• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This hardware store who hung a 'no gays allowed' sign highlights the difference between left/right

Phokus

Lifer
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/no-...ling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html

Along with the gay wedding cake controversy, basically conservatives want to refuse service and discriminate against you based on things you can't control (i.e. how you were born). The left wants to deny service to people who want to harm innocent children (or in the case of the Florida AG, throw people off their healthcare who have pre-existing conditions). There is no moral equivalence here. Conservatives being outraged that a shithead like Sarah Huckabee Sanders (who is completely for gays being denied service btw) was kicked out of a restaurant for her support of the immoral and outrageous actions of the Trump administration is fucking stupid as all hell.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/no-...ling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html

Along with the gay wedding cake controversy, basically conservatives want to refuse service and discriminate against you based on things you can't control (i.e. how you were born). The left wants to deny service to people who want to harm innocent children (or in the case of the Florida AG, throw people off their healthcare who have pre-existing conditions). There is no moral equivalence here. Conservatives being outraged that a shithead like Sarah Huckabee Sanders (who is completely for gays being denied service btw) was kicked out of a restaurant for her support of the immoral and outrageous actions of the Trump administration is fucking stupid as all hell.

The sign is stupid yet is protected by the First Amendment. Following through on what the sign says is illegal in most states and is morally repugnant in all. These signs do provide some value though as they provide useful information that tells people where they shouldn't go to shop.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/no-...ling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html

Along with the gay wedding cake controversy, basically conservatives want to refuse service and discriminate against you based on things you can't control (i.e. how you were born). The left wants to deny service to people who want to harm innocent children (or in the case of the Florida AG, throw people off their healthcare who have pre-existing conditions). There is no moral equivalence here. Conservatives being outraged that a shithead like Sarah Huckabee Sanders (who is completely for gays being denied service btw) was kicked out of a restaurant for her support of the immoral and outrageous actions of the Trump administration is fucking stupid as all hell.

I thought it was a social construct? Why are you being a bigot and denying the choice that people make in how they want to identify?

Well, if people want to argue that Islam needs to be reformed, then they should also admit that other religions still need some tuning as well. Religion is not a valid justification for bigotry.
 
Nope. Not biting.
Its like letting the fish see you putter around in your dinghy for a good hour before dropping line. They're not that stupid. Neither am I.
 
The sign is stupid yet is protected by the First Amendment.

Whoa now. Anti discrimination laws specify gender orientation. Thus revoking such presumed protection of that speech?

Following through on what the sign says is illegal in most states and is morally repugnant in all. These signs do provide some value though as they provide useful information that tells people where they shouldn't go to shop.

Isn't the existence of the sign itself a follow through on that "threat"? You yourself said it informs people of where they shouldn't go. That itself means the sign is inherently acted upon. The illegal discrimination in this case seems apparent to me.
 
The sign is stupid yet is protected by the First Amendment. Following through on what the sign says is illegal in most states and is morally repugnant in all. These signs do provide some value though as they provide useful information that tells people where they shouldn't go to shop.

Thank you for providing nothing of value yet again glenn
 
Only in your demented mind. Face it, conservatives discriminate for bullshit reasons while the rest of us don't like you fuckers treating children like animals.

Let me make it really simple for you. (1) Does someone have a First Amendment right to place a sign? Leaving aside the issue of content the answer is yes although the typical libel/slander/etc. laws still apply. Is the actual *act* of refusing service to gays illegal in many locations? Yes. Is it immoral? Yes. All of this I said in my post. Thus it seems you're not interested in the law or anything like that and only want to ragepost against conservatives and are going to shitpost against anyone who isn't rageposting with the same level of spittle spewing that you are. Which shows me that you've completely lost any and all perspective and have become one of the people like these who just want to virtue signal to bolster your own moral position. It's not enough to simply say something is morally repugnant and illegal most places like I did, nooooooo what you want and demand is nothing less than screeching vitriol about "bullshit reasons" about someone who agreed with you on the subject.
 
Whoa now. Anti discrimination laws specify gender orientation. Thus revoking such presumed protection of that speech?

