- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 37 year old man who hit on 16 year old at Starbucks banned
Posted on 1/3/17 at 8:57 pm to goatmilker
Posted on 1/3/17 at 8:57 pm to goatmilker
Self-glossing = party foul
Posted on 1/3/17 at 10:49 pm to Revelator
quote:
I believe in the freedom to serve who you want as a private business. I also like pointing out hypocrisy when it is shown.
When I was a kid in a small Texas town, I first began to notice a sign in a local cafe which read "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone". In that case, it was all about race. Should the owner be allowed to discriminate in this case?
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:52 am to Big12fan
Sure and then (because racism is wrong) fewer people will frequent his store. The opportunity for other businesses who don't share those prejudices will now have the opportunity to take the new consumers and grow. Freedom isn't all sunshine and rainbows, sometimes people will abuse it to do things that others deem "offensive" or is morally repugnant like racism. Freedom is the ability to choose, and some people choose wrong. Pointing a gun at the racist store owner and forcing him to sell is not justified just because society doesnt like his choice.
This post was edited on 1/4/17 at 1:54 am
Posted on 1/4/17 at 2:57 am to Revelator
Can he not just claim he is a transgender lesbian and he was asking her how she would like Starbucks to decorate their engagement muffin? Seems like that would tick enough boxes.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 5:15 am to Big12fan
quote:
Should the owner be allowed to discriminate in this case?
Yes. And if the community finds that business owners practices objectionable, he will lose business and then ultimately, go out of business. That's how the free market should work.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 5:26 am to Scoop
quote:
Creepy? Yes.
quote:
he did nothing legally wrong.
just like 'gay marriage'
Posted on 1/4/17 at 5:33 am to Dr RC
quote:
Yea, let's hold a rally for this guy.
I never advocated for the guy even once. If you read any of my post, I've consistently advocated for the right of a business to serve who they want.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:15 am to Revelator
quote:
Since when?!
Unless the "offended" is gay then all hell breaks loose
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:17 am to Wtodd
quote:
Unless the "offended" is gay then all hell breaks loose
The problem is that being gay has been defined as a protected class, which should have never transpired.
This post was edited on 1/4/17 at 6:19 am
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:32 am to Dr RC
quote:I think too many are getting distracted by the creepiness of this fricking weirdo.
The dude is obviously a creeper and I seriously doubt his side of the story where he acts completely innocent of being a pervy frick that was weirding out the staff.
The real story here is
quote:and the hypocrisy of when this is acknowledged, enforced, and believed in by certain segments of the population.
claiming businesses have a right to refuse service for any reason.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:40 am to htownjeep
quote:
and the hypocrisy of when this is acknowledged, enforced, and believed in by certain segments of the population.
Apparently, businesses only have the right to deny service when the reasoning behind it is politically correct.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:43 am to Revelator
quote:That is exactly my point. And the PC crowd wonders why everyone else is sick and tired of their bullshite...
Apparently, businesses only have the right to deny service when the reasoning behind it is politically correct.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:51 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
oh look Revelator with a 'us Christians are persecuted because we cant discriminate' post
Bake me a cake!
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:57 am to BestBanker
quote:
Bake me a cake!
Or else!
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:57 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Who cares? Why shouldn't Starbucks be allowed to discriminate against whoever they want?
Bake my cake!
(I think this is is the first time I've upvoted you, btw)
Posted on 1/5/17 at 2:58 pm to Revelator
quote:
Yes. And if the community finds that business owners practices objectionable, he will lose business and then ultimately, go out of business. That's how the free market should work.
That's not really a free market if the majority is only able to vote yes or no. Btw, that business lasted over 40 years until the owner died. I'm pretty sure that few, if anyone in that small town voted with their feet.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:15 pm to Revelator
Pick your battles.
Guy is a creep, gets called out for being a creep, actively promotes being a creep.
Businesses are allowed to protect their employees.
This does not equate to a bakery that bakes wedding cakes refusing service to people for being gay. Or a restaurant that refuses to serve people based on skin color.
Guy is a creep, gets called out for being a creep, actively promotes being a creep.
Businesses are allowed to protect their employees.
This does not equate to a bakery that bakes wedding cakes refusing service to people for being gay. Or a restaurant that refuses to serve people based on skin color.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:18 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
This does not equate to a bakery that bakes wedding cakes refusing service to people for being gay. Or a restaurant that refuses to serve people based on skin color.
That your spin on it. I'm not comfortable with the government telling private businesses who they have to do business with under any circumstances. I guess you are?
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:21 pm to Revelator
Any business should be able to discriminate for any reason.
That should be applied evenly, no matter how arbitrary the reason.
If that isn't the case 100% of the time, I oppose instances such as this.
That should be applied evenly, no matter how arbitrary the reason.
If that isn't the case 100% of the time, I oppose instances such as this.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News