Author Topic: Judge rules New York City bar can refuse service to Trump supporter wearing MAGA hat  (Read 13445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
Netflix on my phone. Duh.

Well be very careful with those Scooby Doo episodes. Some of them might be frightening to a youngster like you. The episode with The Harlem Globe Trotters might trigger your Social Justice tendencies.


Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Oh, Jean Simmons.  Yeah, he was good in Kiss.

I have a longhorn heifer named Jean Simmons.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
I have a longhorn heifer named Jean Simmons.

I can see the resemblance in the two.
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
I can see the resemblance in the two.

I cannot tell from the picture.  My Jean is so named because her tongue is long enough to wrap around my wrist.  The kids have stopped hand feeding her.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits


The lawyer representing The Happiest Hour, Elizabeth Conway, argued that he was not discriminated against because only religious, not political, beliefs are protected under state and city discrimination law.

“Supporting Trump is not a religion,” Conway argued.

 

Cool! That means not only can you legally prevent white men from going to "black bars",but you can now legally keep blacks out of your neighborhood. Being black ain't a religion.

Neither is being female.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits
But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...

@txradioguy

Looks like you can now,because being a  homo isn't a religion.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
I cannot tell from the picture.  My Jean is so named because her tongue is long enough to wrap around my wrist.  The kids have stopped hand feeding her.

And that is where the resemblance comes from! 
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
@txradioguy

Looks like you can now,because being a  homo isn't a religion.

Unfortunately, the "classes" the government refuses to allow merchants to "freely associate" with, or not, extend beyond religion to people other than you and me.  Specifically people who aren't you and me.  The Civil Rights Act was added to many times since '65.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Unfortunately, the "classes" the government refuses to allow merchants to "freely associate" with, or not, extend beyond religion to people other than you and me.  Specifically people who aren't you and me.  The Civil Rights Act was added to many times since '65.

Not really.  A public accommodation (like this bar) cannot discriminate on the basis of (among other things) race, gender or religion (many jurisdictions also proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but many still do not).   A bar cannot refuse to serve you because you're white, or because you're male.   That sort of discrimination isn't historically common,  but it is theoretically possible.

The court's decision upholds the liberty of a bar owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis other than one of the "protected classifications".   Political ideology isn't a protected classification, so the bar owner retains all of the liberty that conservatives demand.   

BTW,  if I'd been the lawyer for the guy with the MAGA hat,  I wouldn't have argued the religion angle, which is ridiculous.   But it is demonstrably true that Trump supporters are proportionately more likely to be white and male.  So I would have argued discrimination on the basis of race and gender,  citing the disproportionate impact on white males of the bar owner's refusal to serve Trump supporters.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,131
the only people acting like SJW's on this thread are the mental midgets who want to prevent a private entity from dealing with who and who they do not let on their property.

Oceander

  • Guest
Not really.  A public accommodation (like this bar) cannot discriminate on the basis of (among other things) race, gender or religion (many jurisdictions also proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but many still do not).   A bar cannot refuse to serve you because you're white, or because you're male.   That sort of discrimination isn't historically common,  but it is theoretically possible.

The court's decision upholds the liberty of a bar owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis other than one of the "protected classifications".   Political ideology isn't a protected classification, so the bar owner retains all of the liberty that conservatives demand.   

BTW,  if I'd been the lawyer for the guy with the MAGA hat,  I wouldn't have argued the religion angle, which is ridiculous.   But it is demonstrably true that Trump supporters are proportionately more likely to be white and male.  So I would have argued discrimination on the basis of race and gender,  citing the disproportionate impact on white males of the bar owner's refusal to serve Trump supporters.   

I like the disparate impact argument.  That would have been interesting to see. 

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Either a business can decide who to serve based on their beliefs or any other criteria, or they can’t. This applying the law willy nilly depending on hats, religion, and whether or not you like sexual play in the butt, is getting rather silly. Especially when judges and lawyers get to decide how the law is applied. Typically with a conservative getting screwed.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
I like the disparate impact argument.  That would have been interesting to see.

