PDA

View Full Version : "Bake the Cake" issue reversed




Pages : [1] 2

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 09:26 PM
Cashier in vape store goes nuts over customer wearing #Trump shirt.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3e8KxLbyOY

I posted in another thread how when the tables are turned, you can't count on the people you think you can. The reaction to this video is a prime example. Obviously, the left handles the issue much, much differently from the right (lol), but the issue is the same. But now we have the right overwhelmingly defending the customer.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 09:34 PM
Cashier in vape store goes nuts over customer wearing #Trump shirt.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3e8KxLbyOY

I posted in another thread how when the tables are turned, you can't count on the people you think you can. The reaction to this video is a prime example. Obviously, the left handles the issue much, much differently from the right (lol), but the issue is the same. But now we have the right overwhelmingly defending the customer.
But are they demanding government intervention?

Saying someone is wrong isn't the same as saying the government should force them to do what you want.

RJB
12-28-2018, 09:36 PM
If someone serves anything that I consume and they don't like me, I would never force them to serve me something. Having worked as a chef in my college days I saw what some co-workers did to rude customers food. If someone kicked me out of their establishment, I would be grateful rather than eating spit, piss, or worse.

That said, the video was hilarious.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 09:39 PM
Cashier in vape store goes nuts over customer wearing #Trump shirt.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3e8KxLbyOY

I posted in another thread how when the tables are turned, you can't count on the people you think you can. The reaction to this video is a prime example. Obviously, the left handles the issue much, much differently from the right (lol), but the issue is the same. But now we have the right overwhelmingly defending the customer.
The idiot is an employee, he doesn't have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his political beliefs.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 09:42 PM
But are they demanding government intervention?

Saying someone is wrong isn't the same as saying the government should force them to do what you want.

They sure as hell ain't calling the guy a trespasser! They aren't defending the store's right to sell to whomever they wish!

And yes, many of them are specifically asking for government intervention to shut the store down for discrimination.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 09:43 PM
The idiot is an employee, he doesn't have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his political beliefs.

HA!! Bake the damned cake, amiright?!!


This should embarrass even you, Boromir.

AZJoe
12-28-2018, 09:44 PM
http://www.homeopathyforwomen.org/WEB_IMAGES/temper_tantrums.jpg

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 09:46 PM
http://www.homeopathyforwomen.org/WEB_IMAGES/temper_tantrums.jpg

Lol - yeah. The left is pathetic when they're not getting their way. At least if the tables were turned, the employee would be quoting scripture or something, instead of having a hissy fit.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 09:49 PM
HA!! Bake the damned cake, amiright?!!


This should embarrass even you, Boromir.
He is an employee, it isn't his right to choose which customers to serve, if he doesn't like serving people in MAGA hats he needs to quit, his employer needs to fire him for driving away customers.

If he hates Trump voters so badly then he can start his own business and then he will have the right to refuse service.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 09:52 PM
The idiot is an employee, he doesn't have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his political beliefs.

Why shouldn't he? If it's the owner's wishes.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 09:53 PM
Who else here thinks that an employee has a right to drive away customers that he doesn't like?

How many of you wouldn't fire an employee like that?
CaptUSA if I was your employee and I refused service to Demoncrats would you continue to employ me? (Think hard and answer truthfully)

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 09:55 PM
Why shouldn't he? If it's the owner's wishes.
The owner wasn't there so unless he gave the employee permission the employee doesn't have the right.
I severely doubt his boss gave him permission to deny service based on his political beliefs and the only reasonable assumption unless we learn otherwise is that he did not.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 10:00 PM
The owner wasn't there so unless he gave the employee permission the employee doesn't have the right.
I severely doubt his boss gave him permission to deny service based on his political beliefs and the only reasonable assumption unless we learn otherwise is that he did not.

Was that stated in the video? Between the clerk's dramatic shrieks and the Trump dude demanding his vape juice and talking about healthcare with the black dude, I couldn't make out much of what was going on.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 10:01 PM
Who else here thinks that an employee has a right to drive away customers that he doesn't like?

How many of you wouldn't fire an employee like that?
CaptUSA if I was your employee and I refused service to Demoncrats would you continue to employ me? (Think hard and answer truthfully)

No, an employee doesn't and yes, I'd fire you.

dannno
12-28-2018, 10:02 PM
Cashier in vape store goes nuts over customer wearing #Trump shirt.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3e8KxLbyOY

I posted in another thread how when the tables are turned, you can't count on the people you think you can. The reaction to this video is a prime example. Obviously, the left handles the issue much, much differently from the right (lol), but the issue is the same. But now we have the right overwhelmingly defending the customer.

He wanted to call Fox 5 and Corporate to get the dude fired. It's not the cashier's store.

It also shows the left's hypocrisy.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:04 PM
Was that stated in the video? Between the clerk's dramatic shrieks and the Trump dude demanding his vape juice and talking about healthcare with the black dude, I couldn't make out much of what was going on.
One or both of them refer to calling his boss or corporate HQ.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:05 PM
No, an employee doesn't and yes, I'd fire you.
Fortunately I wouldn't presume to refuse service to anyone as an employee so you wouldn't have to fire me.

Origanalist
12-28-2018, 10:14 PM
Who else here thinks that an employee has a right to drive away customers that he doesn't like?

How many of you wouldn't fire an employee like that?
CaptUSA if I was your employee and I refused service to Demoncrats would you continue to employ me? (Think hard and answer truthfully)

There's plenty of people in Seattle who would probably give him a raise, that being said didn't Mr. temper tantrum take a bitch swing at that guy?

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:16 PM
Who else here thinks that an employee has a right to drive away customers that he doesn't like?

How many of you wouldn't fire an employee like that?
CaptUSA if I was your employee and I refused service to Demoncrats would you continue to employ me? (Think hard and answer truthfully)

Ha! Still trying to deny it??? lol.

Yes, the owner fires the employee. But... If the owner isn't there, the employee is representing the owner. So the employee can decide who he wants to serve and faces the repercussions (like I'm sure he will). But he's still dealing with a trespasser who won't leave the property.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:17 PM
There's plenty of people in Seattle who would probably give him a raise, that being said didn't Mr. temper tantrum take a bitch swing at that guy?
Yes, he did.
The customer almost got him to go through with the sale by threatening to charge him with assault.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:18 PM
He wanted to call Fox 5 and Corporate to get the dude fired. It's not the cashier's store.

It also shows the left's hypocrisy.

Yes, it does. Which is why this video is so instructive.

People don't care about liberty - they care about their own liberty.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:20 PM
Ha! Still trying to deny it??? lol.

Yes, the owner fires the employee. But... If the owner isn't there, the employee is representing the owner. So the employee can decide who he wants to serve and faces the repercussions (like I'm sure he will). But he's still dealing with a trespasser who won't leave the property.
It's not his property and unless the customer is violating the law or damaging him or the business in some way or has permission from the owner he doesn't have a right to refuse service.

The government shouldn't be involved but this isn't a case of the employee having a right to refuse service, the customer should absolutely report him to his boss and then the boss can decide what to do.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:22 PM
The owner wasn't there so unless he gave the employee permission the employee doesn't have the right.
I severely doubt his boss gave him permission to deny service based on his political beliefs and the only reasonable assumption unless we learn otherwise is that he did not.

What a moronic statement. The lefty snowflake is the store's representative. If he's the only one there, he has been given the right by the employer to act on his behalf. If he doesn't like the way the employee does that, the employer will fire him. But the employee in charge absolutely has the right to deny service to ANYONE for ANY reason. Just like the cake-baker. Whether or not he was the owner is of no consequence if he was the one making decisions at the time.

Origanalist
12-28-2018, 10:26 PM
It's not his property and unless the customer is violating the law or damaging him or the business in some way or has permission from the owner he doesn't have a right to refuse service.

The government shouldn't be involved but this isn't a case of the employee having a right to refuse service, the customer should absolutely report him to his boss and then the boss can decide what to do.

He is the one behind the counter so yes, he does have that right and may very well have permission from the owner. You seem to be forgetting the level of angst many have for Trump. But yes, by all means let management know.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:26 PM
It's not his property and unless the customer is violating the law or damaging him or the business in some way or has permission from the owner he doesn't have a right to refuse service..

The customer was violating the law. He was trespassing. Once being asked to leave by the person in charge of the property, he should have left and called the owner. But no, he stayed to make a political point. MMMMmmm... can you smell that cake baking??

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:27 PM
What a moronic statement. The lefty snowflake is the store's representative. If he's the only one there, he has been given the right by the employer to act on his behalf. If he doesn't like the way the employee does that, the employer will fire him. But the employee in charge absolutely has the right to deny service to ANYONE for ANY reason. Just like the cake-baker. Whether or not he was the owner is of no consequence if he was the one making decisions at the time.
That's not how it works, an employee only has the right to deny service to someone in the interests of the business unless the employer tells him otherwise.

It's called fiduciary duty.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:28 PM
Lol - I love the hypocrisy.

Never fails.

When people don't understand liberty, their responses are completely situational.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:30 PM
The customer was violating the law. He was trespassing. Once being asked to leave by the person in charge of the property, he should have left and called the owner. But no, he stayed to make a political point. MMMMmmm... can you smell that cake baking??
He was NOT trespassing, the owner opened the store to the public and did not give his employee permission to exclude anyone just because he felt like it, only the owner could have made the man a trespasser for wearing Trump merchandise.

The employee only has a right to refuse service in the interests of the business or to quit.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:33 PM
Lol - I love the hypocrisy.

Never fails.

When people don't understand liberty, their responses are completely situational.
This isn't about liberty, the employee is violating his fiduciary duty to his employer, the employer's rights are the ones being violated BY THE EMPLOYEE.

If I hire you to mow my field with my tractor that doesn't give you a right to drive it to town or sell rides on it, being hired as a clerk doesn't give you a right to drive customers out of my store, if you drive away enough customers I should not only fire you but sue you for monetary damages as well.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:34 PM
That's not how it works, an employee only has the right to deny service to someone in the interests of the business unless the employer tells him otherwise.

It's called fiduciary duty.

Lol - sure, the employee may have violated the fiduciary duty to the employer. An issue the employer should address with the employee, either by termination or, in the worse case, a tort, if it cost the employer lots of money.

But that is 100% completely beside the point! And shows that you will cling to any excuse to maintain your hypocrisy.

Any employee-in-charge can refuse service to anyone at any time. And they can ask the customer to leave the premises. Try switching the roles around and you'd see your own hypocrisy. But your cognitive dissonance (or your employers) won't allow it.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:37 PM
This isn't about liberty, the employee is violating his fiduciary duty to his employer, the employer's rights are the ones being violated BY THE EMPLOYEE.



Um... That's a tort. Has nothing to do with the trespassing issue. You're actually saying that any time you open a place for public business that your employees have to allow everyone to stay on the property because they can't make that call??????


lol - bathe in the hypocrisy.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 10:38 PM
He was NOT trespassing, the owner opened the store to the public and did not give his employee permission to exclude anyone just because he felt like it, only the owner could have made the man a trespasser for wearing Trump merchandise.

The employee only has a right to refuse service in the interests of the business or to quit.

Actually, he was. He was asked to leave. I've had to deny service to people without permission from the owner.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:39 PM
Lol - sure, the employee may have violated the fiduciary duty to the employer. An issue the employer should address with the employee, either by termination or, in the worse case, a tort, if it cost the employer lots of money.

But that is 100% completely beside the point! And shows that you will cling to any excuse to maintain your hypocrisy.

Any employee-in-charge can refuse service to anyone at any time. And they can ask the customer to leave the premises. Try switching the roles around and you'd see your own hypocrisy. But your cognitive dissonance (or your employers) won't allow it.
As an employee I would never presume to have a right to drive away customers for some reason that wasn't in my employer's interests, if a customer wanted me to do something that I objected to I would either swallow my pride and do it or quit if it was objectionable enough.

The employee does not have a right to make subjective personal decisions like that unless authorized by the owner.

No judge or jury in the world would find the customer guilty of trespassing. (except maybe in a leftist madhouse these days)

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:41 PM
Actually, he was. He was asked to leave. I've had to deny service to people without permission from the owner.
I'm sure you did it in the interests of your employer and therefore you had the right, this lunatic didn't.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:43 PM
Um... That's a tort. Has nothing to do with the trespassing issue. You're actually saying that any time you open a place for public business that your employees have to allow everyone to stay on the property because they can't make that call??????


lol - bathe in the hypocrisy.
I keep saying they have the right to refuse service IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR EMPLOYER, this was not such a case.
The only reason it is a tort is because the employee DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID, doing something you have a right to do can't be a tort.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 10:46 PM
I'm sure you did it in the interests of your employer and therefore you had the right, this lunatic didn't.

Not always. Once I banned a man who tipped me a penny. Plus, he was an asshole.

The guy was asked to leave and didn't. At that point, he was trespassing. And if the clerk's employer didn't trust his judgement, it seems odd that he would leave him in charge of the store. I can't imagine that someone who reacted that way keeps his beliefs a big secret.

