(Opinion) Another conservative faces public shunning. Liberals grow bolder with their intolerance.

[Stevicus]

Another conservative faces public shunning. Liberals grow bolder with their intolerance. (msn.com)

This was an opinion piece from USA Today.

Last weekend, Fox News analyst Gianno Caldwell was trying to enjoy breakfast with friends in Miami when he made the unforgivable error of discussing his political beliefs.

That caught the attention of one of the cafe’s owners, who informed the conservative commentator that his politics weren’t palatable in the restaurant and told the group that “the language they were using was unwelcome in our space.”

Caldwell, who is Black, took to social media to vent about the incident, and he talked about it on “Fox & Friends Weekend” the next day.

“No matter your politics you should not be discriminated against,” he said on Twitter. “I was discriminated against for being a conservative and told to leave a restaurant in North Miami because my politics didn’t ‘align’ with the owner. This is NOT okay.”

On the Fox News segment, Caldwell said the incident was a “grave injustice” and reminiscent of the Jim Crow South.

"There's a target on the backs of people who happen to be Black, who happen to be conservative," he said.

If this isn’t discrimination, then what is?

Diversity of views is important, too
Unfortunately, what happened to Caldwell isn’t an isolated incident. Last month, a restaurant in Richmond, Virginia, canceled a reservation with the Family Foundation about an hour before its scheduled dessert reception because employees had looked up the nonprofit and didn’t feel comfortable serving them because of their biblical beliefs on marriage and abortion.

The employees opted to preemptively ban the group from the restaurant.

Similarly, during Donald Trump’s presidency, members of his administration – often women – faced public shunning simply for their association with the president.

All this is happening against a backdrop of progressives pushing for tolerance and measures to ban discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Politically correct – or else
The fight isn’t isolated to businesses. For example, there is increasing pressure on K-12 schools and libraries to invite drag queens to do shows or readings. If parents, school board members or outside observers show any uneasiness, they are slapped with labels of hate and intolerance simply for questioning whether such performances are appropriate for children.

Too often, viewpoint diversity is overlooked, and some elements of our society have deemed politically correct ideology as the only acceptable worldview.

Restaurant owners have a right to ask customers to leave if they are truly causing a scene or making other patrons feel threatened. This should be reserved for genuinely bad behavior, however.

Simply expressing conservative views among friends shouldn’t be grounds for such blatant discrimination.

This was an interesting piece. I don't agree with all of it, although the point has been raised that there is a certain palpable degree of intolerance among liberals on certain issues.

There also seems to be a "boy who cried wolf" quality about this, where every little thing, every conceivable utterance which might be questionable, is attacked and derided as if it was the worst thing in the world. The problem with such a tactic is that, while it may work for a little while to keep people in line, sooner or later, the "worst thing in the world" will start to look "not quite so bad" in many people's eyes.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Another conservative faces public shunning. Liberals grow bolder with their intolerance. (msn.com)

This was an opinion piece from USA Today.













This was an interesting piece. I don't agree with all of it, although the point has been raised that there is a certain palpable degree of intolerance among liberals on certain issues.

There also seems to be a "boy who cried wolf" quality about this, where every little thing, every conceivable utterance which might be questionable, is attacked and derided as if it was the worst thing in the world. The problem with such a tactic is that, while it may work for a little while to keep people in line, sooner or later, the "worst thing in the world" will start to look "not quite so bad" in many people's eyes.

This is where the country is at, God help us!
You can be anything but conservative and be accepted. Conservatives are the one group that it's ok to hate.

 

[Harel13]

There also seems to be a "boy who cried wolf" quality about this, where every little thing, every conceivable utterance which might be questionable, is attacked and derided as if it was the worst thing in the world. The problem with such a tactic is that, while it may work for a little while to keep people in line, sooner or later, the "worst thing in the world" will start to look "not quite so bad" in many people's eyes.

