Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
Hey, were you a line cook at the Beer, Burger and Barf restaurant in Elmsford, NY in the early 80's?
Because that was a normal practice when I worked there.
But it would be spit on, just for some added spice.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders told to go FK yourself
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
Because that was a normal practice when I worked there.
But it would be spit on, just for some added spice.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So you'd force a black guy to serve you against his will then?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
seriously, just stop with this imaginary history you invented after everyone noticed what a shitty klantard you are
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Huckster79
Well-Known Member
Protected classes for one... you may very legally discriminate for any reason as long as its not a protected class... now we can argue morals of it, but legally its certainly an apples and oranges comparison...... race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, disability, pregnancy, veterans status...those are protected classes
Political affiliation is not a protected class..
However i beleive the restaraunt owner was right in doing so... she has gay employees and sleezy sarah defends trumps trangender issues and that was troubling. . With an interview w the owner she pulled Sarah aside and did it privately, she said the exchange was polite and civil. They said her family could stay, but they chose not to, and they asked to pay for the cheese tray they had been nibbling on, the owner said it was on the house...it was not a grand standoff...
The owner said its a time that everyone make their stand...
The group that thinks cake bakers should be able to make you pass a morality test before theyll bake ur cake and if they dont approve of whom you love they can deny you services for being who you were born as... huge difference between the two..
Being black or being gay is not the moral equivalancy to working for the biggest threat to our republic since the confeceracy by choice..
.
Can’t I throw Bucky a troll bone? He’s already had wasted opportunity on this thread; he forgets how it’s really done.
That what Trumpers we’re doing on Election Day complete with coolers under palm trees.
They were there to intimidate but had to sit behind the tape near the road
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That what Trumpers we’re doing on Election Day complete with coolers under palm trees.
They were there to intimidate but had to sit behind the tape near the road
You don’t have to admit someone to your establishment that will cause discourse for other diners; screaming kid comes to mind.. is it age discrimination or the disruption that age causes?
Sour Wreck
Well-Known Member
i say we continue to publicly shaming trump employees and flip off the president when opportunities present themselves.
these pigs made their fucking bed and now they can lie it.
fucking low lifes !!!!!
may life suck badly for all of them !!!!!!!!!!!
these pigs made their fucking bed and now they can lie it.
fucking low lifes !!!!!
may life suck badly for all of them !!!!!!!!!!!
That stomp kept it tender
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Honestly, even buck can make up better emotive conjugations than that. I’d want anyone who owns a restaurant or any other business to not discriminate based on color and sexual preference. Whether the owner is black is as irrelevant as the diameter of his kneecap.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
The irony of a racist is that he is worried about becoming inferior to people with a different skincolor. To racists, being against racism automatically involves positive discrimination for black people. Same with the rock guy asking about Ben Carson. Thereby completely missing the point, the goal, equality.
First line of Dutch constitution:
“All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances.”
Only racists believe the skin color should change the circumstances.
First line of Dutch constitution:
“All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances.”
Only racists believe the skin color should change the circumstances.
The problem with his argument is that the black guy is there to serve those seated in his section.
If they are seated they are to be served and the black server knows this just as a white yellow brown red servers know too.
If commotion caused then it’s case by case.
In the case of Sanders she was the commotion and her party was invited to stay- just not HER. Removing her removed the offensive.
While not illegal her lying on behalf of an institution that’s not supposed to and has always been suspect..? That’s balls.
Red Hen Management: no more taking a knee during the National Anthem! And Merry Christmas!
Last edited:
PetFlora
Well-Known Member
All of you wh insist th left is good and the right should be destroyed
Brought to you by a lesbian, who is an intelligent woman...
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's what I'd want to.
However, if I want somebody to do something and they prefer not to, but they're willing to leave me alone if I leave them alone, should I use a gun to make them do what I want them to do?
Racists are racist because they’ve been taught. It’s out of fear of the differences rather than learn and embrace.
You aren’t BORN a racist.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
This is just a silly and extreme overgeneralization with no merit.
You still assert it’s acceptable to have racism as a preference in the first place. It’s not. No laws or ethics need to be created or philosophized to accommodate those who want to work in a restaurant but prefer not to serve people of color.
When people like you who aren’t completely stupid talk themselves into such pointless positions, I always wonder what the motive is. Do you know?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Except equality isn't present if one person can forcibly cause an interaction with another person against that persons will.
If equality is the goal, it would mean every person has the equal right of self determination, and no person or persons has the right to force another person to interact with them against their wishes.
When one party is denied the ability to opt out of an interaction, the person(s) denying them is creating an "unequal" situation, since their wishes are superseding the wishes of the other neutral party. Not to mention the wishes of the person(s) insisting that an interaction take place are backed by threats of violence for failure to obey. What I just said is undeniable by the way, but I'd be interested in your point of view if you think it's otherwise.