TheCount
12-28-2018, 10:49 PM
The idiot is an employee, he doesn't have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his political beliefs.

What about based on his religious beliefs?

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:49 PM
Not always. Once I banned a man who tipped me a penny. Plus, he was an $#@!.
Then he was a detriment to the atmosphere of the bar.


The guy was asked to leave and didn't. At that point, he was trespassing.
Only if the employee told him to leave for a reason he had a right to.


And if the clerk's employer didn't trust his judgement, it seems odd that he would leave him in charge of the store. I can't imagine that someone who reacted that way keeps his beliefs a big secret.
It very likely didn't come up in the interview.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:50 PM
What about based on his religious beliefs?
Are they in the interests of the employer somehow?

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:52 PM
I keep saying they have the right to refuse service IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR EMPLOYER, this was not such a case.
The only reason it is a tort is because the employee DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID, doing something you have a right to do can't be a tort.

lol - You are really, really bad at this.

The employer has already acknowledged that this employee will act in their interest when he put this snowflake in charge. If he finds out differently, then he can take the necessary action.

But now, what you're doing, is assuming a disagreement between the employer and employee. And that because of that disagreement (which you imagined), you think the employee loses his right of being in charge of the store. Here's a hint: It doesn't. Not unless the owner fired the employee on the spot and either closed down that store or put someone else in charge.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 10:55 PM
Then he was a detriment to the atmosphere of the bar. In the judgment of the person in charge.


Only if the employee told him to leave for a reason he had a right to. And I defend liberty only on the basis of the reason for people using it.


It very likely didn't come up in the interview.

FTFY :D

TheCount
12-28-2018, 10:55 PM
Are they in the interests of the employer somehow?

No. Let's say... a pharmacist whose employer wants them to fill prescriptions which the pharmacist feels run contrary to their religious beliefs.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:56 PM
lol - You are really, really bad at this.

The employer has already acknowledged that this employee will act in their interest when he put this snowflake in charge. If he finds out differently, then he can take the necessary action.

But now, what you're doing, is assuming a disagreement between the employer and employee. And that because of that disagreement (which you imagined), you think the employee loses his right of being in charge of the store. Here's a hint: It doesn't. Not unless the owner fired the employee on the spot and either closed down that store or put someone else in charge.
It isn't carte blanche, if I put you in charge of my tractor to mow my field and you drive it in to town you have stolen my tractor, the employee was put in charge of selling things to customers unless doing so was somehow not in the interests of his employer, the employee was in effect stealing the store.

Doing something you have a right to do can't be a tort.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:56 PM
No. Let's say... a pharmacist whose employer wants them to fill prescriptions which the pharmacist feels run contrary to their religious beliefs.
Then as an employee they can fill them or quit.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 10:58 PM
FTFY :D

No, you are failing to respect the property rights OF THE OWNER, I am defending the property rights OF THE OWNER.

Origanalist
12-28-2018, 10:59 PM
Then he was a detriment to the atmosphere of the bar.


Only if the employee told him to leave for a reason he had a right to.


It very likely didn't come up in the interview.

You're just doubling down on falsehoods here. The guy behind the counter has the right to expel anyone for any reason. The customer can then complain to management, after he leaves.
And you don't know anything about the interview or how well the owner knows this employee, you're just injecting presumptions based on how you think things should be.

euphemia
12-28-2018, 11:00 PM
Limited vocabulary, for sure.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:02 PM
No, you are failing to respect the property rights OF THE OWNER, I am defending the property rights OF THE OWNER.

You pretend to think that's what you're doing. But you're not fooling anyone.

You're grasping for any excuse to defend your team. <- that's what you're doing!

The store owner's rights were not violated in any way in that video. He has a right to put anyone in charge that he sees fit. If he doesn't see fit anymore, then he can change his mind. But until the owner changes his mind, the employee in charge is responsible for who remains on the property.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:03 PM
You're just doubling down on falsehoods here. The guy behind the counter has the right to expel anyone for any reason. The customer can then complain to management, after he leaves.
The employee did not have a right to do what he did.


And you don't know anything about the interview or how well the owner knows this employee, you're just injecting presumptions based on how you think things should be.
Nobody knows unless we track down the owner and ask him but in order to discuss the case we must assume the most likely situation until we know otherwise, the most likely situation is that the owner did not give the employee permission to deny service based on political beliefs, that means the employee effectively stole the store to use for his own purposes.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:04 PM
You pretend to think that's what you're doing. But you're not fooling anyone.

You're grasping for any excuse to defend your team. <- that's what you're doing!

The store owner's rights were not violated in any way in that video. He has a right to put anyone in charge that he sees fit. If he doesn't see fit anymore, then he can change his mind. But until the owner changes his mind, the employee in charge is responsible for who remains on the property.
YOU already admitted that it was a tort, that means that the owners rights are being violated and that the employee was not within his rights.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:05 PM
The employee did not have a right to do what he did.

You might need to call it a night, Boromir.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:06 PM
No matter what you think about this case this case IS NOT LIKE the cake case where THE OWNER exercised his right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:08 PM
YOU already admitted that it was a tort, that means that the owners rights are being violated and that the employee was not within his rights.

lol - it may be a tort if the employee drove away lots of money without the owners knowlegde. But the owner would have to file a civil suit - not a criminal one - and it would be after the fact. The trespassing... that's the criminality here.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:09 PM
No matter what you think about this case this case IS NOT LIKE the cake case where THE OWNER exercised his right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

And there you have it, folks. SS Boromir takes a bow.


http://www.homeopathyforwomen.org/WEB_IMAGES/temper_tantrums.jpg

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:10 PM
You might need to call it a night, Boromir.

And there you have it, folks. SS Boromir takes a bow.
http://www.homeopathyforwomen.org/WEB_IMAGES/temper_tantrums.jpg




A truly crushing reply.
Your argument is unanswerable.:sarcasm:

It's too bad that you already admitted that it was a tort.
Explain to me how the employee was not stealing the store to use for his own purposes, it is no different then the example I have given about the tractor:

It isn't carte blanche, if I put you in charge of my tractor to mow my field and you drive it in to town you have stolen my tractor, the employee was put in charge of selling things to customers unless doing so was somehow not in the interests of his employer, the employee was in effect stealing the store.

Mach
12-28-2018, 11:16 PM
He should have told the employee that he was against gay marriage, too. :D

euphemia
12-28-2018, 11:17 PM
Just for giggles, what would have happened if the snowflake clerk just did his job and didn’t make a spectacle? Of if he had simply called the police to remove the offender? That would have been a lot less interesting, for sure, but I can’t imagine the police would have been excited to escort the “trespasser” from the store. Nobody was asking the low-vocabulary clerk to do anything that he was not doing for the other customer in the store. His attitude and behavior might be why business was so slow.

specsaregood
12-28-2018, 11:17 PM
You're just doubling down on falsehoods here. The guy behind the counter has the right to expel anyone for any reason. The customer can then complain to management, after he leaves.

When you say "right to expel" do you mean legal right or natural right? Because I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the "legal right" to expel somebody for being black.

This is where we get to the root of the argument. I am against these laws, if a business owner wants to kick out somebody for being Mexican or gay, they SHOULD have that right; but legally they don't. And for that reason, they shouldn't be able to kick this guy out over his political positions. Either the law should protect ALL consumers equally, or get rid of it. Fuck all these special protected classes, bullshit.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:22 PM
It's too bad that you already admitted that it was a tort.
Explain to me how the employee was not stealing the store to use for his own purposes, it is no different then the example I have given about the tractor:

It isn't carte blanche, if I put you in charge of my tractor to mow my field and you drive it in to town you have stolen my tractor, the employee was put in charge of selling things to customers unless doing so was somehow not in the interests of his employer, the employee was in effect stealing the store.

:rolleyes: I love how he doesn't even try to hide the strawman.

But hey, let's play your stupid analogy out... If you gave me your tractor, I'd still be in charge of driving it. If I crashed it while doing something stupid, you'd sue me for the damages. But you gave me the keys which gave me authorization to steer it how I wanted. If you discovered you didn't like the way I was doing it, you'd take those keys away - but until you do that, I'm still driving. The tractor isn't stolen until you, as the owner, make that call.

None of that happened in that video. You are just trying to defend your team. You sense of liberty is completely situational. Just like the snowflakes on the left.

euphemia
12-28-2018, 11:23 PM
Actually, he was. He was asked to leave. I've had to deny service to people without permission from the owner.

I don’t know how it goes in GA, but I have held ABC certification before. I know in TN there are laws governing who may purchase and use alcohol, and a server is obligated to cut off customers who have had too much. Personally, I would not risk my job over some dudehead 17 year old.

If I was an employer, I would have to be concerned about an employee who goes from 0-60 over a T-shirt to the point that he cannot do his job. He was totally ignoring the othe customer in the store.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 11:24 PM
When you say "right to expel" do you mean legal right or natural right? Because I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the "legal right" to expel somebody for being black.

This is where we get to the root of the argument. I am against these laws, if a business owner wants to kick out somebody for being Mexican or gay, they SHOULD have that right; but legally they don't. And for that reason, they shouldn't be able to kick this guy out over his political positions. Either the law should protect ALL consumers equally, or get rid of it. Fuck all these special protected classes, bullshit.

Legally speaking
It depends on the state. In some states political affiliation is a protected class.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:27 PM
When you say "right to expel" do you mean legal right or natural right? Because I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the "legal right" to expel somebody for being black.

This is where we get to the root of the argument. I am against these laws, if a business owner wants to kick out somebody for being Mexican or gay, they SHOULD have that right; but legally they don't. And for that reason, they shouldn't be able to kick this guy out over his political positions. Either the law should protect ALL consumers equally, or get rid of it. Fuck all these special protected classes, bullshit.

Right. We're making the case that this shouldn't be situational. If these laws are bad for one side, they're bad for all. But this kind of "opposite" shows the hypocrisy and why these laws will never be repealed. Because people want protection - not liberty. And "protection" is purely situational depending on "who" is or is not getting the protection.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:28 PM
:rolleyes: I love how he doesn't even try to hide the strawman.

But hey, let's play your stupid analogy out... If you gave me your tractor, I'd still be in charge of driving it. If I crashed it while doing something stupid, you'd sue me for the damages. But you gave me the keys which gave me authorization to steer it how I wanted. If you discovered you didn't like the way I was doing it, you'd take those keys away - but until you do that, I'm still driving. The tractor isn't stolen until you, as the owner, make that call.

None of that happened in that video. You are just trying to defend your team. You sense of liberty is completely situational. Just like the snowflakes on the left.
I did not give you unlimited control of the tractor, I gave you control of it to mow my field, if it leaves my field you have stolen it.
An employee in this situation has not been given unlimited control over the store or he couldn't be sued as you have already admitted he could (he didn't burn down the store so there was no physical damage), he has been given limited control to use it in the interests of the employer and he doesn't have a right to use it for any other purpose.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 11:28 PM
I don’t know how it goes in GA, but I have held ABC certification before. I know in TN there are laws governing who may purchase and use alcohol, and a server is obligated to cut off customers who have had too much. Personally, I would not risk my job over some dudehead 17 year old.

If I was an employer, I would have to be concerned about an employee who goes from 0-60 over a T-shirt to the point that he cannot do his job. He was totally ignoring the othe customer in the store.

In GA, there are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want that clerk watching my store, either but that's not the issue.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:31 PM
If I was an employer, I would have to be concerned about an employee who goes from 0-60 over a T-shirt to the point that he cannot do his job. He was totally ignoring the othe customer in the store.

Ya think?! I'd fire that simp in a heartbeat! Those types of people have zero sense of how to deal with conflict. They've ceded any sense of authority their entire lives. If mommy or the nanny state isn't there to solve their problems, they're toast.

euphemia
12-28-2018, 11:31 PM
In GA, there are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want that clerk watching my store, either but that's not the issue.

Would you really refuse service to someone because their shirt had a message you didn’t agree with? I have served man people with offensive clothing. There was only one I really wish I could have avoided because it was a singularly vulgar message and the nature of the job was kind of a captive audience. There are certainly others who found the shirt offensive, and it was not an appropriate message for children.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 11:35 PM
Would you really refuse service to someone because their shirt had a message you didn’t agree with? I have served man people with offensive clothing. There was only one I really wish I could have avoided because it was a singularly vulgar message and the nature of the job was kind of a captive audience. There are certainly others who found the shirt offensive, and it was not an appropriate message for children.

Probably not in the dives I work in but that's not the point.

Ender
12-28-2018, 11:39 PM
Right. We're making the case that this shouldn't be situational. If these laws are bad for one side, they're bad for all. But this kind of "opposite" shows the hypocrisy and why these laws will never be repealed. Because people want protection - not liberty. And "protection" is purely situational depending on "who" is or is not getting the protection.

Exactly.

The point of this is: you have the lawful right to serve, or not serve, whomever you wish.

If the employee's a jerk, then fire him, but that doesn't change the premise.

dannno
12-28-2018, 11:41 PM
:rolleyes: I love how he doesn't even try to hide the strawman.