Isn't the existence of the sign itself a follow through on that "threat"? You yourself said it informs people of where they shouldn't go. That itself means the sign is inherently acted upon. The illegal discrimination in this case seems apparent to me.
I'm giving Glen the benefit of the doubt here, but I thought he meant that it let's the consumer know the owner is an asshole so they should take their money elsewhere.

Kind of like a BBQ I go to once in a while has all kinds of signs about tipping, no complaining, and service is only as good as your attitude. Shockingly the service always sucks, so the signs are just showing their true character. So like the no gays sign, if someone shows you their character take your money elsewhere.

Of course I think the sign is ridiculous and is discrimination and intimidation regardless of whether it's specifically acted on. Luckily nowadays, in most cities at least, people have options if a store owner wants to show the true nature of his character.
 
Last edited:
I'm giving Glen the benefit of the doubt here, but I thought he meant that it let's the consumer know the owner is an asshole do they should take their money elsewhere.

Kind of like a BBQ I go to once in a while has all kinds of signs about tipping, no complaining, and service is only as good as your attitude. Shockingly the service always sucks, so the signs are just doing their true character. So like the no gays sign, if someone shows you they're character take your money elsewhere.

Of course I think the sign is ridiculous and is discrimination and intimidation regardless of whether it's specifically acted on. Luckily nowadays, in most cities at least, people have options if a store owner wants to show the true nature of his character.

Good example and you explain it better than I did. A sign saying "no gays allowed" or something of that nature should be a sign to any moral person to not go there. While I'd abhor the sentiment being posted on a sign I'd still somewhat rather it would so I could never go there again, then have it not be posted and continue giving my business to a bigot. That's one of the great things about the First Amendment, it lets you easily identify the assholes by what they use their 1A rights to say. I sure as hell would want to know if I were the object of a "no ______s allowed" sign so I could know the owner was an asshole and to never patronize the place.
 
Only in that it does not equal the other 100% of the time, but far more than than 90%. How would you answer your question with that data?
You're saying that over 90% of the time gender and sexual orientation are the same thing? You're aware that this is a nonsensical proposition, yes? Or are you using some alternative definitions for "gender" and "sexual orientation"?
 
You're saying that over 90% of the time gender and sexual orientation are the same thing? You're aware that this is a nonsensical proposition, yes? Or are you using some alternative definitions for "gender" and "sexual orientation"?

No. I am saying that someone that Identifies as male will more than 90% of the time be attracted to female. The reverse is also true. So...
 
The sign is stupid yet is protected by the First Amendment. Following through on what the sign says is illegal in most states and is morally repugnant in all. These signs do provide some value though as they provide useful information that tells people where they shouldn't go to shop.

The law can constitutionally determine your intent based on your words. Thus, the sign is illegal.

Your analysis would lead to absurdities. Observe:

Gay couple about to enter store sees the sign. They think, "Well, that is a constitutional sign but it would be illegal to deny me service, so I'll go in."

They walk in holding hands and the owner says "Didn't you see the sign? You aren't welcome here. IdI'like yoi to leave." Again, the gay couple think "Well, he's allowed to say that so aslong as he doesn't call the cops, it is legal.

The couple pick up an item and ask to buy it. The owner says "I'm busy doing inventory, wait until I'm finished. And wait outside." Again, no outright denial of service so no violation.

Another customer comes in and makes a purchase. The gay couple complains and the owner replies "That was a regular customer. I interrupt inventories for regular customers but not for people I don't know." The gay couple is unhappy, but stores can legally give preference to repeat customers, so what can they do?

Speech is protected, but a sign stating we don't serve gays is not just speech.
 
I wish I could entreat upon the owners of this site to re-name you "quibble" in the hopes that it would save hours of people's lives.

Its not a quibble as the difference is not slight. By saying its an absolute, you ignore those that are not part of the larger group. To ignore the fact that the vast majority of people fall into that larger group ignores that there is something causal.
 
Its not a quibble as the difference is not slight. By saying its an absolute, you ignore those that are not part of the larger group. To ignore the fact that the vast majority of people fall into that larger group ignores that there is something causal.
The problem with your desire to constantly be pedantic is that you aren't good at it. Terrible, actually. It's actually very rare that you make a good and/or valid point.
 
Back
Top