*blocked in Canada

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by notarobot.

I understand his point, but I still wonder if this is a good idea.

Yes, without a doubt, the right were the ones who abandoned civility and normal politics when they embraced Trump. That's not even up for debate.

But we want to get AWAY from that, not sink further into it.

As tempting as it is to sink to Trump's level (and I've certainly been guilty of this myself), I fear we're trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

*quality *promote

@ChaosEngine is correct. And this video is correct.

The only problem with this video is that it is a nuanced explanation, complete with historical footnotes.

So it will be a failure in our sound bite, meme-infused fast food society.

It is still great though.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, June 26th, 2018 8:44pm PDT - promote requested by bareboards2.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by bareboards2.

If you become what you despise in your efforts to fight against it, you've already lost.
That said....

I feel like they might be better served by saying serving Republicans violates their religious standards and they can't be forced to participate in their event (dinner). Any further explanation also violates their religious beliefs.

It would be great to watch their heads explode when their big hateful legal win against homosexuality is turned against them.

For my Canadian brothers and sisters https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6mxu4j

You know, if Republicans hadn't just fought so hard to guarantee the legal right of businesses to deny service to gay people, I would have a little bit of sympathy. But this is exactly what they wanted. They just never imagined that they might be morally disapproved of as well.

it's gone too far... the policies are hateful and nonAmerican so I think we need to do more of it and now; they crossed the line in the sand so fuck them; babies in cages cannot be the new norm

With a soon-to-be 6-3 Corporate Conservative SCOTUS in place, I would not put money on maintaining a legal route to abortion and already civil liberties of women & LGBTQ have begun to be stripped away, with more on the way. There will be no Velvet Revolution here; buckle up.

Guillotines are cheap and easy to build. Remember that, in the days to come.

Until you've argued that black is white, the sun rises in the west, that we've always been at war with Eastasia, and are perfectly willing to fuck over most of the world for your own self-aggrandizement, you have come nowhere near to sinking to Trump's level.

SHS was politely asked to leave a restaurant because of her role as a willing and eager mouthpiece for policies that physically and emotionally have hurt (at a minimum) thousands of people. That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is.

People making the civility argument in good faith (i.e., not Fox talking heads) are making it because they actually have a moral compass and know that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, what was done to SHS isn't a wrong--no harm was done to her other than embarrassment, which is exactly what she should be feeling about her role in the world. When people are being terrible, whether it's a child, the president, or one of his enablers, they need to be told politely but firmly that it's not OK.

Think of this less as pouring gasoline on a fire and more like a controlled burn to help control the blaze.

@Ickster
"That we're equating that with something like gay people being refused service because of who they are says a lot about how skewed our perception of balance is."

This is the fundamental point. I DON'T equate the two at all.

But as soon as we open this door, we have to deal with the permutations of it.

Let's say that for the sake of argument, gender identity and sexual orientation are now protected classes (legally, they're not, but let's assume they are).

Ok, you can't discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ. Great, that is obviously correct.

But we're making the argument here that you CAN discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation. Would you be ok with someone refusing service to Obama? Hillary? Bernie? What about an employer in a Republican town who finds out their employee is a prominent local democrat?

I get the argument and honestly, I agree with most of what you've said. If any of Trump's cronies had shown up in my (completely imaginary) restaurant, I'd probably have turfed them out with a lot less civility than SHS was shown.

But I'm just not sure that the world following my example is a good idea....