But hey, let's play your stupid analogy out... If you gave me your tractor, I'd still be in charge of driving it. If I crashed it while doing something stupid, you'd sue me for the damages. But you gave me the keys which gave me authorization to steer it how I wanted. If you discovered you didn't like the way I was doing it, you'd take those keys away - but until you do that, I'm still driving. The tractor isn't stolen until you, as the owner, make that call.

None of that happened in that video. You are just trying to defend your team. You sense of liberty is completely situational. Just like the snowflakes on the left.

If it was legal to deny people services based on race, and you found out one of your employees was denying services to people for no other reason than that they were black, wouldn't you fire them? Wouldn't you want your customers to call you to inform you that they were assaulting black people who came into your store?

I have no idea what you are getting worked up about.

UWDude
12-28-2018, 11:41 PM
Exactly.

The point of this is: you have the lawful right to serve, or not serve, whomever you wish.

If the employee's a jerk, then fire him, but that doesn't change the premise.

If the employee is fired, the employee had no right to tell the man to leave.
There will be no trespassing charges, therefore, the man was not trespassing.
innocent before proven guilty means just that.

If the owner wishes to press trespassing charges, then the customer was trespassing.

that's real law for you. Not hypothetical forum jerk off law.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:42 PM
Would you really refuse service to someone because their shirt had a message you didn’t agree with? I have served man people with offensive clothing. There was only one I really wish I could have avoided because it was a singularly vulgar message and the nature of the job was kind of a captive audience. There are certainly others who found the shirt offensive, and it was not an appropriate message for children.

I once kicked out a team of Amish contractors from a building supply store for their body odor. lol. It was a hot day and they reeked when they came in. Told them to stand outside and I'd see what they needed. I was in charge that day and I found the smell offensive. Funny, they never questioned my right to do so. They just left the building. I was able to get them their supplies, but I told them to rinse off before they come in like that again.

dannno
12-28-2018, 11:42 PM
Exactly.

The point of this is: you have the lawful right to serve, or not serve, whomever you wish.

If the employee's a jerk, then fire him, but that doesn't change the premise.

The guy threatened to call his boss to get him fired and the police for assaulting him. What's the problem?

dannno
12-28-2018, 11:43 PM
I once kicked out a team of Amish contractors from a building supply store for their body odor. lol. It was a hot day and they reeked when they came in. Told them to stand outside and I'd see what they needed. I was in charge that day and I found the smell offensive. Funny, they never questioned my right to do so. They just left the building. I was able to get them their supplies, but I told them to rinse off before they come in like that again.

So you didn't deny them services. Hmmm.

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:46 PM
If it was legal to deny people services based on race, and you found out one of your employees was denying services to people for no other reason than that they were black, wouldn't you fire them? Wouldn't you want your customers to call you to inform you that they were assaulting black people who came into your store?

I have no idea what you are getting worked up about.

Yeah, sure... Fire the guy. I'd do it if I were the owner. I've said that multiple times.

I'm not getting worked up - I just like highlighting the hypocrisy. That for some people, liberty is totally situational based on which team they're rooting for. (kinda the point of this whole thread...)

Ender
12-28-2018, 11:47 PM
The guy threatened to call his boss to get him fired and the police for assaulting him. What's the problem?

The problem is double standards from the leftie/righties.

UWDude
12-28-2018, 11:48 PM
Yeah, sure... Fire the guy. I'd do it if I were the owner. I've said that multiple times.

I'm not getting worked up - I just like highlighting the hypocrisy. That for some people, liberty is totally situational based on which team they're rooting for. (kinda the point of this whole thread...)

Would you fire the guy, and press charges against the customer for trespassing?

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:49 PM
Yeah, sure... Fire the guy. I'd do it if I were the owner. I've said that multiple times.

I'm not getting worked up - I just like highlighting the hypocrisy. That for some people, liberty is totally situational based on which team they're rooting for. (kinda the point of this whole thread...)
Please point out where I called for government involvement.
HINT: I didn't, in fact getting the cops involved is more likely from your position where you claim that the customer was trespassing

CaptUSA
12-28-2018, 11:49 PM
So you didn't deny them services. Hmmm.

Yeah, I wasn't being an asshole. They paid in cash. But if they made a "stink" about stepping outside, I'm sure I wouldn't be doing business with them. If the owner didn't like it, he could do with me as he wished.

euphemia
12-28-2018, 11:52 PM
Probably not in the dives I work in but that's not the point.

But that was entirely the snowflake’s point. There was no reason for him not to serve the customer. He was not high or abusive. He was dressed in a way that sent the snowflake into orbit. He was dangerous at that point, and could have damaged product, displays, or hurt himself or a customer. He certainly attempted to assault the customer. I don’t think he was acting according to the standard of his boss. He called his boss after the fact. He was just out of control.

I don’t agree with how the customer chose to handle the situation. He escalated it a bit, but there you go.

euphemia
12-28-2018, 11:54 PM
The problem is double standards from the leftie/righties.

Um, no. The clerk was not asked to serve any product to the Trumpshirt that he was not also selling to the other customer. He was not asked to create any kind of custom, one-off art piece. Just sell what was already stocked in the store.

And in this case the clerk assaulted the customer without any other provocation than a shirt. It is common for patrons to report unsatisfactory service, and if there is a franchise involved, then the owner of the franchise would risk losing his business over the behavior of an employee who was not emotionally mature enough to be in customer service.

Suzanimal
12-28-2018, 11:56 PM
But that was entirely the snowflake’s point. There was no reason for him not to serve the customer. He was not high or abusive. He was dressed in a way that sent the snowflake into orbit. He was dangerous at that point, and could have damaged product, displays, or hurt himself or a customer. He certainly attempted to assault the customer. I don’t think he was acting according to the standard of his boss. He called his boss after the fact. He was just out of control.

I don’t agree with how the customer chose to handle the situation. He escalated it a bit, but there you go.

No, the point we're arguing is whether or not he had the right to refuse service. He did. He gave a reason. You or I may think it's dumb but, as Capt pointed out, others think the Christian Baker was wrong to refuse service.

What I or you would do in that situation is irrelevant.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:57 PM
Yeah, I wasn't being an $#@!. They paid in cash. But if they made a "stink" about stepping outside, I'm sure I wouldn't be doing business with them. If the owner didn't like it, he could do with me as he wished.
Their stench might have offended other customers and you made sure to sell them what they wanted, you made a decision that was in the interests of your employer.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:58 PM
No, the point we're arguing is whether or not he had the right to refuse service. He did. He gave a reason. You or I may think it's dumb but, as Capt pointed out, others think the Christian Baker was wrong to refuse service.

What I or you would do in that situation is irrelevant.
As I keep pointing out the baker was the owner and this idiot was not, he overstepped his authority.

Swordsmyth
12-28-2018, 11:59 PM
Would you fire the guy, and press charges against the customer for trespassing?
If he did press charges he would be laughed out of court unless it was a leftist kangaroo court.

euphemia
12-29-2018, 12:01 AM
No, the point we're arguing is whether or not he had the right to refuse service. He did. He gave a reason. You or I may think it's dumb but, as Capt pointed out, others think the Christian Baker was wrong to refuse service.

What I or you would do in that situation is irrelevant.

This is not the same at all. Christian Baker was asked to create a custom piece for an occasion that violated deeply held religious beliefs, the go to the venue and set up. The snowflake clerk was asked to sell identical product to Trumpshirt that was already stocked and available to all other customers. The only objection was how Trumpshirt wore his politics. If snowflake has not made a spectacle, there would not be an issue.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. Some of the same trickery has been used with protected classes to show that the discrimination is rather one-sided, but I do not think those cases have resulted in lawsuits. Just some embarrassment.

Suzanimal
12-29-2018, 12:02 AM
As I keep pointing out the baker was the owner and this idiot was not, he overstepped his authority.

You don't know that. The clerk was clearly an idiot. Do you think his boss was oblivious to this guy's personality? Do you think he trusted him with keys to the store and access to the till without knowing the guy?

UWDude
12-29-2018, 12:06 AM
Yeah, I wasn't being an $#@!. They paid in cash. But if they made a "stink" about stepping outside, I'm sure I wouldn't be doing business with them. If the owner didn't like it, he could do with me as he wished.

Hey! You were hot for a minute. You were posting a mile a minute. Something make you think maybe? You had a principled retort for everything.

But then came the question:
Would you press charges against the customer for trespassing?

Your only way out, is to say you would.
Which would be terrible for business, and you know it. So that is a lie.

So your whole argument is dead.

Customer was not trespassing. No court of law, has, will, or will ever find him guilty of trespassing.

Therefore he was not trespassing.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 12:07 AM
You don't know that. The clerk was clearly an idiot. Do you think his boss was oblivious to this guy's personality? Do you think he trusted him with keys to the store and access to the till without knowing the guy?
Many bosses don't know their employees very well, this company has a corporate HQ that the customer threatened to call so that increases the odds that his boss didn't know or care much about his personality or political beliefs.

It is illegal to ask a prospective employee about their political beliefs.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 12:09 AM
Hey! You were hot for a minute. You were posting a mile a minute. Something make you think maybe? You had a principled retort for everything.

But then came the question:
Would you press charges against the customer for trespassing?

Your only way out, is to say you would.
Which would be terrible for business, and you know it. So that is a lie.

So your whole argument is dead.

Customer was not trespassing. No court of law, has, will, or will ever find him guilty of trespassing.

Therefore he was not trespassing.
He also refused to respond when I pointed out that access and control given to an employee isn't necessarily absolute.

UWDude
12-29-2018, 12:13 AM
He also refused to respond when I pointed out that access and control given to an employee isn't necessarily absolute.

Right, if an employee tells you to get off the property, because he doesn't like your shirt, if you choose to take the risk, you can tell the employee to go ahead and call the cops, and the owner.

You do not have to leave. It may be wise, depending on the circumstances, but you do not have to leave.

If you walk into christian book store wearing satanic garb, you may be asked to leave. If you do not, do not be surprised if the owner does feel you were trespassing, and therefore, if the owner feels you were, you were.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 12:14 AM
Their stench might have offended other customers and you made sure to sell them what they wanted, you made a decision that was in the interests of your employer.

Lol - you are still getting caught up for the reason for the decision. That is inconsequential to the issue at hand. It matters not whether the decision was justified, only that the decision was mine as the person in charge.

This is what you're doing. You're looking for justification in the reasoning. Which is why your sense of liberty will always be broken. Because you'll find whatever "reason" you can to justify rights. But rights don't need reasons.

Origanalist
12-29-2018, 12:15 AM
Hey! You were hot for a minute. You were posting a mile a minute. Something make you think maybe? You had a principled retort for everything.

But then came the question:
Would you press charges against the customer for trespassing?

Your only way out, is to say you would.
Which would be terrible for business, and you know it. So that is a lie.

So your whole argument is dead.

Customer was not trespassing. No court of law, has, will, or will ever find him guilty of trespassing.

Therefore he was not trespassing.

What difference does it make whether he would or not?

Suzanimal
12-29-2018, 12:18 AM
This is not the same at all. Christian Baker was asked to create a custom piece for an occasion that violated deeply held religious beliefs. The snowflake clerk was asked to sell identical product to Trumpshirt that was already stocked and available to all other customers. The only objection was how Trumpshirt wore his politics. If snowflake has not made a spectacle, there would not be an issue.


So what? Do you doubt the snowflake's sincerity? He seemed awfully sincere to me. I believe in property rights. I believe businesses have the right to refuse service for whatever dumb ass reason. Full stop.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bFo558tgI





...The argument for a religious liberty violation is based on the fact that the bakery owner’s refusal to bake the cake was rooted in his religious objection to same-sex marriage. Looking just at this argument means that a victory for the bakery would implicitly accept the legitimacy of laws dictating to whom private businesses must provide services, as long as an exemption is made for those with religious objections. This reduces property and contract rights to special privileges held by business owners with “sincere religious convictions.” It also allows judges, bureaucrats, and politicians to determine who is really acting on sincere religious convictions.

...

Even if the bakery wins in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, its victory will only protect those businesses acting on a “sincere religious conviction.” Those who oppose forcing bakers to bake cakes and who support private business owners’ right to decide who to accept as customers should work to restore respect for everyone’s rights.

~ Ron Paul

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 12:19 AM
Hey! You were hot for a minute. You were posting a mile a minute. Something make you think maybe? You had a principled retort for everything.

But then came the question:
Would you press charges against the customer for trespassing?

Your only way out, is to say you would.
Which would be terrible for business, and you know it. So that is a lie.

So your whole argument is dead.

Customer was not trespassing. No court of law, has, will, or will ever find him guilty of trespassing.

Therefore he was not trespassing.

Lol - I'm popping in and out of this thread. I'm doing other things as well.

But would I press charges against the customer??? After I fired this idiot? I can't see why I would. That makes no sense. If I was going to press charges, that would mean I agreed with the employee and I wouldn't have fired him. But until I remove my authorization, the employee has the right to act on my behalf. What if I were on a safari in Africa during this skuffle? Are you suggesting my employee in charge couldn't kick anyone out of my store?!

I'm seriously not sure where you're going with this??