Moreover, eventually the cancelers will be canceled themselves.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I live in a country where someone with my beliefs could be kicked out of a restaurant or a job—and worse—for expressing beliefs that offend the majority. I don't think liberals who do this to individual conservatives who hold little or no power realize what kind of disastrous rabbit hole they are flirting with.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This seems to make the situation with the Fox News analyst kinda blurry:

For its part, the cafe said via its Instagram account, "a group of people came in, ordered their food, sat in the inside corner, and talked quite loudly for over an hour. A lot of what they were discussing was very troubling, specifically when talking about women in degrading ways, as well as using eugenic arguments around their thoughts on Roe v. Wade... Once it was clear that they were finished with their meal, we told them that our views don't align and that the language they were using was unwelcome in our space."

Fox News' Gianno Caldwell's Paradis Books & Bread meal sparks debate

I don't know whether it's a legal right in the US to loudly discuss personal politics at a restaurant or loudly use terms that may disrupt the atmosphere due to how they're perceived by other customers. Perhaps they could have asked him not to be so loud if he really was being so, but I can't speak on the legal ramifications of this due to my unfamiliarity with American law in that regard.

 

[Ella S.]

Conservativism is basically a hate group at this point. I don't think anyone should make the mistake of tolerating bigotry.

I think it's ridiculous that any time someone pushes back against the status quo they're told, "Woah, careful! You're being dangerous. People might start doubling-down on the hatred they already have!" Yeah, okay, as if they aren't already acting on that hatred. That was the problem to begin with.

"Viewpoint diversity" is nonsense. You can control your viewpoint so you're less of a *********. You cannot control your race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Private business owners have the right to kick disruptive trolls off their property.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Conservativism is basically a hate group at this point. I don't think anyone should make the mistake of tolerating bigotry.

I think it's ridiculous that any time someone pushes back against the status quo they're told, "Woah, careful! You're being dangerous. People might start doubling-down on the hatred they already have!" Yeah, okay, as if they aren't already acting on that hatred. That was the problem to begin with.

"Viewpoint diversity" is nonsense. You can control your viewpoint so you're less of a *********. You cannot control your race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Private business owners have the right to kick disruptive trolls off their property.

Taking this to its logical end, businesses would only serve those with politics they don't consider harmful or hateful. As I said in an earlier post, I would be kicked out of most places where I live based on that standard. It's one of the reasons I don't feel safe in my own society.

If someone is a conservative and discusses their personal politics with a friend over breakfast at a restaurant, should they be kicked out? I think nobody, conservative or otherwise, should be loud in a public place, especially not while discussing a touchy subject like politics. But other than that, why should they be denied service?

 

[Ella S.]

Taking this to its logical end, businesses would only serve those with politics they don't consider harmful or hateful. As I said in an earlier post, I would be kicked out of most places where I live based on that standard. It's one of the reasons I don't feel safe in my own society.

Taken to its logical end, society stops tolerating hate. If this is something that you're afraid of, I have no sympathy for you.

If someone is a conservative and discusses their personal politics with a friend over breakfast at a restaurant, should they be kicked out? I think nobody, conservative or otherwise, should be loud in a public place, especially not while discussing a touchy subject like politics. But other than that, why should they be denied service?

If someone is being loudly misogynistic, yeah, kick them out. Nobody should have to subject themselves to that when they're trying to eat. I think it's telling that you're quicker to defend the right of bigots to harass people than the right of everyone else to not be harassed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is where the country is at, God help us!
You can be anything but conservative and be accepted. Conservatives are the one group that it's ok to hate.

It seems to me that there's considerable hatred in some regions toward pro-choice people, LGBT rights activists, socialists, and communists, among others. It's far from just one group that is okay to hate.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't know whether it's a legal right in the US to loudly discuss personal politics at a restaurant or loudly use terms that may disrupt the atmosphere due to how they're perceived by other customers. Perhaps they could have asked him not to be so loud if he really was being so, but I can't speak on the legal ramifications of this due to my unfamiliarity with American law in that regard.

Thanks for the other side; I was wondering just what was said. Unapologetically, these days if a conservative gets kicked out of a private establishment, whining and boo-hooing about how they were just innocently talking about their beliefs, that's sus AF.

