Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by Surtur
....The guy tried to argue it was religious discrimination because his MAGA hat is part of how he remembers 9/11 victims and the judge didn't buy it.

lol what? Is 9/11 a religion now? His reasoning is pretty funny. But props to the guy for committing.

After reading more about this it sounds like the guy who is suing is full of shit, in more ways than just his reasoning about the hat being religious.

He says he was kicked out, but court documents prove that he actually had a $182 tab, which he paid. You'd think if they were going to kick out someone for wearing a MAGA hat, they'd do so before serving him $180 of food/beverages.

Also the owner of the bar denies kicking the guy out because of the hat, instead saying that they asked him to leave because he was being verbally abusive towards staff.

Though your questions about religious vs political discrimination is an interesting one. Seems it comes down to state law. It's up to state law to decide if political discrimination among businesses is legal or not, and in New York apparently, there is no such law on the books that outlaw it.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article209868614.html

I mean I’m fine with businesses deciding who they will and will not do business with.

Obviously I’ll criticize those decisions, but I don’t think the government has a place in those decisions.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I’m fine with businesses deciding who they will and will not do business with.

Obviously I’ll criticize those decisions, but I don’t think the government has a place in those decisions.

So you'd be okay with going back to "No Black", "No Italians", "No Mexicans" and the like in front of businesses? Because it was he government/or laws that stopped those practices.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's scheduled to appear in front of the Supreme Court around June 21st. Where they will decide if the artistic expression can be forced on businesses/individuals.

Woops I was wrong:

The Court took oral arguments on December 5, 2017, with a decision likely to be made by the end of the court's term.

Wikipedia

Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

Originally posted by Robtard
So you'd be okay with going back to "No Black", "No Italians", "No Mexicans" and the like in front of businesses? Because it was he government/or laws that stopped those practices.

But yes, I don’t think anyone has a right to the labor of a business, and I don’t think it’s the place of the government to compel an economic transaction.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I’m pretty sure Jim Crowe was the government demanding those practices.

But yes, I don’t think anyone has a right to the labor of a business, and I don’t think it’s the place of the government to compel an economic transaction.

And it was the same government that overturned those laws as laws that are later deemed unconstitutional can be done away with.

That's a skewed way of looking at it, imo, considering we're talking specifically about discrimination.

Originally posted by Robtard
And it was the same government that overturned those laws as laws that are later deemed unconstitutional can be done away with.

That's a skewed way of looking at it, imo, considering we're talking specifically about discrimination.

I think the government exists to protect people's rights, and this is not legislation that I think protects rights. I don't believe it's the job of the government to enforce moral dictates that don't have to do with the protection of rights.

You're in a bit of a loop though, if the government exist to protects a person's rights, wouldn't protecting a person from racial discriminating fall under that. ie Civil Rights Act of 1964

I was born after "Whites Only Bathroom" was a thing; I personally wouldn't want America to go back to that.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're in a bit of a loop though, if the government exist to protects a person's rights, wouldn't protecting a person from racial discriminating fall under that. ie Civil Rights Act of 1964

I was born after "Whites Only Bathroom" was a thing; I personally wouldn't want America to go back to that.

Besides those laws aren't even consistently applied.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't agree that not being discriminated against in the private sector is a right, I believe liberty to do with your labor and property as you see fit is a right.

Besides those laws aren't even consistently applied.

Civil Rights Act disagrees with you, if you're say a bartender serving people but then go "sorry, not serving you" based on something like skin color.

Sure, there can be issues at times, but it's no reason to 'throw the baby away with the bathwater' so to speak.

Originally posted by Robtard
Civil Rights Act disagrees with you, if you're say a bartender serving people but then go "sorry, not serving you" based on something like skin color.

Sure, there can be issues at times, but it's no reason to 'throw the baby away with the bathwater' so to speak.

I think a person's right to equality among others is more important than someone being allowed to go something like "not you, Jew boy!". Though I did say I'd be curios in allowing discrimination if businesses had to state their discriminatory practices openly so people can then decide if they want to patronize them or not. Not that I think it's a good idea for society, more of an experiment.

What exactly do you consider an intrinsic negative right though?

Originally posted by Robtard
I think a person's right to equality among others is more important than someone being allowed to go something like "not you, Jew boy!". Though I did say I'd be curios in allowing discrimination if businesses had to state their discriminatory practices openly so people can then decide if they want to patronize them or not. Not that I think it's a good idea for society, more of an experiment.

What exactly do you consider an intrinsic negative right though?

I don't think not being discriminated against by a business falls under either of these categories.

I'm a legal egalitarian, I believe people should have full equality under the law, which thus includes there not being discrimination in the public sector which is subsidized by taxpayer money, however equality under the law doesn't and should not extend to the compulsion of private citizens by force to treat or regard you a certain way.

I believe people should have equality under the law, I believe private citizens should treat each other as individuals without undue discrimination, and I don't believe people should be racist. Only the first of these three things however is something that I believe justifies the use of force to enact, because only the first of these things inevitably relates to the violation of a person's rights to life liberty or property.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're in a bit of a loop though, if the government exist to protects a person's rights, wouldn't protecting a person from racial discriminating fall under that. ie Civil Rights Act of 1964

I was born after "Whites Only Bathroom" was a thing; I personally wouldn't want America to go back to that.

Personally I'm Chinese and would have no issue with a store hanging a sign that says "No chinks allowed" because I don't want to give my money to those people anyway. By forbidding them from making their bigotry notorious it's very possible that I've spent my whole life contributing to the livelihood of assholes like that.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Depends on how you look at it. Free speech is a right but it's only actually applied in regards to the government. Private businesses and institutions can ban you from saying pretty much whatever they want. By the same token it could be argued that discrimination should definitely be a legal "no no" for the government, but private sector businesses and institutions should be able to discriminate against whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah they did, cos it was Kanye just crying for attention.