UWDude
12-29-2018, 12:25 AM
Lol - I'm popping in and out of this thread. I'm doing other things as well.

But would I press charges against the customer??? After I fired this idiot? I can't see why I would. That makes no sense. If I was going to press charges, that would mean I agreed with the employee and I wouldn't have fired him. But until I remove my authorization, the employee has the right to act on my behalf. What if I were on a safari in Africa during this skuffle? Are you suggesting my employee in charge couldn't kick anyone out of my store?!

I'm seriously not sure where you're going with this??


The employee has the right to claim to act on your behalf, and the customer their right to say no, and take his case to court, if they must.
But in this case, they would not have to. Because nobody is goign to press charges in this case, therefore, there was nothing illegal happening, nor anything immoral.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 12:26 AM
Lol - you are still getting caught up for the reason for the decision. That is inconsequential to the issue at hand. It matters not whether the decision was justified, only that the decision was mine as the person in charge.

This is what you're doing. You're looking for justification in the reasoning. Which is why your sense of liberty will always be broken. Because you'll find whatever "reason" you can to justify rights. But rights don't need reasons.

When you are an employee your right to make the decision IS limited by your reason unless your employer tells you otherwise.

The employee is not the owner so he doesn't have absolute rights regardless of his reason.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point that an employee doesn't necessarily get absolute control of something his boss puts him in charge of, any employer I have had would have charged me with theft if I took their equipment off of their property without express permission.

The clerk likewise has limited rights of control to be used in the interests of the purpose his employer gave him control of the store for, that purpose being to sell goods to anyone who isn't somehow harming the store.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 12:28 AM
So what? Do you doubt the snowflake's sincerity? He seemed awfully sincere to me. I believe in property rights. I believe businesses have the right to refuse service for whatever dumb ass reason. Full stop.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bFo558tgI
Please notice that Ron specifies "business owners".

UWDude
12-29-2018, 12:29 AM
Employee fired:

https://twitter.com/XhaleCity/status/1078858394952445952

1078858394952445952

UWDude
12-29-2018, 12:30 AM
Dude is a meme now

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 12:32 AM
I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point that an employee doesn't necessarily get absolute control of something his boss puts him in charge of, any employer I have had would have charged me with theft if I took their equipment off of their property without express permission.

I did respond to your little strawman, but perhaps you missed it. But in the case of a person in charge of a store, he makes the decision about who he will or will not serve. Any disagreements about the reasoning for that decision is a matter between the employer and the employee. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!

TheTexan
12-29-2018, 12:35 AM
https://www.yourtango.com/sites/default/files/styles/header_slider/public/image_blog/MLK%20header%20copy.jpg?itok=7TDrD47v

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 12:36 AM
Employee fired:

https://twitter.com/XhaleCity/status/1078858394952445952

1078858394952445952
Good.
I guess his boss didn't think he had given him the right to refuse service to Trump voters.

Suzanimal
12-29-2018, 12:38 AM
Hey! You were hot for a minute. You were posting a mile a minute. Something make you think maybe? You had a principled retort for everything.

But then came the question:
Would you press charges against the customer for trespassing?

Your only way out, is to say you would.
Which would be terrible for business, and you know it. So that is a lie.

So your whole argument is dead.

Customer was not trespassing. No court of law, has, will, or will ever find him guilty of trespassing.

Therefore he was not trespassing.

When the customer was asked to leave and he didn't, he was trespassing. Now, whether or not the clerk was had the legal right to refuse service based on political affiliation depends on the state.

As someone who has actually had to throw people out of businesses, they usually leave after you threaten them. I've never had to resort to violence but my husband has literally thrown people out before. If the police aren't called, you go file a trespass notice and I think they're banned from the premises for two years. That's been my experience, anyway.

TheTexan
12-29-2018, 12:38 AM
I think if MLK were alive today he'd relate to the difficulties & adversity we face as Trump supporters. I don't want to try to compare what we face as Trump supporters to the hatred that black people once faced, as Trump supporters clearly have it worse, but it's still quite similar.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 12:39 AM
I did respond to your little strawman, but perhaps you missed it. But in the case of a person in charge of a store, he makes the decision about who he will or will not serve. Any disagreements about the reasoning for that decision is a matter between the employer and the employee. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!
Your only response was to ignore my point and claim that the employee always has absolute control of any property put in his charge.

The reasoning is all important because the employee has LIMITED control of the employer's property unless told otherwise.

Since the employee has been fired it seems the boss hadn't given him absolute control and a right to deny service to Trump voters.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 12:41 AM
Good.
I guess his boss didn't think he had given him the right to refuse service to Trump voters.

Good is right. But the employer didn't like the reasoning for this employee's decision. Nor, his temperament, I presume. But at the time of this incident, that employee had the right to refuse service for whatever reason he wished. The reason is irrelevant to that fact. The reason is only relevant to the owner for his determination as to whether he thinks this employee makes good decisions in his name.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 12:46 AM
Good is right. But the employer didn't like the reasoning for this employee's decision. Nor, his temperament, I presume. But at the time of this incident, that employee had the right to refuse service for whatever reason he wished. The reason is irrelevant to that fact. The reason is only relevant to the owner for his determination as to whether he thinks this employee makes good decisions in his name.
You don't have a right to use that which your employer entrusts to you for purposes that he did not intend.
You not only can be fired for doing so but you can be charged criminally by your employer.

UWDude
12-29-2018, 12:59 AM
When the customer was asked to leave and he didn't, he was trespassing.

No court of law would agree with you, so he was not.


As someone who has actually had to throw people out of businesses, they usually leave after you threaten them.

I have too.

That's because a court of law would have agreed with me, and/or my boss in all cases. (I am now the boss).

But if the owner does not think you were trespassing, you were not trespassing.
Just because an employee says so, who is promptly fired, does not make it so.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 01:00 AM
You don't have a right to use that which your employer entrusts to you for purposes that he did not intend.
You not only can be fired for doing so but you can be charged criminally by your employer.

Ok, you're still not getting it.

back to the root of this thread and off your strawman...

Does the customer have the right to demand the exchange?

UWDude
12-29-2018, 01:03 AM
Does the customer have the right to demand the exchange?

Yes. If the owner agrees he has that right, he does.
In the end, it is the owner who decides who he refuses service to.

And the customer has the legal right to say anything, it is a free country.

the customer also has the moral right to insist on being served: the employee was clearly out of line.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 01:05 AM
Ok, you're still not getting it.

back to the root of this thread and off your strawman...

Does the customer have the right to demand the exchange?
Has the EMPLOYEE been commissioned to SERVE the customer?
Unless the employee has a legitimate reason that serves the interests of his employer to deny service or has been given permission to serve his own interests by his employer then the customer does have a right to demand service, if the employee doesn't like it he can quit, then he will not be an employee and the customer can't demand that he serve him.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 01:07 AM
Yes. If the boss agrees he has that right, he does.
In the end, it is the boss who decides who he refuses service to.

And the customer has the legal right to say anything, it is a free country.

the customer also has the moral right to insist on being served: the employee was clearly out of line.
Like it or not, this kid was the boss at that time. I'm not arguing that the employee wasn't out of line - only that he has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The reasoning for the decision - again - is between the employer and employee after the fact. And it was handled appropriately. Still doesn't change the fact, that the customer was lawfully denied service, asked to leave, and then committed trespass by refusing to leave and demanding the exchange.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 01:09 AM
Has the EMPLOYEE been commissioned to SERVE the customer?
Unless the employee has a legitimate reason that serves the interests of his employer to deny service or has been given permission to serve his own interests by his employer then the customer does have a right to demand service, if the employee doesn't like it he can quit, then he will not be an employee and the customer can't demand that he serve him.

There you go again, trying to focus attention on the "reason" for that employee's decision... Forget about rights - those are secondary to you. Your understanding of liberty is completely situational and this highlights it. Hypocrisy at its finest, Boromir.


Also, were you saying this same thing when it was Kim Davis as the "employee"?

UWDude
12-29-2018, 01:10 AM
Like it or not, this kid was the boss at that time. I'm not arguing that the employee wasn't out of line - only that he has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The reasoning for the decision - again - is between the employer and employee after the fact. And it was handled appropriately. Still doesn't change the fact, that the customer was lawfully denied service, asked to leave, and then committed trespass by refusing to leave and demanding the exchange.

Wrong.

If you kill someone you killed them.
You did not murder them.
A court of law determines whether it was murder or not.

Kill is a reality term, murder is a legal term.

LIKEWISE

If you are standing in a store, and an employee asks you to leave, you are standing in a store, while an employee asks you to leave.
That is what is happening in reality.

If a court of law finds you guilty of trespassing, then you are trespassing.
Trespassing is a legal term.


and then committed trespass by refusing to leave and demanding the exchange.


committed

You talk using legalese, but are wrong.
You are saying the customer COMMITTED a crime.
A court of law would determine the customer DID NOT commit a crime.

The court of law is right, and you are wrong.
He did not commit trespass.

Suzanimal
12-29-2018, 01:14 AM
No court of law would agree with you, so he was not.



I have too.

That's because a court of law would have agreed with me, and/or my boss in all cases. (I am now the boss).

But if the owner does not think you were trespassing, you were not trespassing.
Just because an employee says so, who is promptly fired, does not make it so.

If the clerk was a manager (since he appeared to be the only one there, I'm assuming he was), he most certainly could've taken out a trespass notice. The laws do vary for why but in Atlanta, you can. And the owner can rescind it and fire the employee if he or she disagrees - like what happened in this case.

dannno
12-29-2018, 01:14 AM
Wrong.

If you kill someone you killed them.
You did not murder them.
A court of law determines whether it was murder or not.

Kill is a reality term, murder is a legal term.

LIKEWISE

If you are standing in a store, and an employee asks you to leave, you are standing in a store, while an employee asks you to leave.
That is what is happening in reality.

If a court of law finds you guilty of trespassing, then you are trespassing.
Trespassing is a legal term.

Ya, this guy was basically calling the dude's bluff.. he knows the store owner has to press charges, and that the likelihood of that was going to be very slim.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 01:17 AM
There you go again, trying to focus attention on the "reason" for that employee's decision... Forget about rights - those are secondary to you. Your understanding of liberty is completely situational and this highlights it. Hypocrisy at its finest, Boromir.
I am focused on rights, the employee only has them so far as the employer has transferred them to him and the employer has only transferred limited rights to the employee that are conditioned on the reasons involved.
Only the owner has unlimited rights regardless of the reason unless he says that the employee has such unlimited rights.

You keep ignoring the difference between the absolute rights held by the owner and the limited rights transferred to the employee because only absolute rights serve your purpose.



Also, were you saying this same thing when it was Kim Davis as the "employee"?
I don't recall saying anything about Kim Davis but if the law required her to do something that she objected to then it was her duty to do it or resign.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-29-2018, 04:50 AM
The joint is called Xhale. It had three Yelp reviews until that incident. Now it has 159 reviews. Like this one:





Dan T.
Shawnee, KS
0 friends
19 reviews
1 photo

When I walked up, I saw the guy with the beard at the counter drinking hot dog juice out of a bag and swallowing a ball-Park frank in one gulp. I knew this wasn't the place for me, but my friend insisted it would only take a minute. When we walked in, the guy with the beard looked up, his beard glistening with hot dog water/juice and then he asked us, "what's wrong?" We said it's cool and walked around for a minute browsing. I saw him reaching into his crotch, dig around and then pull his hand up, smelling his fingers. Then he licked one. The guy obviously has a wiener addiction. He glanced over at me and asked me if he could touch my wiener, "no h0m0" he said. I told my friend and we booked it the hell out of there.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/xhale-city-tucker?start=40

Schifference
12-29-2018, 05:26 AM
I have not yet watched the video but have read all comments.

From what I can conclude the difference between this case and the cake baker case is that the cake baker did not refuse to sell a ready made cake to a gay person that walked in off the street. The baker refused to custom make a cake for a gay wedding. Selling ready made generic product off the shelf is different than entering into a contract to make something special.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 05:46 AM
My son turned 21 this past summer. He is in college and got a part time job working at a liquor store.
They have a scanner machine to check the validity of a license.
A black couple or person came in wanting to purchase liquor. Son put card thru machine and machine rejected license.
Son told couple/person he could not sell them liquor.

A white lady came in. She belonged to a frequent purchase program. She had already given her license and it was scanned at a previous date. She presented her frequent purchase card and her license. Son sold her liquor and did not scan her license. Lady would not have frequent buyers card unless her license was already scanned and the name on the card and name on license matched.

Black couple/person made a huge scene screaming discrimination. Because my son did not put that ladies license thru the scanner. They continued to make a huge seen for an extended period of time.

Keep in mind son is young and working behind a counter dealing with customers is a new thing for him.

Entire thing was recorded.

Store is very busy with many customers.

Son smiles at people wanting service and continues to conduct business with all other customers and pays no attention to the black couple/person creating a huge scene.

Black couple/person file whatever kind of grievances against my son and liquor store. Liquor commission gets involved and don't know who else but it was a big deal.

Management was very happy my son was behind the counter and told him he acted responsibly and did exactly what he should have done.

