If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.

Bullshit. Discriminating against a willfully ignorant individual is not even close to discriminating against an entire population. Not. Even. Close.

Perhaps if there were an entire sub-population of humanity that was born willfully ignorant and could do nothing about it, was enslaved, killed with impunity once freed, and eventually given some lip service to equal rights, the Organization for the Advancement of Ignorance would have some moral high ground upon which to stand.

But of course, it is the choice to be ignorant that is the key distinction. Spouting stupid shit from a position of power is not the same as being born with DNA that makes your skin dark, your eyes slanted, or your dick hard for other dicks. People are generally punished, directly or indirectly, for saying and doing stupid things, especially when it causes damage to other people.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.


Yeah, because associating with other people is such a BAD THING. I'm glad we don't live in your world.

Bullshit. Discriminating against a willfully ignorant individual is not even close to discriminating against an entire population. Not. Even. Close.

>>> According to the left, it is, but that's another argument. THIS argument is: if you own a business, you should have the right to decide who you will and will not serve. If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State.

>>> Senator No-Gay wasn't doing anything disruptive in that establishment. I'm defending the right of the owner to kick him out, but I'm also defending the right of a biz owner to kick Dan Savage out because he pokes fun at certain types of Christians, or kick Je$$e Jack$on out for referring to a majority Jewish area of New York as "Hymietown".

People are generally punished, directly or indirectly, for saying and doing stupid things, especially when it causes damage to other people.

But as any good liberal knows, some people are to be punished more than others for exercising their rights.


>> ^jonny:

Bullshit. Discriminating against a willfully ignorant individual is not even close to discriminating against an entire population. Not. Even. Close.
Perhaps if there were an entire sub-population of humanity that was born willfully ignorant and could do nothing about it, was enslaved, killed with impunity once freed, and eventually given some lip service to equal rights, the Organization for the Advancement of Ignorance would have some moral high ground upon which to stand.
But of course, it is the choice to be ignorant that is the key distinction. Spouting stupid shit from a position of power is not the same as being born with DNA that makes your skin dark, your eyes slanted, or your dick hard for other dicks. People are generally punished, directly or indirectly, for saying and doing stupid things, especially when it causes damage to other people.
>> ^quantumushroom:
If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.

Yeah, because associating with other people is such a BAD THING. I'm glad we don't live in your world.

You mean there's no group/club/organization/gang--ideological or otherwise--you prefer to be around versus another group/club/organization/gang with whom you have nothing in common?



>> ^probie:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.

Yeah, because associating with other people is such a BAD THING. I'm glad we don't live in your world.

Moving this video to Boise_Lib's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^quantumushroom:

if you own a business, you should have the right to decide who you will and will not serve. If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State.

We seem to have distinctly different definitions of 'freedom'. To me, it means I'm free to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. As far as I can tell, your definition of freedom is that you are free to do whatever you want and everyone else can fuck off.

To me, (freedom) means I'm free to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

The liberal definition of freedom is you're free to do whatever you want so long as it offends no one.

THAT AIN'T FREEDOM.

Freedom means there are choices, including choices that are offensive and often dangerous.

If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State. Freedom means a business owner decides whether to allow smoking in the establishment. Free citizens decide if they'd rather go there and risk inhaling "deadly" secondhand smoke or go up the street to the guy who has a smoke-free place. The free market would determine which type of business wins out. There might be a market for both. We'll never know since we no longer have the freedom to associate with smokers indoors anywhere but private homes (which the nanny-staters are going after next).

But back to the original post: liberals only approve of who they deem bigots being kicked out of restaurants. They couldn't care less about freedom.


>> ^jonny:

>> ^quantumushroom:
if you own a business, you should have the right to decide who you will and will not serve. If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State.
We seem to have distinctly different definitions of 'freedom'. To me, it means I'm free to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. As far as I can tell, your definition of freedom is that you are free to do whatever you want and everyone else can fuck off.

Awww did someone call out a bigot and hurt your feeling Quantum? WAAAAAH! Cry cry cry.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word bigotry if you think Dan Savage poking fun at 'christian' bigotry is bigotry.
btw, Jessie Jackson is a bigot too. I don't see anyone denying that.

When you talk about freedom you are talking about anarchy. Freedom without conscience is anarchy in its purest sense.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.


There is no law for refusing service to an individual for being an asshole...

If he was kicked out for being straight, white, male or old, you might have the vaguest point. He was kicked out for being a discriminatory cunt. Fair turn about imo.

Plus I don't recall you standing up and condemining the senator for his bigoted and discriminatory comments and stance (feel free to show me where you have though.. X ). But you get all hot and bothered because the guy is refused entry to a restaurant. I keep thinking it's not possible that you could make a bigger hypocritical jackass of yourself but you always seem to come up with a way.

One of my Teachers owned a store in SoCal near where one of the "Grand Wizard Dragons" of the KKK lived or something. One day he comes into the store, starts looking around. She comes up to him and asks him to leave. He does quite professionally, doesn't complain doesn't even seem to have a problem with it.

Now I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As long as you're not say in a hospital refusing service to a sick person, this is simply a restaurant go to another one.

QM wants to equate everything he's ever heard about a Liberal doing in the name of political correctness with this situation. Maybe he saw some situations where it was applied wrongly but that doesn't make the entire idea of doing it wrong. Also it doesn't paint ALL people of liberal thinking as bad because some did something not very nice.

I suspect it's more to do with listening to certain broadcasters on TV and radio who cheery pick some things rather than doing some real journalism.

>> ^quantumushroom:

To me, (freedom) means I'm free to do whatever I want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.
The liberal definition of freedom is you're free to do whatever you want so long as it offends no one.
THAT AIN'T FREEDOM.
Freedom means there are choices, including choices that are offensive and often dangerous.
If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State. Freedom means a business owner decides whether to allow smoking in the establishment. Free citizens decide if they'd rather go there and risk inhaling "deadly" secondhand smoke or go up the street to the guy who has a smoke-free place. The free market would determine which type of business wins out. There might be a market for both. We'll never know since we no longer have the freedom to associate with smokers indoors anywhere but private homes (which the nanny-staters are going after next).
But back to the original post: liberals only approve of who they deem bigots being kicked out of restaurants. They couldn't care less about freedom.

Why are you giving your perception of a liberal's idea of freedom when that clearly has nothing to do with the sentence of mine that you quoted? wtf?

As you say, though, back to the point you were ultimately making - that kicking anyone out of your restaurant is ok, but that the politically correct think it's only ok to kick out people they deem bigots. Kicking someone out of a restaurant isn't in itself an unethical act. It is only unethical if the reason for doing so is unethical. Apparently you would not agree that kicking a person out of your restaurant as part of a larger culture of violent discrimination against an entire population is unethical. Would you say that accurately describes your position?