Imagine that, private owners don't like sexist, bigoted bull**** in their space and refuse service of which they have the legal right to do. These conservatives will trip over themselves to defend a baker that doesn't want to bake for a gay wedding, or even worse a county clerk that doesn't want to do her job because Jesus told her not to, but the second it applies to them on gush the waterworks. I have zero sympathy for Caldwell; maybe he shouldn't be a bigoted piece of offal.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Taken to its logical end, society stops tolerating hate. If this is something that you're afraid of, I have no sympathy for you.

See, the situation is reversed for me: I'm a progressive living in a highly conservative society, so I would be in that guy's place if restaurant staff heard me discuss my politics. I have to stay silent or face discrimination. While I can see this being necessary against, say, neo-Nazis, extending it to apply to all conservatives would be a can of worms.

Society has to tolerate that there will always be people who hold beliefs they may find hateful, and I say this as someone whose safety is threatened by hateful beliefs. Human nature will never be perfect; if we can't tolerate the flaws of human nature to an extent, we will just create an illusion for ourselves that we're being "perfectly loving" while not being so.

I'm not afraid of society not tolerating hate (and I support hate speech laws, which are something a lot of people find too restrictive); I'm afraid of the notion that we can be perfect or expect others to be.

If someone is being loudly misogynistic, yeah, kick them out. Nobody should have to subject themselves to that when they're trying to eat. I think it's telling that you're quicker to defend the right of bigots to harass people than the right of everyone else to not be harassed.

You're assuming too much about my position. I addressed the loud misogyny separately in post #5. My other point is about the broader issue of whether restaurants and other public outlets should deny service based on personal politics.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is where the country is at, God help us!
You can be anything but conservative and be accepted. Conservatives are the one group that it's ok to hate.

It depends upon who's doing the hating.
Everyone can be hated by some group.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Conservativism is basically a hate group at this point. I don't think anyone should make the mistake of tolerating bigotry.

I think it's ridiculous that any time someone pushes back against the status quo they're told, "Woah, careful! You're being dangerous. People might start doubling-down on the hatred they already have!" Yeah, okay, as if they aren't already acting on that hatred. That was the problem to begin with.

"Viewpoint diversity" is nonsense. You can control your viewpoint so you're less of a *********. You cannot control your race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Private business owners have the right to kick disruptive trolls off their property.

I think it's when people denigrate folks for an innate quality that people get their back up. Social issues are the no-nos right now. If someone was talking about being less wasteful in government, most people wouldn't bat an eye.

 

[Sand Dancer]

See, the situation is reversed for me: I'm a progressive living in a highly conservative society, so I would be in that guy's place if restaurant staff heard me discuss my politics. I have to stay silent or face discrimination. While I can see this being necessary against, say, neo-Nazis, extending it to apply to all conservatives would be a can of worms.

Society has to tolerate that there will always be people who hold beliefs they may find hateful, and I say this as someone whose safety is threatened by hateful beliefs. Human nature will never be perfect; if we can't tolerate the flaws of human nature to an extent, we will just create an illusion for ourselves that we're being "perfectly loving" while not being so.

I'm not afraid of society not tolerating hate (and I support hate speech laws, which are something a lot of people find too restrictive); I'm afraid of the notion that we can be perfect or expect others to be.



You're assuming too much about my position. I addressed the loud misogyny separately in post #5. My other point is about the broader issue of whether restaurants and other public outlets should deny service based on personal politics.

Yep. It generally goes both ways. The extremists on both sides don't realize they have similar views.

 

[Stevicus]

Conservativism is basically a hate group at this point. I don't think anyone should make the mistake of tolerating bigotry.

I think it's ridiculous that any time someone pushes back against the status quo they're told, "Woah, careful! You're being dangerous. People might start doubling-down on the hatred they already have!" Yeah, okay, as if they aren't already acting on that hatred. That was the problem to begin with.

"Viewpoint diversity" is nonsense. You can control your viewpoint so you're less of a *********. You cannot control your race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Private business owners have the right to kick disruptive trolls off their property.

I don't question the private business owner's legal right to refuse service to anyone. That's not really the issue, as I see it. But the question remains, is it an effective strategy? Is it a practical strategy?