Oh yes I forgot to mention that the black person/couple were video recording also. Obviously their video never went viral.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-29-2018, 06:09 AM
Issue for me would be who I am talking to. If it's the owner of the bakery, then he has the final word. If he does not want to bake my cake, then I am not asking twice. No begging. I tell him to stick it up his ass. I'll go down the street. Better yet, I'll make my own cake.

If it's this drone clerk, then I would be fairly certain that he does not represent management/owners. I might ask for the owner or manager, especially if I'm a regular customer. It would not be unreasonable to ask that clerk to phone contact someone higher up in this day & age of telecommunications. If the clerk refuses, then I probably would not belabor the point, but I am certainly not promptly walking out at high speed in 5 seconds the first time he tells me to leave.

I'm guessing the customer left after the ~4 minute video. So maybe he was in there for 5-7 minutes. That's not unreasonable. I would not stay there for more than ~10 minutes, but I'm not leaving at the drop of a hat just because some twit quickly utters that I should leave.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 06:09 AM
If the employee had rights of the owner and the owner fired the employee for acting legitimately on the owners behalf, the employee will sue the employer for wrongful termination and be reinstated with backpay and pay legal fees for employee legal team.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 06:11 AM
Do you know what would be pretty funny?

A person goes into a store like this wearing the MAGA shirt but underneath he has an Obama or HRC shirt. The shirt on top is removed as soon as a person gets uptight.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 06:30 AM
I am no legal expert but the only thing I saw in the video was a foul mouthed clerk that physically assaulted a person wanting to purchase a product. The clerk stereotyped the customer and accused him of being racist among other things.

In other news: Apr 17, 2018 - In the Starbucks case, one or both of the men had asked to use the restroom ... The manager called the police when the men did not leave. ... Starbucks chief executive Kevin Johnson apologized to the men in person this week for what he ... cafe for as long as they would like without making a purchase.

AuH20
12-29-2018, 08:01 AM
He got fired by the Owner.

1078861784726020096

TheCount
12-29-2018, 09:58 AM
Then as an employee they can fill them or quit.

You seem to have a very complicated set of internal rules as to who must bake cakes and who need not bake cakes.

H_H
12-29-2018, 10:03 AM
I posted in another thread how when the tables are turned, you can't count on the people you think you can.


“Count on them” for what, exactly? Please define that to yourself in a clear, concise, coherent manner and you will isolate the source of your frustra-confusion.

Because you’re trying/wishing to count on them to be Blood-loyal Extremist adherents to your (and my) bizarre and obscure extremist ideology. An ideology which seeks to eliminate, at least in your leftish variant of it, virtually all familiar or comfortable societal traditions and institutions and replace it with a cyber-punk Consumerist utopia ruled by roving private armies of metrosexual robots competing on the free market to defend the rights of eight-year-olds to have their dicks chopped off by their adoptive lesbian “parents” and of billionaire CEOs to control the world and censor the internet. In short, everything natural, logical, and common sense. AmIRite? :)

But these stupid peoples, they just don’t catch our Bladerunner vision. What losers, eh? So confusing. What gives? You just can’t ... *trust* them! Can’t trust them to be more loyal to the beautiful and perfect ideology that will bring them an Islamo-transo-rainbow utopia with a poly centric legal order and the thrilling ability to subscribe to the police and toll-road service of your choice, more loyal to that than things like their family and religious and tribal loyalties.

You want mankind to be something that it never was and never will be, Captain. Look, we can have our ancap stateless nation, but allowances must be made for human nature. You need not give up the dream, but cut people some slack. You yourself are not going to go to the barricades for the right of some neon-nazi to sell instructional videos of how to genocide more effectively, even though this is a clear-cut case of property rights, free business and free speech. No, you will keep your mouth shut and let that guy burn. So if you yourself cannot bring yourself to be consistent in loudly defending persons you find distasteful, what should you expect any other human on planet Earth to do so?

You shouldn’t. Instead, far better to seek to understand reality as it is. Anything else is LARPing and stupid.

Danke
12-29-2018, 10:20 AM
He got fired by the Owner.

1078861784726020096

Great...now he'll probably start collecting unemployment insurance payments and increase his government subsidies.

H_H
12-29-2018, 10:29 AM
https://www.yourtango.com/sites/default/files/styles/header_slider/public/image_blog/MLK%20header%20copy.jpg?itok=7TDrD47v

“HATRED IS MY MUSE”
Murray Rothbard

https://markstoval.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/cvz-t-3vaaatayd.jpg?w=584&h=274

phill4paul
12-29-2018, 10:32 AM
Great...now he'll probably start collecting unemployment insurance payments and increase his government subsidies.

Owner should have just had a 10% off with Trump/MAGA clothing sale. Snowflake would have quit and not eligible.

specsaregood
12-29-2018, 10:42 AM
Great...now he'll probably start collecting unemployment insurance payments and increase his government subsidies.

I'm pretty sure he was fired with enough cause to make him ineligible.

RJB
12-29-2018, 10:45 AM
He got fired by the Owner. I am sorry Influenza lost his job, but it will give him more time to post on this forum.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 10:48 AM
This is nothing like or not comparable to the christian baker on so many levels.

specsaregood
12-29-2018, 10:56 AM
He got fired by the Owner.

1078861784726020096

I'd like to believe this is true; but its just a tweet by an unrelated source. no public statement by the owner anywhere. could just be fake news.

With that said, I expected this video to be from CA, no way I expected it to be from Georgia. Can't imagine how this guy manages to live there.

CCTelander
12-29-2018, 11:01 AM
I'm pretty sure he was fired with enough cause to make him ineligible.


Based upon my wife's experience with this kind of thing (she handles these kinds of things for her company, among many other duties), there very often seems to be no sufficient cause to deny unemployment claims. Just what we've seen here.

acptulsa
12-29-2018, 11:29 AM
I am focused on rights,

No you're not. You're focused on finding any loophole that will allow you to spin the world as a place where someone in a Trump shirt, or a MAGA hat, or holding a Trumpy Bear, is always right.

You're not focused on human rights, or God-given rights, or Constitutional rights. You're focused on spinning the Right Wing as always right.

The funny thing is, nobody is saying the clerk is rational. You're twisting the facts and making 'facts' up not out of necessity, but apparently out of habit.

Brian4Liberty
12-29-2018, 11:32 AM
Cashier in vape store goes nuts over customer wearing #Trump shirt.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3e8KxLbyOY

I posted in another thread how when the tables are turned, you can't count on the people you think you can. The reaction to this video is a prime example. Obviously, the left handles the issue much, much differently from the right (lol), but the issue is the same. But now we have the right overwhelmingly defending the customer.

You can compare and contrast this situation vs. the cake maker, but I’d say there are some major differences in the two scenarios.

The cake baker was requested to do a custom job, that would require design and set-up at an event. There is nothing custom or special about buying something off the shelf as in the vape shop. As a matter of fact, the cake baker offered to sell the gay couple any cake that he had on display, already made, in his store.

So for the situation to be more similar, it would have to be some kind of custom work. For example, let’s say the vape shop offered custom graphics on a product. Then the analogous scenario would be requesting that they design a custom graphic and put it on a product (vape equipment, shirt, etc.) that says “MAGA - Trump is the greatest POTUS of all time”.

As far as the hysterics of the clerk, that was pretty much out of line in general, regardless of the circumstance. If the Police were called, I doubt that the rights of a private business to serve whoever they want would be the main issue. If the clerk continued like that to the Police, it would be easy to see the clerk going to jail. (Screaming “don’t tase me bro’” as he went...). Obviously, it is up to the owner. If the owner(s) supports turning away customers in that situation, it’s up to them. Behaving like a lunatic is frowned upon in general though, and tends to obscure any other issue at hand.

RJB
12-29-2018, 11:49 AM
One difference between this and the cake is that you won't see the vape shop incident going up to the Supreme Court. I am betting that the viral video will be as far as it goes. Had the employee not flown off the handle, we would not even have a viral video.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 12:18 PM
The issue at hand here is not the incident in the tape, but the hypocritical response. That was stated in the OP. Obviously, the employee was out of line and acting like a ridiculous little baby.

But the fact of the matter is that no one should be forced into commerce with someone against their wishes. A simple lesson that can be seen when you agree with one party or the other but gets people all flustered when the tables are turned.

A Denny’s manager can refuse service to someone for wearing an Obama shirt, just as easily as a vape shop manager can refuse service to a Trump supporter. And if the Obama supporter refuses to leave the Denny’s, they are trespassing. And they are in the wrong. You do not have a right to be served by anyone. That is not freedom. You do not have an obligation to trade with someone you don’t want to. It’s an issue between the employer and employee how they want to handle it after the fact. In this case, it was handled as expected.

This thread highlighted the hypocrisy and the usual suspects lined up to show that they only care about “liberty” and “rights” when it concerns themselves.

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 12:20 PM
The issue at hand here is not the incident in the tape, but the hypocritical response. That was stated in the OP. Obviously, the employee was out of line and acting like a ridiculous little baby.

But the fact of the matter is that no one should be forced into commerce with someone against their wishes. A simple lesson that can be seen when you agree with one party or the other but gets people all flustered when the tables are turned.

A Denny’s manager can refuse service to someone for wearing an Obama shirt, just as easily as a vape shop manager can refuse service to a Trump supporter. And if the Obama supporter refuses to leave the Denny’s, they are trespassing. And they are in the wrong. You do not have a right to be served by anyone. That is not freedom. You do not have an obligation to trade with someone you don’t want to. It’s an issue between the employer and employee how they want to handle it after the fact. In this case, it was handled as expected.

This thread highlighted the hypocrisy and the usual suspects lined up to show that they only care about “liberty” and “rights” when it concerns themselves.

But the employee in the vape shop didn't own the shop so he really shouldn't have any say as to who gets service.

phill4paul
12-29-2018, 12:34 PM
6296

dannno
12-29-2018, 12:39 PM
The issue at hand here is not the incident in the tape, but the hypocritical response. That was stated in the OP. Obviously, the employee was out of line and acting like a ridiculous little baby.

But the fact of the matter is that no one should be forced into commerce with someone against their wishes. A simple lesson that can be seen when you agree with one party or the other but gets people all flustered when the tables are turned.

A Denny’s manager can refuse service to someone for wearing an Obama shirt, just as easily as a vape shop manager can refuse service to a Trump supporter. And if the Obama supporter refuses to leave the Denny’s, they are trespassing. And they are in the wrong. You do not have a right to be served by anyone. That is not freedom. You do not have an obligation to trade with someone you don’t want to. It’s an issue between the employer and employee how they want to handle it after the fact. In this case, it was handled as expected.

This thread highlighted the hypocrisy and the usual suspects lined up to show that they only care about “liberty” and “rights” when it concerns themselves.

If a Denny's employee kicked me out for wearing an Obama shirt, I would consider not leaving because I know that the owner of Denny's would disapprove. That means trespassing charges will never be pressed, because the manager may be able to file them but the property owner has to press them and the manager will be fired by that time. I would know the employee was acting out of line and not in accordance with store policy and so I would wait for the cops. That is what this guy did, he bet that the employee was acting out of line and not in accordance with his employer's wishes which turned out to be correct.

acptulsa
12-29-2018, 12:40 PM
But the employee in the vape shop didn't own the shop so he really shouldn't have any say as to who gets service.

Except the owner left the then employee in charge and left the premises. Should the customer who refuses to pay more than thirty-seven cents for anything get service? Is the employee not empowered to refuse to serve that person?


If a Denny's employee kicked me out for wearing an Obama shirt, I would consider not leaving because I know that the owner of Denny's would disapprove. That means trespassing charges will never be pressed, because the manager may be able to file them but the property owner has to press them and the manager will be fired by that time. I would know the employee was acting out of line and not in accordance with store policy and so I would wait for the cops. That is what this guy did, he bet that the employee was acting out of line and not in accordance with his employer's wishes which turned out to be correct.

All of that is true. None of it changes the fact that there are people in this thread arguing that Team Red should have rights that Team Blue doesn't have.

That's not merely hypocricy. It also doesn't work. And that's why principles are important.

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 12:43 PM
Except the owner left the then employee in charge and left the premises. Should the customer who refuses to pay more than thirty-seven cents for anything get service? Is the employee not empowered to refuse to serve that person?
That depends on what instructions the employer had given to the employee.

Had the employer instructed the employee not to serve Trump supporters then the employee would have been in the right.

As it turns out, the employee was acting on his own and against the wishes of the employer.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 12:45 PM
But the employee in the vape shop didn't own the shop so he really shouldn't have any say as to who gets service.

If you’re trying to spot a difference here, it’s because you want to. No customer should ever feel like they can demand a business to do business with them. You can draw a distinction about the level of responsibility of the employee, but that is strictly a business decision between the employer and employee. It has zero to do with the underlying issue that you don’t have a right to be served by anyone. That is not freedom. The distinction you’re drawing is valid as a way to run that business, but completely irrelevant to the issue.

When things like this happen, your first impulse is to find a distinction so you can maintain your bias. That is the point of this thread.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 12:50 PM
That depends on what instructions the employer had given to the employee.

