Fordham College Republicans Kicked Out of Campus Coffee Shop Because of MAGA Hats

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Surely all of the MDL that are condemning the cake baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, will stop by to register their disgust with the coffee shop over this. 

 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/08/fordham-college-republicans-kicked-out-campus-coffee-shop-because-maga-hats

[jg121783 3,915]

46 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Surely all of the MDL that are condemning the cake baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, will stop by to register their disgust with the coffee shop over this. 

 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/08/fordham-college-republicans-kicked-out-campus-coffee-shop-because-maga-hats

I highly doubt it. Instead their double standards will be on full display.

[Dashinka 24,502]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Surely all of the MDL that are condemning the cake baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, will stop by to register their disgust with the coffee shop over this. 

 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/08/fordham-college-republicans-kicked-out-campus-coffee-shop-because-maga-hats

No doubt.  Wonder if any of these republicans are part of protected class?

[jg121783 3,915]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

No doubt.  Wonder if any of these republicans are part of protected class?

Everyone except white conservatives are a protected class according to the lefties.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Surely all of the MDL that are condemning the cake baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, will stop by to register their disgust with the coffee shop over this. 

 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/08/fordham-college-republicans-kicked-out-campus-coffee-shop-because-maga-hats

 

  The MDR supported shop owners being allowed to do this. Why are you complaining about it now? Seems like this was what some of you  wanted.

 

  If the students were not breaking any rules or misbehaving, there is no reason to ask them to leave, and it appears likely the shop violated university rules.

 

  I find it hypocritical to support the baker and then complain about this. Isn't it as many of the MDR asked before, why would the students want to stay there if they are not wanted?  And as I said a while ago, this is the kind of thing you will see happening when you allow people to pick and choose not to serve customers because of there own beliefs. If you allow discrimination, there is no thin red line. Every business owner can make their own rules for who is welcome. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The MDR supported shop owners being allowed to do this. Why are you complaining about it now? Seems like this was what some of you  wanted.

 

  If the students were not breaking any rules or misbehaving, there is no reason to ask them to leave, and it appears likely the shop violated university rules.

 

  I find it hypocritical to support the baker and then complain about this. Isn't it as many of the MDR asked before, why would the students want to stay there if they are not wanted?  And as I said a while ago, this is the kind of thing you will see happening when you allow people to pick and choose not to serve customers because of there own beliefs. If you allow discrimination, there is no thin red line. Every business owner can make their own rules for who is welcome. 

Many on the MDR supported the baker.  I being in the MOR said I  was very conflicted and if I was a judge on the SCOTUS  I would have a hard time making a decision. 

 

Get your ditches straight or middle of the road in this case 

 

I will also point out the cafeteria workers were not the owners 

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Nature Boy Flair

[Steeleballz 7,550]

33 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Many on the MDR supported the baker.  I being in the MOR said I  was very conflicted and if I was a judge on the SCOTUS  I would have a hard time making a decision. 

 

Get your ditches straight or middle of the road in this case 

 

I will also point out the cafeteria workers were not the owners 

 

 

  You did say that, true. I say MDR not referring to a specific person, just as MDL does not.  I am just responding to you as you asked the question.

 

  I should ask then, being middle of the road, I'm surprised you only asked the MDL for their opinions here. Are you not curious if the MDR supports refusing service in this case as well? I would think you would want input from both "sides" here, to see who is most consistent.

 

  

[Boiler 45,519]

The Baker thing I can also see is complicated due to two contradictory requirements, so a tricky one.

 

Fortunately this one is much simpler and certainly from left of center, I condemn it unreservedly.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, Boiler said:

The Baker thing I can also see is complicated due to two contradictory requirements, so a tricky one.

 

Fortunately this one is much simpler and certainly from left of center, I condemn it unreservedly.

