Because race, gender, faith, sexuality, nationality does not speak to the content of a person's character. She let's the world know the content of her character, as an individual, everytime she speaks for the WH, and it's ok to find her & what she says reprehensible.
-
-
-
But what if restaurant staff thoughts those things DID speak to someone’s character? What if they believed those things were bad? Then they could justify it. That’s a dangerous road to go down.
-
If someone thinks that a person’s race speaks to their character then they’re racist. If they think that being gay speaks to someone’s character they’re a homophobe This is so basic it does give the impression that asking such questions isn’t something you’re doing in good faith
-
You know that and I know that. The point is that racists and homophobes don’t agree. Is it really that difficult for you to understand?
-
If you know that, why are you asking the question?
-
Let’s make this simple for you. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law..I don’t have anything against Austrians, or men with tiny moustaches, but I wouldn’t have served a bean-burger to Adolf Hitler.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Ffs. You know the answer to that question. It’s discrimination to refuse to serve someone - for something they have no choice over (Race, Sexuality etc, there are 9 of these Protected characteristics in the uk - look them up). Legal to refuse to serve someone for any other reason
-
People have a choice over whether they believe in any particular God.
-
So you're saying that 6m people could have avoided being murdered by the Nazis simply by stating that they didn't believe in God as worshipped by the Jewish people?
-
I think the Nazis killed people that they considered ethnic jews. They didn't have to be religious.
-
Exactly. Which is why
@JuliaHB1’s comment doesn’t stand up. I doubt that my declared atheism would be much help were I to fall into the hands of, say, ISIS. To them, I would be a Christian, because I am white and British. -
Julia doesn't reply when a good point is made.
-
That's a response, not a reply.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wel because several of those are protected statuses. Technically, in most states, a restaurant could ask a gay couple to leave. In fact, this administration is fighting very hard to make sure it stays that way. It’s insulting to compare the two, Julia
-
Yes, exactly. You’ve made my point for me. That’s exactly why no one should be doing this.
-
No I’ve not. It’s one thing to discriminate against someone on the basis of skin colour or religion or sexuality. It’s another to refuse to serve or endorse a political message. It’s the line that distinguishes the Masterpiece cake case in CO from Ashes in NI. It applies here too
-
No, they are BOTH wrong. I have far more sympathy for one (Red Hen) than the other (the bakers) but that doesn’t make either of them right. It doesn’t achieve anything but promote more division, more Them and Us.
-
I have sympathy for the NI bakers I think, because just as they didn’t want to bake a cake that said “support gay marriage” I wouldn’t want a gay baker to have to bake a cake that said “ban gay marriage.” Furthermore, confronting our government and drawing a line is part...
-
...of what makes living in a democracy beautiful, I think. Would I have done what the Red Hen did? No. I’d have sat down and tried to talk to her and made sure my staff served her with respect. But I GET why they did what they did
-
I get why they did it too. And I’d probably have done as you suggest.
-
Here's a question then: is there anything AT ALL Sanders could have personally done or publicly defended as US government policy that would change your mind about serving her a meal vs showing her the door?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