Had the employer instructed the employee not to serve Trump supporters then the employee would have been in the right.

As it turns out, the employee was acting on his own and against the wishes of the employer.

Again. Irrelevant. The customer was demanding service from someone who didn’t want to serve him. He should have left and taken it up with the employer about how his employee was acting. He doesn’t have a right to be served. And by maintaining that he does, he is behaving just like the customer in the bake shop.

The only difference is that this employer capitulated while the bake shop did not.

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 01:04 PM
Again. Irrelevant. The customer was demanding service from someone who didn’t want to serve him. He should have left and taken it up with the employer about how his employee was acting. He doesn’t have a right to be served. And by maintaining that he does, he is behaving just like the customer in the bake shop.

The only difference is that this employer capitulated while the bake shop did not.

As I recall, the bake shop was owned by the person who refused to do business. The employee was supposed to be acting as a representative of the employer and thus was in the wrong as he refused to do business against the wishes of his employer.

The employee shouldn't have even been employed there if he wasn't willing to do business with anyone his employer would have done business with.

Seems the problem has been rectified and the former employee won't need to make that decision again at that establishment. Maybe if he is employed someplace else he will think before he makes the same mistake again.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 01:12 PM
As I recall, the bake shop was owned by the person who refused to do business. The employee was supposed to be acting as a representative of the employer and thus was in the wrong as he refused to do business against the wishes of his employer.

The employee shouldn't have even been employed there if he wasn't willing to do business with anyone his employer would have done business with.

Seems the problem has been rectified and the former employee won't need to make that decision again at that establishment. Maybe if he is employed someplace else he will think before he makes the same mistake again.

I agree with all of this. But it is besides the point. You are talking about how a business should be run. That’s great, but not relevant to the customer demanding service from someone who didn’t want to serve him.

You see, unless you are guided strictly by principles, you will look for differences in the situations even if they are not relevant. It’s your bias that condones this customer and not the other one. Neither has a right to demand service from another human being.

phill4paul
12-29-2018, 01:13 PM
Again. Irrelevant. The customer was demanding service from someone who didn’t want to serve him. He should have left and taken it up with the employer about how his employee was acting. He doesn’t have a right to be served. And by maintaining that he does, he is behaving just like the customer in the bake shop.

The only difference is that this employer capitulated while the bake shop did not.

Capitulated? Sounds to me like the owner has a simple policy of not refusing service based on political affiliation. How is that 'capitulating?"

RJB
12-29-2018, 01:13 PM
The only difference is that this employer capitulated while the bake shop did not.
Really the only difference is the Trump person in the vape store wouldn't have taken it to court/government (most likely).

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 01:15 PM
Capitulated? Sounds to me like the owner has a simple policy of not refusing service based on political affiliation. How is that 'capitulating?"

Just meant that this owner determined the employee was in the wrong while the bake shop stood by the employee (who happened to be himself).

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 01:17 PM
Yes, the employee has a right not to serve someone he doesn't want to serve. If he wants to stick up for his rights and not serve someone against his bosses wishes, that's up to him, but he shouldn't be surprised if he loses his job when he does.

trey4sports
12-29-2018, 01:24 PM
regardless of whether or not the employee should be forced to serve the guy I find it hilarious how much of a powderpuff, snowflake the guy is.

dannno
12-29-2018, 01:25 PM
Except the owner left the then employee in charge and left the premises. Should the customer who refuses to pay more than thirty-seven cents for anything get service? Is the employee not empowered to refuse to serve that person?

The owner entrusts their employees to act in accordance with their store policies. If a customer identifies an employee that they know is not acting in accordance with the owner of the property, then it is their choice to take the risk and defend their position. If they are wrong, they could end up with a trespassing charge. If they are right, then, well, they weren't really trespassing on the owner's property and this is an employee training issue.

phill4paul
12-29-2018, 01:25 PM
Just meant that this owner determined the employee was in the wrong while the bake shop stood by the employee (who happened to be himself).

Fair enough. Words mean something though and I don't think that particular word fits in this context.

That said I do not believe that it is right to demand service. However, if an employee was having a meltdown like this one did then I would have stuck around long enough to get video evidence of it. "Why?" you might ask. Because if I felt an employee was not acting in his employers best interest then I believe the owner would like proof. If this individual had just left the store and contacted the employer then it would possibly have merely been interpreted as "he said, she said." Or even the employee making up baseless lies so that the employer might have banned this customer instead of rightfully terminating the employee. However, had it been the actual owner then I would have recorded what I could until the point he asked me to leave. Then left. I would then put up video of this owner so that others may decide to do business with him/her/it or not.

dannno
12-29-2018, 01:32 PM
None of it changes the fact that there are people in this thread arguing that Team Red should have rights that Team Blue doesn't have.

That's not merely hypocricy. It also doesn't work. And that's why principles are important.

You are wrong, you have it completely backwards. Nobody in this thread is arguing that Team Red should have more rights than Team Blue. I just said that if I went into a Denny's with an Obama shirt, and an employee tried to kick me out, I might consider holding my position because I know that goes against the policy of the owner of Denny's. The employee is acting in disregard of the property owner, and I'm calling them out. Let the police come, let them try to file charges. Denny's will never press charges, they will fire the employee.

What is in fact happening is that the guy in the video is showing the hypocrisy of the left. He is demanding that he be served because he knew, or wagered the owner of the store would not abide by the employee's behavior (and was willing to accept the consequences of being wrong). At the same time, the employee supports forcing stores to serve LGBTQ people. But he won't serve people with different political views.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 01:39 PM
Fair enough. Words mean something though and I don't think that particular word fits in this context.

That said I do not believe that it is right to demand service. However, if an employee was having a meltdown like this one did then I would have stuck around long enough to get video evidence of it. "Why?" you might ask. Because if I felt an employee was not acting in his employers best interest then I believe the owner would like proof. If this individual had just left the store and contacted the employer then it would possibly have merely been interpreted as "he said, she said." Or even the employee making up baseless lies so that the employer might have banned this customer instead of rightfully terminating the employee. However, had it been the actual owner then I would have recorded what I could until the point he asked me to leave. Then left. I would then put up video of this owner so that others may decide to do business with him/her/it or not.

This is really the best defense yet. At least it’s consistent. But the customers in both situations were clearly instigating the conflict when they were denied service. And continuing it to make a political point. Again, the aim of this thread was to highlight the hypocrisy of the responses. And it worked.

phill4paul
12-29-2018, 01:58 PM
This is really the best defense yet. At least it’s consistent. But the customers in both situations were clearly instigating the conflict when they were denied service. And continuing it to make a political point. Again, the aim of this thread was to highlight the hypocrisy of the responses. And it worked.

To be sure the actions of the customer escalated the issue. Simply recording and asking the employee in a clear concise manner "Why are you denying me service?" would have been sufficient. I can absolutely bet that the owner of the cake shop never acted in this manner. And whether or not the employee was in the right or wrong regarding the issue, say if the owner disallowed Trump supporters, his behavior was over the line. I certainly wouldn't want an employee that acted in this manner regardless. Perhaps, in the end it is the fault of the employer the most. Improper training, not having clear rules regarding customer treatment, all of these things are up to the employer to communicate.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-29-2018, 02:03 PM
If a Denny's employee kicked me out for wearing an Obama shirt, I would consider not leaving because I know that the owner of Denny's would disapprove. That means trespassing charges will never be pressed, because the manager may be able to file them but the property owner has to press them and the manager will be fired by that time. I would know the employee was acting out of line and not in accordance with store policy and so I would wait for the cops. That is what this guy did, he bet that the employee was acting out of line and not in accordance with his employer's wishes which turned out to be correct.


I think this is actually a more realistic scenario. And similar things like this happen all the time. You have an employee who declines to wait on a customer for whatever reason. But the employee doesn't tell the customer to leave. The employee just gets someone else to wait on the customer he views as undesirable.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-29-2018, 02:16 PM
This is nothing at all like the cake incident. The clerk was being erratic and inconsistent. First, he tell the customer, "I'm going to call my boss first." The customer agrees. It was less than ten seconds later that the clerk appears to try to knock the phone out of the customer's hand.

The clerk then pretends to be on the phone with his boss. It was obvious he was not talking to his boss.

Then, the clerk agrees to the deal proposed by the customer to actually sell him the product.

It was less than ten seconds later that the clerk becomes erratic again, thereby canceling the deal he just made with the customer.

This is not a straightforward encounter where an employee is sticking by his guns in asking a customer leave. There is LA LA Land theory and then there is reality. This wouldn't even make a marginal case study in a libertarian textbook.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 02:28 PM
If you’re trying to spot a difference here, it’s because you want to. No customer should ever feel like they can demand a business to do business with them. You can draw a distinction about the level of responsibility of the employee, but that is strictly a business decision between the employer and employee. It has zero to do with the underlying issue that you don’t have a right to be served by anyone. That is not freedom. The distinction you’re drawing is valid as a way to run that business, but completely irrelevant to the issue.

When things like this happen, your first impulse is to find a distinction so you can maintain your bias. That is the point of this thread.

Libertarian principles are nothing more than words. So what you are saying is the owner of an establishment can say, "this establishment does NOT serve BLACKS" and it is the only store within 100 miles. So Blacks will need to travel over 100 miles. Or the owner can say we charge BLACKS 50% more than WHITES and that is okay because the owner can choose to serve who they want and charge what they want. Obviously in the good ole US of A we all know that it doesn't work that way.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 02:36 PM
You seem to have a very complicated set of internal rules as to who must bake cakes and who need not bake cakes.
Life is complex.

Simpletons have a hard time dealing with it.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 02:44 PM
No you're not. You're focused on finding any loophole that will allow you to spin the world as a place where someone in a Trump shirt, or a MAGA hat, or holding a Trumpy Bear, is always right.

You're not focused on human rights, or God-given rights, or Constitutional rights. You're focused on spinning the Right Wing as always right.

The funny thing is, nobody is saying the clerk is rational. You're twisting the facts and making 'facts' up not out of necessity, but apparently out of habit.
You can't disprove the logic so you just dismiss it.

I'm sorry to have to tell you but right wing people are disproportionately in the right, it may clash with your simplistic sense of balance but it is true.

The owner has absolute rights, everyone else involved has limited rights derived from the owner's rights.
The customer has a right to enter the store and request service because the owner has granted him that right by opening his store to the public for the purpose of selling his goods, the clerk has a right to refuse service to anyone if that refusal is in the interests of the owner.
This refusal of service based on politics was not in the interests of the owner and the clerk had not been granted absolute rights by the owner.

acptulsa
12-29-2018, 02:49 PM
...and the clerk had not been granted absolute rights by the owner.

And you're still making up "facts" you have no way of knowing to support your spin.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 02:50 PM
Except the owner left the then employee in charge and left the premises. Should the customer who refuses to pay more than thirty-seven cents for anything get service? Is the employee not empowered to refuse to serve that person?



All of that is true. None of it changes the fact that there are people in this thread arguing that Team Red should have rights that Team Blue doesn't have.

That's not merely hypocricy. It also doesn't work. And that's why principles are important.
Nobody argued any such thing, I would be on the customer's (and the owner's) side if the politics were reversed, it just happens that right wingers very rarely behave like the idiot clerk.

It has something to do with being logical instead of emotional and recognizing their duty to the owner instead of focusing on their petty personal preferences.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 02:51 PM
And you're still making up "facts" you have no way of knowing to support your spin.
Not only is it the logical assumption absent knowledge but we now DO know because the owner fired the maniac.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 02:57 PM
Yes, the employee has a right not to serve someone he doesn't want to serve. If he wants to stick up for his rights and not serve someone against his bosses wishes, that's up to him, but he shouldn't be surprised if he loses his job when he does.
He doesn't have that right unless he quits.
He surrendered that right when he accepted a position as an employee of the owner, the only way he can reclaim that right is to resign.

phill4paul
12-29-2018, 02:59 PM
Did the owner have a "We don't serve up MAGA" sign at the entrance?

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 03:00 PM
He doesn't have that right unless he quits.
He surrendered that right when he accepted a position as an employee of the owner, the only way he can reclaim that right is to resign.
Isn't that what he did? By not serving man with the Trump hat and shirt, He most certainly knew he was going to lose his job.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 03:01 PM
Did the owner have a "We don't serve up MAGA" sign at the entrance?
Since the employee never referred the customer to such a sign and since the owner fired the employee I would say it was safe to assume that there was no sign.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 03:02 PM
Isn't that what he did? By not serving man with the Trump hat and shirt, I most certainly knew he was going to lose his job.
He seemed to think that he could keep his job and the employer had to fire him.

RJB
12-29-2018, 03:05 PM
He doesn't have that right unless he quits.
He surrendered that right when he accepted a position as an employee of the owner, the only way he can reclaim that right is to resign.
The employee may not have permission from the owner, but he does have the right. If the employee called the cops and accused the Trump supporter of trespassing, the cops would have removed the Trump supporter.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:06 PM
The employee may not have permission from the owner, but he does have the right. If the employee called the cops and accused the Trump supporter of trespassing, the cops would have removed the Trump supporter.

