And if they spit in his food would you be OK with him suing and taking over the diner and turning it into a self defense museum?
If Trayvon's parents opened a diner should they have to serve Zimmerman?
- Thread starter YellowSnow51
- Start date
Peruvian food is extremely bland compared to Mexican. That white boy Zimmerman wouldn't like anything spicy.
I thought it was a perfect post. It asks a very good question. Now that we have decided that a public place doe not have the right to turn away business from certain clesses. Race is one of those protected classes, right? With libs, when the shoe is on the other foot it gets a little uncomfortable
Do you imagine race would be the big objection T's parents would have? Businesses can and always could turn away individuals for individual reasons.
Good luck with getting a jury or judge to adjudicate for him that the refusal of service was based on race. Silly scenario is silly.
Since we are throwing out silly scenarios let me ask this...
If GZ walked into a Martin establishment and the Martins shot him dead under SYG would they have a valid defense?
No any private business should be able to cater to whomever they prefer. You are a gigantic moron if you feel differently.
Travelon's parents didn't look smart enough to know how cook, so the whole scenario is improbable.
Seriously, fuk those minorities, why should we care what the law says?
To answers OPs silly question, they obviously would not have to serve him.
Irony.Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
I have learned the hard way that posts made at 4:30 am usually are mistakes waiting to happen.
OK....flip the script. A gay bakery has a christian group walk in. Christian group wants cakes made that say "Defeat the gay marriage agenda".
So you think the Gay owned bakery should have no choice but to serve them or face penalties under the law?
What about a black owned BBQ restaurant? Should they be forced to cater a KKK rally if asked to?
Yep.
However, if the food is bad tasting or if the table service is bad, he should be smart enough not to complain.
However, if the food is bad tasting or if the table service is bad, he should be smart enough not to complain.
The law is very clear, you can refuse service to anyone unless it is based upon a protected status.
I just tell people I'm booked and refer them to another photographer when I don't want to do a shoot/event for any reason.
If you go back to the original story about the "bakery" story before the media and gay groups twisted the story to fit their narrative. The owner of the bakery had no problem serving a gay customer. They only objected to what they customer wanted put on the cake. And he should have a reasonable right to refuse to do that. Just like myself being a photographer being able to say no to being asked to photograph certain things.(I don't do weddings period and have turned down the offer to do dozens of them)
I said in another thread...that the whole story smells of a set up. What gay person would want that put on a cake, other than they knew the owner was christian and they could manufacture the outrage thru knowing the owner would likely object to wanting to write that on the cake.
A Jewish owned deli owned by Holocaust survivors should be allowed to discriminate against Neo-Nazis sporting SS uniforms. Without it, private property ceases to exist.
Re: If Trayvon's parents opened a diner should they have to serve Zim
Nazis don't eat knish.
I remember how pissed my grandfather was when I bought a Mercedes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Nazis don't eat knish.
I remember how pissed my grandfather was when I bought a Mercedes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Tough call.
All the available evidence says that every time Zimmerman has encountered a Martin he has shot and killed the Martin in question.
If you were to predict the outcome of the new encounter from all past encounters, any Martin in that position would be justified in fearing for his life.
Answer #1:
What does private property have to do with it? Do the Holocaust survivors only have a right to refuse to serve Nazis if they own the building? If they own the business (as opposed to being a franchisee or an employee)?
If you want the full set of property rights to apply, operate your business as a club and make no use of public resources.
Answer #2:
No, they should not be allowed to discriminate. Sorry. As sympathetic as most of us would be in this case, unless the people they are refusing to serve are actually the people who oppressed them and killed their friends, then they are stereotyping and engaging in collective punishment. It would be like blaming all Christians or all Muslims for atrocities committed by some other Christians or Muslims.
Just because someone sports a cross or says "bless you" doesn't mean they endorse the Spanish Inquisition. Admittedly, it seems reasonable to make assumptions about people who willingly wear the swastika or the confederate flag. But if you are offering a product or service to the public and a member of the public agrees to pay your price and doesn't act out or stink or fall down drunk (and so on), you have an obligation to follow through on the bargain that you proposed when you went into business and offered your product or service for purchase or hire.
Used to see these posted in restaurants all the time....this one is $4.25 on-line. Guess those days are over.
What if they own a bakery, and the neo nazis in regular clothes want cakes saying "White Power" on them?
Sure. Neo-Nazis aren't a protected class. And before someone yells "Skokie!", that was a case of using public property.
A restaurant can refuse to serve people wearing Nazi uniforms for the same reason it can refuse to serve people who aren't wearing shirts or shoes.
Now, if the Nazis were openly gay, or African-American, that would be a different story.
Wait a second; some of my best thoughts come before sunrise.Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
I have learned the hard way that posts made at 4:30 am usually are mistakes waiting to happen.
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
I have learned the hard way that posts made at 4:30 am usually are mistakes waiting to happen.
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
I have learned the hard way that posts made at 4:30 am usually are mistakes waiting to happen.
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Yep, it was the fiber.Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
I have learned the hard way that posts made at 4:30 am usually are mistakes waiting to happen.
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Yep, it was the fiber.Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
I have learned the hard way that posts made at 4:30 am usually are mistakes waiting to happen.
Re: If Trayvon's parents opened a diner should they have to serve Zim
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Yep, it was the fiber.Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
I have learned the hard way that posts made at 4:30 am usually are mistakes waiting to happen.
Wouldn't "sodomy" be an "individual reason"?
BTW, I think the Indiana law and pizza place are in the wrong and support everyone's right to marry and be miserable, but I thought this premise was a juicy one for conversation. The topic itself offers up all kinds of Devil's Advocate points and analogous situations to ponder. I thought this one was decent enough.
If I'm getting some sodomy in their restaurant, that would be an individual reason, IMO. If they are treating me different because they suspect I might like some sodomy at some point, that's more of a class discrimination issue as I see it. I actually think the pizza place is right. When I show up to eat, they are a business of public accomidation and should/would serve me. If I ask them to contract a special service, I see no issue with them getting to turn me down. I think that strikes the appropriate balance in a civil society. If they never want to serve a gay person, they should close their doors and only cater private functions.
If they are doing it in your store and you or your customers aren't enjoying the show, then sure - kick them out.
Being gay isn't a protected class in some states, and I don't think it is by federal law. I know the Oregon bakery case was based on state law.
