have repeatedly attacked.


They didnt just decide out of nowhere to not let her in because they don't like her.

How and when was Lexington attacked?

 

[Sapidus]

The difference being the first one was dragged into court when two customers who asked for custom work were refused. They cursed and fussed and tried
to get the government to compel him to do it.

The second is Sanders quietly getting up and leaving without threats or confrontation.



Neither is being an ####### on the Internet, yet you get to post here.
You don't know anything about her character, just that you disagree with her views.
And I'm pretty sure you'd throw a fit were you in her shoes - say, over your behavior *HERE*.
Such is the behavior of snowflakes.

Her views are abhorrent.


She gets to be the mouthpiece of a government that wants to discriminate against trans soldiers by not letting them serve.

But she should be served anywhere she goes?

Use some common sense. If she is going to practice bigotry she should be called out for it.

 

[SamSpade]

Her views are abhorrent..

And which ones might those be?
I'll make it easy - pick the WORST one.

 

[This_person]

You forgot to add " In my opinion"

I was addressing your "last week it was...this week it is...." crap. You were patently wrong on that (which, frankly, is not that unusual).

Fortunately the world doesnt work the way you want it to. We have laws that protect minorities that are discriminated against because of traits they can't control. Unlike Sanders who can control her behavior or quit her job.

Why is lack of freedom "fortunate" to you? Why is one citizen treated differently by the government than another citizen?

 

[GURPS]

The difference being ....

Sappy's wouldn't understand the difference if you wrote it in Crayon ... he is to busy engaging in Logically Fallacies - Strawman

 

[This_person]

Her views are abhorrent.


She gets to be the mouthpiece of a government that wants to discriminate against trans soldiers by not letting them serve.

But she should be served anywhere she goes?

Use some common sense. If she is going to practice bigotry she should be called out for it.

So, your suggestion is that the views are abhorrent - the view that there are limits on what some people can do to serve; and the justifiable and reasonable response to that is to limit where she can be served?

My first question would be, by what standard is it abhorrent? Where is the book of what is right and wrong?

And, if one person can be - nay, SHOULD BE - called out for their opinions and/or actions (as you say, she can quit, so by not quitting she is taking an action to which these employees object), shouldn't ANYONE be free to call out ANYONE for their actions/inactions that others may find arguably questionable? Or, are only some people given that right?

 

[GURPS]

... laws that protect minorities that are discriminated against because of traits ...

No ONE was discriminated against

Unlike Sanders who can control her behavior or quit her job.

How Fascist of you

 

[Sapidus]

I was addressing your "last week it was...this week it is...." crap. You were patently wrong on that (which, frankly, is not that unusual).



Why is lack of freedom "fortunate" to you? Why is one citizen treated differently by the government than another citizen?

Because unfortunately they need to be protected from bigots like you and your ilk.

Jus like women earn less, black people earn less, trans people have a harder time getting a job.

 

[black dog]

HAHAHA.

What a bunch of babies you guys are.


Last week it was " yeah that baker shouldn't have to serve those filthy gay's and this week its poor honest angelic MS. Huckabee just wanted a quiet meal"


Please she was judged on the content of her character and asked to leave because she is a liar and a goon for a stooge of a president. Being a bigot is not a protected class.

I find it humorous that you all never are rude, belligerent, block their way, touch or verbally attack anyone wearing a NRA or 2nd Amendment Tee shirt.

 

[Sapidus]

So, your suggestion is that the views are abhorrent - the view that there are limits on what some people can do to serve; and the justifiable and reasonable response to that is to limit where she can be served?

My first question would be, by what standard is it abhorrent? Where is the book of what is right and wrong?

And, if one person can be - nay, SHOULD BE - called out for their opinions and/or actions (as you say, she can quit, so by not quitting she is taking an action to which these employees object), shouldn't ANYONE be free to call out ANYONE for their actions/inactions that others may find arguably questionable? Or, are only some people given that right?

The standard that all men are created equal and should be treated as such

Of course. If Sanders were a trans woman or a gay person or a person of color i would still be fine with the restaurant kicking her out.

As long as they were kicking her out for her behavior and not for any of those traits

 

[This_person]

Because unfortunately they need to be protected from bigots like you and your ilk.

Jus like women earn less, black people earn less, trans people have a harder time getting a job.

Well, we know "women earn less" is inaccurate, "black people earn less" is only partially true....but, either way, are you suggesting that the military that protects us should not hire based on abilities but rather on how hard it is for someone to get a job? Should the military stop with the ASVAB and "A" schools and such, and just hire people who can't (or won't) get hired anywhere else?

Lack of freedom on who is hired is less important than getting hard-to-hire people jobs, even if those hard-to-hire people are not best suited for the job - this is your position?

 

[This_person]

The standard that all men are created equal and should be treated as such

Ok, so, you agree the baker should not have been forced to bake the cake, just like this restaurant owner should be allowed to not serve someone, because all people are created equal, right?


(just so you know, that "all men are created equal" was with respect to how the GOVERNMENT must treat them, not how fellow citizens must treat one another, but that is the next point not this one, so we'll ignore it for now)

 

[black dog]

Because unfortunately they need to be protected from bigots like you and your ilk.

Jus like women earn less, black people earn less, trans people have a harder time getting a job.

The woman that works for me makes the same wage as the men. And somehow we always end up working on her Buick for free..
The only tranny that I know of in town works at the library as a clerk.. That was his choice. Someone has to accept a lower paying job, their always is other jobs to apply for.

This is the latest on her LaSabre with the 3800 engine.
New plenium, new lower intake gaskets, valve cover gaskets, new plugs and wires, new power steering pump and hoses, new radiator and all hoses.
And somehow the parts are on my prime account.. I've been bamboozled it seems.
LOL.. Don't you believe that all women are taken advantage of..
More like some women and men allow themselves to be taken advantage of.

 

[Sapidus]

Well, we know "women earn less" is inaccurate, "black people earn less" is only partially true....but, either way, are you suggesting that the military that protects us should not hire based on abilities but rather on how hard it is for someone to get a job? Should the military stop with the ASVAB and "A" schools and such, and just hire people who can't (or won't) get hired anywhere else?

Lack of freedom on who is hired is less important than getting hard-to-hire people jobs, even if those hard-to-hire people are not best suited for the job - this is your position?

Nope never said any of that. I simply said they shouldn't bar one group of people because of the way their genitals developed.


It's really not hard to understand that even for a simple mind

 

[Gilligan]

because of the way their genitals developed.

gawd amighty....can't make this chit up....

 

[This_person]

Nope never said any of that. I simply said they shouldn't bar one group of people because of the way their genitals developed.


It's really not hard to understand that even for a simple mind

Ok, I agree that if the genitals are disfigured and that does not play into capabilities and readiness for the military, then they should certainly be allowed to join.

But, we weren't talking about disfigured genitals. We were talking about people who cannot accept themselves for who they are - be that male or female.

So, the unanswered question stands.

 

[Bird Dog]

Nope never said any of that. I simply said they shouldn't bar one group of people because of the way their genitals developed.


It's really not hard to understand that even for a simple mind

How do you know how someone’s genitals developed?
You’re cotton pickin’ strange......