I doubt that. The Trump supporter would say I am here to purchase xyz and have money.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 03:07 PM
The employee may not have permission from the owner, but he does have the right. If the employee called the cops and accused the Trump supporter of trespassing, the cops would have removed the Trump supporter.
He may have the power but he doesn't have the right.
Even Capt admitted that he could be sued by the owner because driving away customers that the owner would have served is a tort.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:08 PM
The clerk assaulted the MAGA and MAGA has it on film.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 03:09 PM
I doubt that. The Trump supporter would say I am here to purchase xyz and have money.
I agree, the cops would likely arrest the clerk for assault and disturbing the peace etc. in this case and refuse to do anything if the clerk were less insane.

RJB
12-29-2018, 03:12 PM
I doubt that. The Trump supporter would say I am here to purchase xyz and have money.


He may have the power but he doesn't have the right.
Even Capt admitted that he could be sued by the owner because driving away customers that the owner would have served is a tort.
I am not a lawyer, but I am guessing the cops would not compell the employee to do business and would eject the Trump supporter-- In that moment. What happens when who sues who later on is another matter and probably depends upon who shells out more money on a rabid lawyer.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:12 PM
I agree, the cops would likely arrest the clerk for assault and disturbing the peace etc. in this case and refuse to do anything if the clerk were less insane.

If they happened to get a cop that wanted to solve the issue rather than escalate it, the cop would purchase the vape and everyone would go on their way.

RJB
12-29-2018, 03:15 PM
I agree, the cops would likely arrest the clerk for assault and disturbing the peace etc. in this case and refuse to do anything if the clerk were less insane.
Ah yes. I forgot about the wussy slap. Yeah the assault is a game changer. I guess I withdraw my earlier argument.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:15 PM
No sane business owner would want a loose deranged cannon like that libtard representing their establishment.

Owner must not be a very good judge of character to have hired this idiot in the first place.

Ender
12-29-2018, 03:17 PM
No, the point we're arguing is whether or not he had the right to refuse service. He did. He gave a reason. You or I may think it's dumb but, as Capt pointed out, others think the Christian Baker was wrong to refuse service.

What I or you would do in that situation is irrelevant.

'Zackly.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:21 PM
'Zackly.

Can I refuse to serve a black person because they are black or a jew because they are jewish?

Ender
12-29-2018, 03:23 PM
Can I refuse to serve a black person because they are black or a jew because they are jewish?

If that's your wish, you should be able to under real freedom- but I wouldn't advise it.

dannno
12-29-2018, 03:28 PM
'Zackly.

Ya, and the customer has a right to call him on is bullshit and stand there. If he's wrong, then he can get slapped with some charges by the property owner. Turns out he was right.

This is why Trump won. Because people who don't like Trump stick up for stupid dipshit behavior instead of doing the smart thing and backing off. It's quite obvious that the property owner didn't intend for his property to be used this way, so the employee was actually the one who was mis-using the property not the customer.. and it is quite clear that the property owner intended to make sales to Trump supporters. So the Trump supporter did nothing wrong.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:35 PM
If that's your wish, you should be able to under real freedom- but I wouldn't advise it.

Why would you not advise it?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-29-2018, 03:41 PM
You seem to have a very complicated set of internal rules as to who must bake cakes and who need not bake cakes.


So do you. I am willing to bet that your Obama and Hilliary voting self sided with the customers who demanded their cake be baked. Am I right?

Suzanimal
12-29-2018, 03:46 PM
Why would you not advise it?

Because it's against Federal Law. Personally, I think you should be able to, though.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:57 PM
Because it's against Federal Law. Personally, I think you should be able to, though.

Is it against the law to not serve people of a certain political affiliation?

Suzanimal
12-29-2018, 03:58 PM
Is it against the law to not serve people of a certain political affiliation?

Only in a few states.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 03:59 PM
Only in a few states.

Is there an app or something that people can refer to that outlines who is protected and where?

Suzanimal
12-29-2018, 04:03 PM
Is there an app or something that people can refer to that outlines who is protected and where?

Feel free to use your preferred search engine.

Origanalist
12-29-2018, 04:07 PM
Is it against the law to not serve people of a certain political affiliation?

Why are you bouncing around from blacks and Jews to political affiliation?

Schifference
12-29-2018, 04:08 PM
Is it a crime to call someone a Racist or use defamatory language against someone that is not accurate? Is that slander or something? Is the clerk guilty of any crimes?

Schifference
12-29-2018, 04:09 PM
Why are you bouncing around from blacks and Jews to political affiliation?

Because in my perspective they are all the same no person is above the other.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-29-2018, 04:10 PM
This entire thing is so stupid. The clerk would have never called the police. The clerk vacillated from the very start because he knew he was wrong. That's why he was so indecisive. Calling the cops would have intensified his dilemma. If a customer had called the pigs, then I'm guessing girly man clerk backs off. He did not want to lose his job, but his emotions got the better of him with no cops or media in the store.

And, if the customer really wanted his product, then he would have backed off his comments after the clerk agreed to call the boss, and also after the clerk agreed to sell the product. But, at that point, the customer became more interested in egging the guy on.

So, in the end, some dumbass loses an inconsequential job that he probably never has to put on his resume. The customer's video falls into internet oblivion after one week.

Big deal.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:11 PM
Employee fired:

https://twitter.com/XhaleCity/status/1078858394952445952

1078858394952445952
So the owner exercised their property rights and got rid of the snowflake for trespassing. :D

Origanalist
12-29-2018, 04:12 PM
Because in my perspective they are all the same no person is above the other.

Ok, didn't really come off that way though.

Origanalist
12-29-2018, 04:13 PM
This entire thing is so stupid. The clerk would have never called the police. The clerk vacillated from the very start because he knew he was wrong. That's why he was so indecisive. Calling the cops would have intensified his dilemma. If a customer had called the pigs, then I'm guessing girly man clerk backs off. He did not want to lose his job, but his emotions got the better of him with no cops or media in the store.

And, if the customer really wanted his product, then he would have backed off his comments after the clerk agreed to call the boss, and also after the clerk agreed to sell the product. But, at that point, the customer became more interested in egging the guy on.

So, in the end, some dumbass loses an inconsequential job that he probably never has to put on his resume. The customer's video falls into internet oblivion after one week.

Big deal.

But muh vape juice.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:18 PM
I am no legal expert but the only thing I saw in the video was a foul mouthed clerk that physically assaulted a person wanting to purchase a product. The clerk stereotyped the customer and accused him of being racist among other things. I saw the same thing, likely a part time gig for him. Apparently some other people saw a paragon of Libertarianism defending property rights and the NAP.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 04:20 PM
The point is that people reach their conclusions not on principle, but on whether or not they agree with the reason for the refusal to do business with someone.

If you agree that commerce should be voluntary, the reasoning of either party doesn’t matter.

This incident just lays bare the hypocrisyof those who are not guided by principle. And as you can see in this thread, the usual suspects reveal themselves.

dannno
12-29-2018, 04:22 PM
This is really the best defense yet. At least it’s consistent. But the customers in both situations were clearly instigating the conflict when they were denied service. And continuing it to make a political point. Again, the aim of this thread was to highlight the hypocrisy of the responses. And it worked.

Uh ya sorta, except you and others keep lying about what is being defended.

The cake bake people were making a political point that gay people should be served no matter what.

The vape dude was making a political point that leftists are hypocrites and idiots who don't respect the private property of those they work for.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 04:23 PM
The point is that people reach their conclusions not on principle, but on whether or not they agree with the reason for the refusal to do business with someone.

If you agree that commerce should be voluntary, the reasoning of either party doesn’t matter.

This incident just lays bare the hypocrisyof those who are not guided by principle. And as you can see in this thread, the usual suspects reveal themselves.

What have I revealed about myself in this thread?

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 04:26 PM
The OP is trying to find something that isn't there.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:27 PM
The issue at hand here is not the incident in the tape, but the hypocritical response. That was stated in the OP. Obviously, the employee was out of line and acting like a ridiculous little baby.

But the fact of the matter is that no one should be forced into commerce with someone against their wishes. A simple lesson that can be seen when you agree with one party or the other but gets people all flustered when the tables are turned.
I believe the clerk had one job. To take people's money and hand them vape shit. Unless I'm greatly mistaken he was a representative to do commerce for someone else. He had one job, as they say.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:28 PM
6296
Property rights FTW!

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 04:30 PM
I believe the clerk had one job. To take people's money and hand them vape shit. Unless I'm greatly mistaken he was a representative to do commerce for someone else. He had one job, as they say.
Yep, and that clerk couldn't even say, serving the Trumper was against his religious beliefs.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 04:30 PM
The baker, the vape shop, Starbucks, or Kim Davis. People refusing to do business with someone and the customer demanding service.

But people seem to line up with the customer or the business depending on their politics and the reasoning - not on the principle that anyone can refuse to serve anyone at any time for any reason.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:32 PM
Yep, and that clerk couldn't even say, serving the Trumper was against his religious beliefs.

But it probably was. And the only people bothered to defend his communist State Worshipping ass are kind hearted libertarians on the internet that he probably wants sent to concentration camps.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 04:33 PM
I believe the clerk had one job. To take people's money and hand them vape $#@!. Unless I'm greatly mistaken he was a representative to do commerce for someone else. He had one job, as they say.

Yes and if he had just done his job the customer would have come in and left with no issue and libtard could have gone back to doing whatever libtard wanted to do.

acptulsa
12-29-2018, 04:36 PM
What have I revealed about myself in this thread?

That you suspect slander might be an actual crime (it isn't--yet).


The baker, the vape shop, Starbucks, or Kim Davis. People refusing to do business with someone and the customer demanding service.

Not in the Starbucks case. There non-customers refused to do business--then demanded use of the chairs and the restrooms.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 04:37 PM
The point is that people reach their conclusions not on principle, but on whether or not they agree with the reason for the refusal to do business with someone.

If you agree that commerce should be voluntary, the reasoning of either party doesn’t matter.

This incident just lays bare the hypocrisyof those who are not guided by principle. And as you can see in this thread, the usual suspects reveal themselves.
Just because you deny the existence of the principles that are different in this case doesn't mean that people are making decisions that aren't based on principle.

The most you can say is that they are making decisions based on principles you don't agree with.

dannno
12-29-2018, 04:38 PM
The baker, the vape shop, Starbucks, or Kim Davis. People refusing to do business with someone and the customer demanding service.

But people seem to line up with the customer or the business depending on their politics and the reasoning - not on the principle that anyone can refuse to serve anyone at any time for any reason.

Dude, nobody is saying that, you are literally just making shit up and pulling it out of your ass..

The LEFT believes that businesses shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to anybody.. but they only believe it applies to them and that they should be able to refuse doing business with Trump supporters..

This Maga guy is just showing their hypocrisy - at an opportune time because he knows the property owner actually has his back and he is doing nothing wrong.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 04:39 PM
The baker, the vape shop, Starbucks, or Kim Davis. People refusing to do business with someone and the customer demanding service.

But people seem to line up with the customer or the business depending on their politics and the reasoning - not on the principle that anyone can refuse to serve anyone at any time for any reason.
Except that not all of those are the same and you are ignoring the fact that I said Davis should have done her job or resigned.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 04:40 PM
That you suspect slander might be an actual crime (it isn't--yet).



Not in the Starbucks case. There non-customers refused to do business--then demanded use of the chairs and the restrooms.

I don't know that I suspect anything I do not know and thought it was a logical question.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
12-29-2018, 04:41 PM
But muh vape juice.


Heh heh. I really did LOL.

Yeah, maybe the customer's wife is some fat bruiser who would have really made a scene had she been buying her own juice.

acptulsa
12-29-2018, 04:44 PM
I don't know that I suspect anything I do not know and thought it was a logical question.

It's a basis for civil suits. They're trying to make a crime of it, but they can't seem to figure out how to make it illegal to talk smack about only CEOs, politicians, MSM reporters and cops.

Schifference
12-29-2018, 04:45 PM
It's a basis for civil suits. They're trying to make a crime of it, but they can't seem to figure out how to make it illegal to talk smack about only CEOs, politicians, MSM reporters and cops.

That is good to know. Thanks for the information.

James_Madison_Lives
12-29-2018, 04:48 PM
Now if the employee gets fired he'll be able to raise enough on a Gofundme to afford his operation.


https://youtu.be/PK-mnbH4s74

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 04:50 PM
"Bake the Cake" issue reversed (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?529715-quot-Bake-the-Cake-quot-issue-reversed) Started by CaptUSA (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?30558-CaptUSA), Yesterday

RJB
12-29-2018, 04:51 PM
The video is hilarious and worth a second watch.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:51 PM
The baker, the vape shop, Starbucks, or Kim Davis. People refusing to do business with someone and the customer demanding service.

But people seem to line up with the customer or the business depending on their politics and the reasoning - not on the principle that anyone can refuse to serve anyone at any time for any reason.When did the vape shop refuse service to anyone? :confused:If I hire someone its to have them do a specific job. I'm not giving them free rein to assault, cuss at, and threaten my customers with arrest by calling the cops. What if this clerk had done that to the owners family?