I am glad to see someone on the left being consistent in their views. Even though you are left of center I appreciate your rational view points 

[Boiler 45,519]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am glad to see someone on the left being consistent in their views. Even though you are left of center I appreciate your rational view points 

I have to call it as I see it.

[jayjayj 571]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  You did say that, true. I say MDR not referring to a specific person, just as MDL does not.  I am just responding to you as you asked the question.

 

  I should ask then, being middle of the road, I'm surprised you only asked the MDL for their opinions here. Are you not curious if the MDR supports refusing service in this case as well? I would think you would want input from both "sides" here, to see who is most consistent.

 

  

Apples to oranges. 

 

One event involved forcing someone to make something that celebrated something that they don't agree with due to their own personal religious beliefs, whatever those happen to be.

 

The other event did not include forcing someone to make something that violated their religious beliefs.  

 

You are drawing a false moral equivalency between two completely different things.  You are a hypocrite if you are against the bakers rights because you think he is being discriminatory, even though his religious rights are enshrined in our Constitution, and then support discrimination from these people who are acting purely on political motives.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

Apples to oranges. 

 

One event involved forcing someone to make something that celebrated something that they don't agree with due to their own personal religious beliefs, whatever those happen to be.

 

The other event did not include forcing someone to make something that violated their religious beliefs.  

 

You are drawing a false moral equivalency between two completely different things.  You are a hypocrite if you are against the bakers rights because you think he is being discriminatory, even though his religious rights are enshrined in our Constitution, and then support discrimination from these people who are acting purely on political motives.

 

   I did not support discrimination here. Read my post. I said there is no reason the students should have been asked to leave, and asking them to leave was a violation of University policy.

 

  Comparing these two incidents, the hypocrites would be that group of people who believe discrimination is OK in one case and not in the other. Hope you're not among them.

[jayjayj 571]

38 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I did not support discrimination here. Read my post. I said there is no reason the students should have been asked to leave, and asking them to leave was a violation of University policy.

 

  Comparing these two incidents, the hypocrites would be that group of people who believe discrimination is OK in one case and not in the other. Hope you're not among them.

You are trivializing someone's freedom of religion by comparing that to this situation.  They aren't comparable events at all.  So no, you are absolutely wrong.  A hypocrite would be someone trying to draw a moral comparison to two completely different things in an attempt to score some political points.  I hope you aren't among people doing that.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

You are trivializing someone's freedom of religion by comparing that to this situation.  They aren't comparable events at all.  So no, you are absolutely wrong.  A hypocrite would be someone trying to draw a moral comparison to two completely different things in an attempt to score some political points.  I hope you aren't among people doing that.

 

  A religious persons beliefs are no more or no less valid than any other persons beliefs. Fortunately a supreme court justice would see straight through your attempt at an argument. There is case precedent that religion cannot be used to discriminate. That's why the baker's argument expanded to include freedom of speech and expression. 

 

  The baker believes homosexuals are bad because a book says so. The person in this article believes people in Trump hats are bad because the TV says so. I don't see a difference between them. Just a couple of bigots on the opposite side of the same coin, using what somebody else told them to justify their bias.

 

   

 

  

[jayjayj 571]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  A religious persons beliefs are no more or no less valid than any other persons beliefs. Fortunately a supreme court justice would see straight through your attempt at an argument. There is case precedent that religion cannot be used to discriminate. That's why the baker's argument expanded to include freedom of speech and expression. 

 

  The baker believes homosexuals are bad because a book says so. The person in this article believes people in Trump hats are bad because the TV says so. I don't see a difference between them. Just a couple of bigots on the opposite side of the same coin, using what somebody else told them to justify their bias.

 

   

 

  

The baker case is a religious freedom case.  This is a Constitutional issue.  He can't be forced to take an action that violates his religious beliefs.  

 

The MAGA hat issue is not a religious freedom case.  You don't have a constitutional right to not be offended by a hat or to not have your feelings hurt for that matter.  

 

They are completely different issues and you can't draw a reasoned comparison between the two.