An analogy could be a bar's refusal to serve folks with hats bearing the logos of rap artists.  That's not discrimination based on the customer's behavior (which is always lawful), unless the simple wearing of a hat is deemed to constitute behavior.   But assuming you could show folks with hats bearing rap artist logos are disproportionately black, couldn't the arbitrary refusal to serve folks wearing such hats be seen as a proxy for discrimination on the basis of race? 

Here, the MAGA-wearing cat was causing no trouble and making no demands or statements that could be construed as behavior.  He was just wearing a hat and seeking a beer, and the bar owner assumed he must be a Trump supporter.  Well, there's clearly a ton of polling out there that demonstrate the demographics of Trump supporters, which could show the disparate impact of a Trump hat ban on a potential patrons of a certain race and gender.   

Sure would be fun to take that case!    :cool:

« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 07:35:07 pm by Jazzhead »
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Oceander

  • Guest
An analogy could be a bar's refusal to serve folks with hats bearing the logos of rap artists.  That's not discrimination based on the customer's behavior (which is always lawful), unless the simple wearing of a hat is deemed to constitute behavior.   But assuming you could show folks with hats bearing rap artist logos are disproportionately black, couldn't the arbitrary refusal to serve folks wearing such hats be seen as a proxy for discrimination on the basis of race? 

Here, the MAGA-wearing cat was causing no trouble and making no demands or statements that could be construed as behavior.  He was just wearing a hat and seeking a beer, and the bar owner assumed he must be a Trump supporter.  Well, there's clearly a ton of polling out there that demonstrate the demographics of Trump supporters, which could show the disparate impact of a Trump hat ban on a potential patrons of a certain race and gender.   

Sure would be fun to take that case!    :cool:



Agreed. 

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,683
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Not really.  A public accommodation (like this bar) cannot discriminate on the basis of (among other things) race, gender or religion (many jurisdictions also proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but many still do not).   A bar cannot refuse to serve you because you're white, or because you're male.   That sort of discrimination isn't historically common,  but it is theoretically possible.

The court's decision upholds the liberty of a bar owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis other than one of the "protected classifications".   Political ideology isn't a protected classification, so the bar owner retains all of the liberty that conservatives demand.   


The problem is that violates the 14th amendment, because it creates selective equality and let's the govt define what equality is, which was not it's original intent.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 08:26:56 pm by Free Vulcan »
The Republic is lost.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,759
The problem is that violates the 14th amendmen,t because it creates selective equality and let's the govt define what equality is, which was not it's original intent.

@Free Vulcan Please don't interrupt the discussion between the barristers.  It's so intriguing watching the discussion between two people who think it would be "fun" to gamble with our rights.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,683
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
@Free Vulcan Please don't interrupt the discussion between the barristers.  It's so intriguing watching the discussion between two people who think it would be "fun" to gamble with our rights.

I know, I know...  ****slapping
The Republic is lost.

Oceander

  • Guest
@Free Vulcan Please don't interrupt the discussion between the barristers.  It's so intriguing watching the discussion between two people who think it would be "fun" to gamble with our rights.

/snicker

No, we’re the only ones coming up with a basis on which the schmuck in the stupid red hat might have a cause of action against the bar. 

Oceander

  • Guest
The problem is that violates the 14th amendment, because it creates selective equality and let's the govt define what equality is, which was not it's original intent.

Nonsense on stilts. 

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,759
/snicker

No, we’re the only ones coming up with a basis on which the schmuck in the stupid red hat might have a cause of action against the bar.

Whatever.

Oceander

  • Guest
Whatever.

Thought those “rights” were important to you.  Guess not.

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
The second biggest problem we face that prevents us from having civil verbal intercourse here at TBR.  Two too many damn Lawyers :smokin:
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 08:49:30 pm by Wingnut »
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Oceander

  • Guest
The second biggest problem we face that prevents us from having civil verbal intercourse here at TBR.  Two too many damn Lawyers :smokin:

You could always persuade TBR to follow Shakespeare’s “advice”.

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,382
  • Gender: Male
They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap.

Naw, man, it was because he was drunk in Public.
 

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
You could always persuade TBR to follow Shakespeare’s “advice”.

Maybe not the 1st thing we do.  But who am I to argue!   :silly:
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."