In Wake of Trump, Democrats Suddenly Discover Freedom of Association

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

"Meanwhile, Anthony Bourdain has announced that he wont eat at any restaurant hosted at Trump Tower; fashion icon Andre Leon Talley has said he wont dress Melania anymore; artists whose products hang in Ivanka Trumps apartment have asked her to remove their art.

Well, well.

Suddenly, it seems, the left has discovered freedom of association. After years of telling religious people that they had a moral and legal obligation to throw out their religion and serve same-sex weddings, provide contraception, and fund abortion, the left now realizes that the ability to pick and choose those to whom you give your services is actually rather vital.

Dont expect it to last.

Of course artists should be able to turn down clients. So should religious bakers. But you wont see the left acknowledge that. The only freedom to turn down clients is the freedom for leftists to turn down conservative and religious clients, not the other way around."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11861/wake-trump-democrats-suddenly-discover-freedom-ben-shapiro

[Póg mo 1,749]

You don't quite understand how the low works. I suggest you look up the term 'protected class' and see what it means.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yeah. That's it. My purported lack of understanding caused that article to be written. Just like your confidence that Hillary would get elected led to her being president.

You don't quite understand how the low works. I suggest you look up the term 'protected class' and see what it means.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

You don't quite understand how the low works. I suggest you look up the term 'protected class' and see what it means.

How does the low work

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

How does the low work

it's well documented in the op.......

[Dakine10 5,452]

A vendor discriminating against a customer on the basis of sexual orientation is not the same thing as a customer "discriminating" against a vendor for being a jackass. They are opposite scenarios, and failure of the article to realize that is either purposefully misleading or willfully stupid. I would guess the latter.

There is no law that I know of that prevents a customer from discriminating against a business. You can have any reason for not shopping at Walmart (for example) and there's nothing that can be done legally. The same is not true in reverse. In some instances a business will suffer legal consequences for refusing services, in others they will not. Most businesses that operate successfully and within the scope of the law get this. It's not that hard to understand. I'm not sure why people are intent on making it so.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Yeah. That's it. My purported lack of understanding caused that article to be written. Just like your confidence that Hillary would get elected led to her being president.

Don't be silly, your lack of understanding, obviously didn't cause the article to be written. Great minds think alike, but fools never differ.

[jg121783 3,907]

A vendor discriminating against a customer on the basis of sexual orientation is not the same thing as a customer "discriminating" against a vendor for being a jackass. They are opposite scenarios, and failure of the article to realize that is either purposefully misleading or willfully stupid. I would guess the latter.

There is no law that I know of that prevents a customer from discriminating against a business. You can have any reason for not shopping at Walmart (for example) and there's nothing that can be done legally. The same is not true in reverse. In some instances a business will suffer legal consequences for refusing services, in others they will not. Most businesses that operate successfully and within the scope of the law get this. It's not that hard to understand. I'm not sure why people are intent on making it so.

I am guessing you missed (or chose to ignore) this part:

"artists whose products hang in Ivanka Trumps apartment have asked her to remove their art."

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that a case of a vendor discriminating against a customer?

Edited December 25, 2016 by jg121783

[Dakine10 5,452]

I am guessing you missed (or chose to ignore) this part:

"artists whose products hang in Ivanka Trumps apartment have asked her to remove their art."

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that a case of a vendor discriminating against a customer?

Reread my post. I didn't say vendors can't discriminate. I said they can't in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are well defined legally under federal and state law.

Artists asking Ivanka Trump to remove art is neither here nor there. If she owns it she can do what she wants with it, including leaving it up.

[Dashinka 23,242]

Reread my post. I didn't say vendors can't discriminate. I said they can't in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are well defined legally under federal and state law.

Artists asking Ivanka Trump to remove art is neither here nor there. If she owns it she can do what she wants with it, including leaving it up.

Isn't that the rub, let the people decide and keep the government out of it. If a vendor chooses to make their religious beliefs known then stop shopping there. Do we need the government to punish people for expressing their protected religious beliefs?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Isn't that the rub, let the people decide and keep the government out of it. If a vendor chooses to make their religious beliefs known then stop shopping there. Do we need the government to punish people for expressing their protected religious beliefs?

Or like in GA you cant allow people to smoke in a Restaurant, don't get me wrong I really enjoy the smoke free restaurants and probably would not eat at a place that allowed smoking

Seems to me however if I want to build a place to eat, and allow customers to smoke in it, then if you don't like it go elsewhere.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Isn't that the rub, let the people decide and keep the government out of it. If a vendor chooses to make their religious beliefs known then stop shopping there. Do we need the government to punish people for expressing their protected religious beliefs?

Religion can't be used as an excuse for discrimination. At any rate, I don't think anyone is going to Hell for baking a cake, it's not a tenet of any religion. It's a personal decision to discriminate using religion to justify that. If God exists, I think he has bigger fish to fry.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Religion can't be used as an excuse for discrimination. At any rate, I don't think anyone is going to Hell for baking a cake, it's not a tenet of any religion. It's a personal decision to discriminate using religion to justify that. If God exists, I think he has bigger fish to fry.

I agree not serving gays is absurd.. but playing the devils advocate

If a Muslim owned catering service did not want to serve roast pork at an event, could they refuse

[Póg mo 1,749]

I agree not serving gays is absurd.. but playing the devils advocate

If a Muslim owned catering service did not want to serve roast pork at an event, could they refuse

So long as they aren't changing policies just to discriminate against a protected class. Next question. Edited December 26, 2016 by Póg mo

[Dakine10 5,452]

I agree not serving gays is absurd.. but playing the devils advocate

If a Muslim owned catering service did not want to serve roast pork at an event, could they refuse

A Muslim owned caterer wouldn't have pork as a menu item. You wouldn't hire them if you need pork. However if a Muslim owned bakery refuses to bake a cake for your same sex wedding, you could sue.