If we're talking about blatant, unequivocal, outright hatred involving the use of epithets, advocating violence, and/or clearly unconstitutional policies, then I could see it. But in many cases, it's not quite so obvious, or it might appear to be more subtle or spoken in more moderate, less extreme terms. It might involve the use of what some people call "dog whistles" or "code words," but on its face, it may not appear to be obvious or blatant, and that's where it gets into a gray area. That's where it's more of a judgment call, and if there's any room for doubt, then many people might agree that it's better to err on the side of free speech.

The thing is, the hate speech is always going to get out anyway. There's no way to truly stop it, if there are people willing to listen to it. The key thing is not to stop it, but to reduce people's willingness to listen to it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thanks for the other side; I was wondering just what was said. Unapologetically, these days if a conservative gets kicked out of a private establishment, whining and boo-hooing about how they were just innocently talking about their beliefs, that's sus AF.

Imagine that, private owners don't like sexist, bigoted bull**** in their space and refuse service of which they have the legal right to do. These conservatives will trip over themselves to defend a baker that doesn't want to bake for a gay wedding, or even worse a county clerk that doesn't want to do her job because Jesus told her not to, but the second it applies to them on gush the waterworks. I have zero sympathy for Caldwell; maybe he shouldn't be a bigoted piece of offal.

Is the loudness the issue or the expression of specific views?

Let's say he hadn't been loud in that situation, but the restaurant staff somehow still knew about his beliefs. Should he have been kicked out based on his politics?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yep. It generally goes both ways. The extremists on both sides don't realize they have similar views.

It's not about that, though. I could find someone's views hateful and extreme but render service to them as long as they respected the etiquette of the establishment or space they were in, and I would expect them to reciprocate despite loathing my own views.

The alternatives I have seen suggested so far sound to me like discrimination based on beliefs or at least too impractical to work out well. I don't expect everyone else to share my left-wing/progressive worldview, so should I kick everyone with different beliefs out of my restaurant if I owned one whether or not they respected the etiquette of the place?

 

[Sand Dancer]

It's not about that, though. I could find someone's views hateful and extreme but render service to them as long as they respected the etiquette of the establishment or space they were in, and I would expect them to reciprocate despite loathing my own views.

The alternatives I have seen suggested so far sound to me like discrimination based on beliefs. How would that work out in practice? I don't expect everyone else to share my left-wing/progressive worldview, so should I kick everyone with different beliefs out of my restaurant if I owned one whether or not they respected the etiquette of the place?

I agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another conservative faces public shunning. Liberals grow bolder with their intolerance. (msn.com)

Given that blacks aren't supposed to be conservative, it's
possible that this combination made him more noticeable.
His being trespassed from the eatery could very well be
illegal racial discrimination in a public accommodation.
A court hearing of such a suit would be interesting.

Having been a residential landlord for many years, I'm
perhaps more aware of such risks than a restauranteur.
Tread carefully when illegal discrimination is possible.

 

[Stevicus]

See, the situation is reversed for me: I'm a progressive living in a highly conservative society, so I would be in that guy's place if restaurant staff heard me discuss my politics. I have to stay silent or face discrimination. While I can see this being necessary against, say, neo-Nazis, extending it to apply to all conservatives would be a can of worms.

Society has to tolerate that there will always be people who hold beliefs they may find hateful, and I say this as someone whose safety is threatened by hateful beliefs. Human nature will never be perfect; if we can't tolerate the flaws of human nature to an extent, we will just create an illusion for ourselves that we're being "perfectly loving" while not being so.

I'm not afraid of society not tolerating hate (and I support hate speech laws, which are something a lot of people find too restrictive); I'm afraid of the notion that we can be perfect or expect others to be.



You're assuming too much about my position. I addressed the loud misogyny separately in post #5. My other point is about the broader issue of whether restaurants and other public outlets should deny service based on personal politics.

I've been in similar situations where I've felt as if I have to keep conversations low and avoid certain topics when in restaurants or bars (or other public places). Not so much because I was worried about being kicked out by the owner, but there's always a possibility of being heard by other patrons.