*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

It's one thing when children are separated from their parents, but when Sarah Huckasand is separated from her dinner, you know things have gone too far.

I support the restaurant's ability to do so.

[Jack Sawyer]

I support the restaurant's ability to do so.

I don't, as it's quite the slippery slope.

We already saw where this slippery slope heads at full bore in the 40's/50's/60's, and history has a penchant to repeat itself. Maybe not the same protagonists, but definitely the same stories

[wufwugy]

I don't, as it's quite the slippery slope.

We already saw where this slippery slope heads at full bore in the 40's/50's/60's, and history has a penchant to repeat itself. Maybe not the same protagonists, but definitely the same stories

Who do you think should decide what is right and wrong?

[Poopadoop]

I don't, as it's quite the slippery slope.

We already saw where this slippery slope heads at full bore in the 40's/50's/60's, and history has a penchant to repeat itself. Maybe not the same protagonists, but definitely the same stories

I support their 'right' to do so, whatever that means. A business can decide who to serve and who not to.

I agree there's historical precedent for this going in bad directions; I just don't think this particular case is anywhere near the proverbial slippery slope leading going back to the civil rights abuses of the Jim Crow days.

Mostly I object to what they did because it's dumb. The woman is not a pedophile or murderer, she's just a paid liar. Let her stuff her fat face if she wants.

The worst part to me is this kind of thing just feeds the mutual outrage machine on both sides that helps make the country so divided. "Zomg they want to let MS-13 kill our kids but they won't serve our beloved press secretary dinner." vs. "Zomg she lies about whose idea it was to separate kids from families at the border, don't you dare serve her a cheeseburger." It's fucking exhausting.

[Poopadoop]

The ironic thing is there's a lot bigger scumbags than SHS that get served in restaurants daily because no-one recognizes them.

[wufwugy]

Mostly I object to what they did because it's dumb. The woman is not a pedophile or murderer, she's just a paid liar. Let her stuff her fat face if she wants.

It is pretty dumb isn't it.

The worst part to me is this kind of thing just feeds the mutual outrage machine on both sides that helps make the country so divided. "Zomg they want to let MS-13 kill our kids but they won't serve our beloved press secretary dinner." vs. "Zomg she lies about whose idea it was to separate kids from families at the border, don't you dare serve her a cheeseburger." It's fucking exhausting.

Yep.

I agree there's historical precedent for this going in bad directions; I just don't think this particular case is anywhere near the proverbial slippery slope leading going back to the civil rights abuses of the Jim Crow days.

Jim Crow were laws. I definitely do not support laws that require discrimination.

[Savy]

A business can decide who to serve and who not to.

But they can't.

[Poopadoop]

But they can't.

But they can. They can pick any individual they want and say 'sorry you we're not doing business with you'. At least in the US.

Edit: I guess you missed the bit where the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the baker not to sell a wedding cake to the gay couple?

[wufwugy]

But they can. They can pick any individual they want and say 'sorry you we're not doing business with you'. At least in the US.

Edit: I guess you missed the bit where the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the baker not to sell a wedding cake to the gay couple?

They did? Fantastic.

Prohibition of activity is for when the government is doing it or when a person is initiating violence or fraud. Other than that, things are better when people are allowed to do things other people might not like.

[Savy]

But they can. They can pick any individual they want and say 'sorry you we're not doing business with you'. At least in the US.

Edit: I guess you missed the bit where the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the baker not to sell a wedding cake to the gay couple?

No I didn't miss the bit about not allowing blacks.

It's so important to let business die with their dead ideas that delaying it is really detrimental. I'm yet to see a case where forcing social change results in helpfulness for any group in society. People are people and all it takes is time but unfortunately there is no replacement for that time.

I'm such a big supporter of the biggest changes in rights for any type of people are just being yourself and existing. Because that's what matters just be a normal human and funnily enough that is the change needed.

[wufwugy]

No I didn't miss the bit about not allowing blacks.

It's so important to let business die with their dead ideas that delaying it is really detrimental. I'm yet to see a case where forcing social change results in helpfulness for any group in society. People are people and all it takes is time but unfortunately there is no replacement for that time.

I'm such a big supporter of the biggest changes in rights for any type of people are just being yourself and existing. Because that's what matters just be a normal human and funnily enough that is the change needed.

As the arguably second most influential economist of all time once described (Milton Friedman): Mandating a company's behavior takes away the most important related power that laborers and consumers have: punishing that company for behavior deemed immoral, and rewarding its competitors for being moral.

In aggregation, these effects are very swift. And we see it happen all the time.