Well no, you don't agree with me, as that's a narrative you've made; not me.

You said they'd think he was a fool and I agree.

Originally posted by Surtur
You said they'd think he was a fool and I agree.

Best thing about Kanye are all the memes coming from his dimwitted slavery comments.

Get ready to laugh/lose faith in humanity:

Student editor slams college for trying to stop rape by advising against allowing strangers in dorms

A colleges Public Safety Department sent the following email to students:

"It has been reported to Public Safety that a residential student was assaulted in their room by someone they had recently met. Please be careful about inviting people you don’t know well to your residence hall room. Call Public Safety immediately at 516-463-6789 if you or someone you know needs assistance and follow all guest policies as outlined in the Guide to Pride and Living Factor."

Lol so...

"Factora griped that the email didn’t contain a “trigger warning” that might upset survivors of sexual assault and also indicated that the message’s tenor seemed to victim-blame.

In the article, titled “Public not-so-Safety,” Factora called the email “alarming” and said that the brevity “only contributed to the shock. “

“There’s a lot to unpack here,” Factora wrote. “First of all, the subject line of the headline was ‘Hofstra University Safety Alert,’ which could mean anything from an inclement weather warning to an active shooter warning.”

“Opening an email like this, which begins with a mention of an assault with no prior warning, could potentially be triggering to survivors of sexual assault, especially on-campus sexual assault,” she added.

Factora added that she’s not even sure if the victim “consented to this email being sent.”

“Even if the student is anonymous, it could be an upsetting experience to have your story of sexual assault sent out to the entire school,” she wrote, and called the message an “additional source of stress that this student surely does not need.”

Factora continued her op-ed by musing over whether the email was even necessary.

“Not providing a warning when discussing sexual assault on campus is a massive oversight and is hugely insensitive to this survivor and all survivors on campus,” Factora continued, and set her sights on the Public Safety Department."

TLDR: She is whining that there wasn't a trigger warning for the schools warning, lol. But it gets even better:

“[W]hat is Public Safety doing to apprehend the perpetrator, if anything?” she asked. “Second of all, if a student reports an assault, the appropriate response is not to basically blame the student for inviting someone into their room, even if that’s someone they just met.”

She added that “assault and rape are never the victim’s fault.”

“Telling me with a patronizing ‘please’ not to invite strangers into my room does not make me feel safe,” she qualified. “Quite the opposite, actually.”

Factora concluded her op-ed and wrote, “If this email is any indicator, Hofstra has a long, long way to go before this campus can be considered a truly safe space, not just for survivors, but for all of us.”

If you read the email that I posted you will know that trying to say the school was blaming the victim is bullshit, they did nothing of the sort. Also saying "please" is now seen as patronizing. So the opposite of feeling safe, IMO, is feeling like you are in danger. This girl is saying that getting this email made her feel like she was in danger lol. I hope she never procreates.

Originally posted by Surtur
Get ready to laugh/lose faith in humanity:

Student editor slams college for trying to stop rape by advising against allowing strangers in dorms

A colleges Public Safety Department sent the following email to students:

[b]"It has been reported to Public Safety that a residential student was assaulted in their room by someone they had recently met. Please be careful about inviting people you don’t know well to your residence hall room. Call Public Safety immediately at 516-463-6789 if you or someone you know needs assistance and follow all guest policies as outlined in the Guide to Pride and Living Factor."

Lol so...

"Factora griped that the email didn’t contain a “trigger warning” that might upset survivors of sexual assault and also indicated that the message’s tenor seemed to victim-blame.

In the article, titled “Public not-so-Safety,” Factora called the email “alarming” and said that the brevity “only contributed to the shock. “

“There’s a lot to unpack here,” Factora wrote. “First of all, the subject line of the headline was ‘Hofstra University Safety Alert,’ which could mean anything from an inclement weather warning to an active shooter warning.”

“Opening an email like this, which begins with a mention of an assault with no prior warning, could potentially be triggering to survivors of sexual assault, especially on-campus sexual assault,” she added.

Factora added that she’s not even sure if the victim “consented to this email being sent.”

“Even if the student is anonymous, it could be an upsetting experience to have your story of sexual assault sent out to the entire school,” she wrote, and called the message an “additional source of stress that this student surely does not need.”

Factora continued her op-ed by musing over whether the email was even necessary.

“Not providing a warning when discussing sexual assault on campus is a massive oversight and is hugely insensitive to this survivor and all survivors on campus,” Factora continued, and set her sights on the Public Safety Department."

TLDR: She is whining that there wasn't a trigger warning for the schools warning, lol. But it gets even better:

“[W]hat is Public Safety doing to apprehend the perpetrator, if anything?” she asked. “Second of all, if a student reports an assault, the appropriate response is not to basically blame the student for inviting someone into their room, even if that’s someone they just met.”

She added that “assault and rape are never the victim’s fault.”

“Telling me with a patronizing ‘please’ not to invite strangers into my room does not make me feel safe,” she qualified. “Quite the opposite, actually.”

Factora concluded her op-ed and wrote, “If this email is any indicator, Hofstra has a long, long way to go before this campus can be considered a truly safe space, not just for survivors, but for all of us.”

If you read the email that I posted you will know that trying to say the school was blaming the victim is bullshit, they did nothing of the sort. Also saying "please" is now seen as patronizing. So the opposite of feeling safe, IMO, is feeling like you are in danger. This girl is saying that getting this email made her feel like she was in danger lol. I hope she never procreates. [/B]