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:55 PM
I think its worth posting the owners/company statement again.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/xhale-city-fired-employee-600x488.jpg

Schifference
12-29-2018, 04:56 PM
When did the vape shop refuse service to anyone? :confused:If I hire someone its to have them do a specific job. I'm not giving them free rein to assault, cuss at, and threaten my customers with arrest by calling the cops. What if this clerk had done that to the owners family?

**^^This is epic^^**
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 04:56 PM
Lol I just occurred to me... Imagine the shirt changed. Imagine the guy was assaulted and threatened with arrest for wearing a Ron Paul shirt. :tears:

Schifference
12-29-2018, 05:00 PM
Lol I just occurred to me... Imagine the shirt changed. Imagine the guy was assaulted and threatened with arrest for wearing a Ron Paul shirt. :tears:

No they just break Rand's ribs and nearly kill him.

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 05:06 PM
The video is hilarious and worth a second watch.
What in the world is that clerk so upset about?

William Tell
12-29-2018, 05:07 PM
No they just break Rand's ribs and nearly kill him.

I'm talking about the reaction on the forums. Here we have the ultimate statist thug trying to use force on his political enemies and half this thread is a rabbit trail taunting @Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299) for not being libertarian enough.

CCTelander
12-29-2018, 05:08 PM
I'm really saddened to see that it is apparently this difficult for some in the so-called "liberty movement" to apply basic principle tona relatively simple situation. If the political wing of the movement were all we had, we'd be doomed.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 05:11 PM
I'm talking about the reaction on the forums. Here we have the ultimate statist thug trying to use force on his political enemies and half this thread is a rabbit trail taunting @Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299) for not being libertarian enough.
And misrepresenting my positions to do it.
Fortunately I have a thick skin.

Thanks for the help.
:)

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 05:12 PM
I'm really saddened to see that it is apparently this difficult for some in the so-called "liberty movement" to apply basic principle tona relatively simple situation. If the political wing of the movement were all we had, we'd be doomed.
Everyone here is applying basic principles, there is just a disagreement about the details of how they apply and to whom.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 05:17 PM
When did the vape shop refuse service to anyone? :confused:If I hire someone its to have them do a specific job. I'm not giving them free rein to assault, cuss at, and threaten my customers with arrest by calling the cops. What if this clerk had done that to the owners family?

Again. Starbucks, Denny’s, the vape shop, and Kim Davis were all employees who made decisions counter to their bosses. The employee paid the price he should have. Still does not mean they have to serve anyone who comes in the door. Only that if they make a decision counter to their employer, they have to pay the price. But that is beside the point of voluntary commerce.

Dr.3D
12-29-2018, 05:17 PM
It would have more fun if there had been a line of people wearing Trump shirts, coming in for the next few hours.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 05:18 PM
There you go again, trying to focus attention on the "reason" for that employee's decision... Forget about rights - those are secondary to you. Your understanding of liberty is completely situational and this highlights it. Hypocrisy at its finest, Boromir.




And there you have it, folks. SS Boromir takes a bow.


You might need to call it a night, Boromir. I don't agree with everything he says. But as far as this seemingly permanent Boromir label on Swordsmyth goes, I think it's worth pointing out that Boromir ultimately gave his life to protect the hobbits. Maybe it's better to have a Boromir fighting alongside than 10 hobbits cowering at home. At this point maybe he should just own it and the rest of you can try to pick out LOTR characters that are more pure, if mostly not as badass.

CaptUSA
12-29-2018, 05:19 PM
Everyone here is applying basic principles, there is just a disagreement about the details of how they apply and to whom.

Right. Some people’s principles are based on which team is involved. Those people will find any loophole to back their team.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 05:19 PM
I don't agree with everything he says. But as far as this seemingly permanent Boromir label on @Swordsmyth (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=65299) goes, I think it's worth pointing out that Boromir ultimately gave his life to protect the hobbits. Maybe it's better to have a Boromir fighting alongside than 10 hobbits cowering at home. At this point maybe he should just own it and the rest of you can try to pick out LOTR characters that are more pure, if mostly not as badass.

:)

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 05:22 PM
Right. Some people’s principles are based on which team is involved. Those people will find any loophole to back their team.
Your insistence on that explanation seems to reveal more about you than me, I already said I would take the same position if the politics were reversed and that Kim Davis should have followed the law or resigned.

Just how are my principles based on which team is involved?

William Tell
12-29-2018, 05:22 PM
Again. Starbucks, Denny’s, the vape shop, and Kim Davis were all employees who made decisions counter to their bosses. The employee paid the price he should have. Still does not mean they have to serve anyone who comes in the door. Only that if they make a decision counter to their employer, they have to pay the price. But that is beside the point of voluntary commerce. The clerk was the one who brought up government force. I am not aware of Starbucks and Denny's situations. Kim Davis was different since she was an elected official, she worked for the people of her county in Kentucky and swore to uphold the Kentucky Constitution.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 05:24 PM
Again. Starbucks, Denny’s, the vape shop, and Kim Davis were all employees who made decisions counter to their bosses. The employee paid the price he should have. Still does not mean they have to serve anyone who comes in the door. Only that if they make a decision counter to their employer, they have to pay the price. But that is beside the point of voluntary commerce.
The owner never delegated the employee the kind of absolute right that you imagine him to have and I would say that no matter which political side the employee was on.

Swordsmyth
12-29-2018, 05:26 PM
The clerk was the one who brought up government force. I am not aware of Starbucks and Denny's situations. Kim Davis was different since she was an elected official, she worked for the people of her county in Kentucky and swore to uphold the Kentucky Constitution.
That is the important question, what was the actual law in her case? If she believed the law to be that she must not do it then she was justified but if she believed that she had a personal right to not follow the law then she was wrong, she only had that right if she resigned.

RJB
12-29-2018, 05:27 PM
What in the world is that clerk so upset about?

Not sure what exactly set him off in this time, but Influenza flies off the handle pretty easily on a lot of threads.

William Tell
12-29-2018, 05:28 PM
That is the important question, what was the actual law in her case? If she believed the law to be that she must not do it then she was justified but if she believed that she had a personal right to not follow the law then she was wrong, she only had that right if she resigned.Yeah. That was hashed out here plenty back in the day. It was a way different situation than this.

H_H
12-29-2018, 06:23 PM
All of that is true. None of it changes the fact that there are people in this thread arguing that Team Red should have rights that Team Blue doesn't have.

Actually (and without reading the whole thread), I am pretty sure no one has argued that in this thread yet, which would make your statement not true and not a fact. However, I like you and your writing, Tulsa, and so I am going to go ahead and make your statement true by making an argument for why Team Red should have rights that Team Blue doesn't have. Isn't that awesome of me? (it is).

Assertion #1: Libertarianism is a right-wing ideology. Clearly it is. It's the only categorization that makes sense of reality. Libertarianism seeks to restore such things as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Essentially everything it pushes for is all about harking back to and re-enshrining the traditional Rights of Englishmen which we traditionally enjoyed. Essentially everything that has been done for the past one hundred to four hundred years by the nation-state, every trend and policy direction, every piece of legislation, every item on the budget, is something that libertarians oppose. They oppose the items with various degrees of vociferousness, depending on how radical their libertarianism is, but overall 90+% of the time a libertarian, even a milquetoast one, will be far more opposed to a far greater quantity of government programs than a run-of-the-mill conservative, even an enthusiastic and partisan ("extreme") one. So how is that not right-wing? Talk about standing athwart the government tank convoy, yelling "Stop"! That's us. Now we're not run of the mill, it's true. We're an odd sort of duck. A platypus is an odd sort of mammal. But it's a mammal. Even when libertarians temporarily share issue stands with the left (and only temporarily, it is now all-too-clear, as "liberals" this coming year will abandon en masse all pretense of support for free speech or opposition to war, and already have flipped on a host of other freedom issues), we have the stands for entirely different reasons -- right-wing reasons. For example, you and I want to legalize drugs because "life, liberty, property; absolute right of unrestrained commerce; self-ownership; individual sovereignty; etc." None of those arguments are even remotely similar to any argument leftists use or even can understand, in support of the very same issue!

Assertion #2: Assertion #1 matters. Taxonomy and classification are two of the finest achievements of the human mind (big shout out to Aristotle!) and are fundamental to everything, making thought itself possible. Ya can't find your pencil on a clutter-piled desk. Robert Heinlein wrote "Dad claims that library science is the foundation of all sciences just as math is the key--and that we will survive or founder depending on how well the librarians do their jobs." (HSSWT, p. 186) This stuff matters. If words are a confusion, thought will be a confusion. Knowing what libertarianism is and what it's aiming at and how it fits into the larger political universe -- this is all foundational. You can't get where you're going if you don't know where you're going, Alice (Carrol). Become who you are by learning who you are (Pindar).

Assertion #3: If we are fundamentally in the right-wing galaxy -- and we are -- then the entire right wing is, broadly-speaking, our allies. Our brothers. Doesn't mean we gotta love everyone from Paul Ryan to George Bush, or indeed anyone. I hate them all. A lot. But I hate them for fundamentally right-wing reasons. ;) We hate them because they're not really right-wing, or at least not enough so for us. They aren't actually helping in the right-wing project which is to roll back government. Instead they serve as fake, pathetic "opposition."

Assertion #4: Their fakeness and patheticness and loserness is the most reprehensible quality of right wing politicians from a libertarian perspective. We'd be more or less OK with them -- nay, downright giddy -- if they actually shrunk the government in any way. Like, say, Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding. We're very forgiving of faults. Just try to win! Instead they lose, lose, lose, lose, lose.

Assertion #5: In war, you do whatever you need to to win. Winning means destroying the enemy. It means annihilating them. War is not about principles. It is about body counts. I would like the right wing to win. I would like my country back. I would like some hope for some marginally decent place to live for my great-grandchildren. That's a hope I do not now enjoy, and which no rational person enjoys, nor will ever enjoy, unless something radically and severely changes. If achieving victory meant, say, taxing all leftists at 75% and taxing all conservatives at 0%: Do it. I'd push the button. I don't care. Equality is for microbes. If it's between "but, but: Hypocrisy! Unequal treatment," and the death and destruction of America? I'll choose life.

specsaregood
12-29-2018, 07:39 PM
If that's your wish, you should be able to under real freedom- but I wouldn't advise it.

What a cowardly way of avoiding answering the question. You couldn't answer truthfully that, "No you can't do that legally in America"; because admitting this fact blows away the position of those trying to defend the dumbass clerk.

Ender
12-29-2018, 07:51 PM
What a cowardly way of avoiding answering the question. You couldn't answer truthfully that, "No you can't do that legally in America"; because admitting this fact blows away the position of those trying to defend the dumbass clerk.

WTF? Any idiot already knows that you can't do that legally in America. I said under REAL freedom.

And I'm not defending the dumbass clerk.

Ender
12-29-2018, 07:53 PM
Why would you not advise it?

Well, a) it's illegal, and b) you'd end up in the can.

brushfire
12-29-2018, 10:35 PM
Anyone else surprised how this child did not sway the opinion of the maga-man? His political arguments were so very persuasive too. I mean, racism..?

Maga should have grabbed him by the pu$$y, then took his vape fluid.

ThePaleoLibertarian
12-29-2018, 11:11 PM
This is exceedingly simple:

-The property owner has (or should have) the ability to throw anyone off of his property.
-An employee does not have this ability unless he is specifically told by the property owner that he can exercise that kind of discretion. Considering his firing, it's pretty clear he doesn't.

The idea that the employee has every ability the property owner does at their discretion if the owner isn't there is ridiculous. It takes about one second of brain power to think up plenty of things that an employee has no right to do, that an owner does.

ProBlue33
12-30-2018, 02:19 AM
From my understanding only the actual owner should have the property rights to refuse service as it effects his personal business and happiness.
For example, if you have a new customer at a restaurant that is making all his other regular customers very uncomfortable, they all complain and threaten to leave directly to the owner, then to protect his business he is within his rights to ask that person to leave.

That is very different from a front line employee that refuses to serve a customer because of a piece of clothing that represents something he despises, he can't make that call, if he thinks he can, he shouldn't be serving the general public. I have worked retail for many years at many different companies, this guy would be instantly fired at every one of them.

But when the guy says "do my bidding" that is pushing it, if a customer said that to me, I would push back with something calm and verbal to let them know that isn't cool to say to retail people, not just take it, it's very rude and everyone of my bosses I have every had would have backed me.

The clerk should of sold it to him without resorting to an epic meltdown, I felt sorry for the other customer that witnessed this.

DamianTV
12-30-2018, 05:31 AM
Its sad this type of behavior is normalized. "Youre wearing a Trump shirt so Im gonna have you thrown out of my store and arrested for being a racist!" That is NOT how NORMAL people behave.

Schifference
12-31-2018, 07:43 AM
WTF? Any idiot already knows that you can't do that legally in America. I said under REAL freedom.

And I'm not defending the dumbass clerk.

So what we are discussing is an illusion of freedom.