• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
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?
Well, firstly from the testimony of the business owner they weren't kicked out, they were informed that they were not welcome back after they finished their meal. Which is, frankly, more decency than I would have afforded them.

But it could be both, or it could be just one or the other. Certainly bigotry is more pressing than noise, but it is entirely up to staff or management discretion. It's their legal right as a private business. The bigger issue here is the hypocrisy of it. Conservatives will literally go to war over a Conservative business owners right to refuse service, and the "snowflake liberals" can just deal with it because America and Freedom and Constitution. Liberals and Leftists also know which areas to avoid - we don't go to the skinhead bar across the tracks and then **** and moan about getting kicked out or physically assaulted for our politics.

But then a Conservative gets kicked out of a restaurant for being sexist or misogynistic or racist, and they scream and wail about their rights being violated. The same rights that they're a-okay with minorities getting violated, and the same business practices that they're perfectly fine with when it "sticks it to the libs".

I'd be very interested to see just what this Fox pundit said specifically, but regardless it is the owners right to refuse service to anyone. It could be for any number of reasons, even that they just plain don't like them; the business is not required to service anyone.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Yes, awareness of the situation is wise and a part of basic decency. If this guy was being loudly offensive like the restaurant's statement said, I can see a good case to kick him out.

On the other hand, kicking someone out solely based on politics even if they're not loud is a different story. I feel unsafe and avoid even quiet conversation about certain topics in public because the reception of my views where I live could compromise my physical safety.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, firstly from the testimony of the business owner they weren't kicked out, they were informed that they were not welcome back after they finished their meal. Which is, frankly, more decency than I would have afforded them.

But it could be both, or it could be just one or the other. Certainly bigotry is more pressing than noise, but it is entirely up to staff or management discretion. It's their legal right as a private business. The bigger issue here is the hypocrisy of it. Conservatives will literally go to war over a Conservative business owners right to refuse service, and the "snowflake liberals" can just deal with it because America and Freedom and Constitution. Liberals and Leftists also know which areas to avoid - we don't go to the skinhead bar across the tracks and then **** and moan about getting kicked out or physically assaulted for our politics.

But then a Conservative gets kicked out of a restaurant for being sexist or misogynistic or racist, and they scream and wail about their rights being violated. The same rights that they're a-okay with minorities getting violated, and the same business practices that they're perfectly fine with when it "sticks it to the libs".

I'd be very interested to see just what this Fox pundit said specifically, but regardless it is the owners right to refuse service to anyone. It could be for any number of reasons, even that they just plain don't like them; the business is not required to service anyone.

Thanks for the clarification about the legal aspect. I wasn't sure whether denying someone service based on their politics was illegal in the US.

I agree that a lot of conservatives are quite inconsistent and selective about such things, especially when it comes to the whole "cancel culture" thing. I don't think this should influence my own position on the overarching subject of discrimination based on beliefs, though. Someone could be hypocritical but still make a valid argument in some cases.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Isn't it just polite to eat and talk quietly and not make a scene?

Yep. I suspect this guy might have felt entitled to be loud and rudely ignored etiquette, but as I said, the loudness is a separate issue from the subject of denying service on the grounds of personal belief.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Its their restaurant. We aren't talking about a government ban on conservatives. Banning is speech.

I believe in limitations though. Was he discussing quietly, and was the restaurant owner prying into things that were none of their business? I don't know.

Will someone be banned from Walmart if one of their microphones picks up something bad about a candidate they like? That I would think of as invasion of privacy.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
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.
The problem I have with the article (and the topic) is that we are not told what "“the language they were using [that] was unwelcome in our space” actually was. Were they espousing conservative ideas like smaller government, or respect for traditions and not tearing down statues? Or were they discussing things like who should be barred from getting married, and who ought to be strung up as "woke?" Tell me something about that, and I'd be better able to answer.

In my view, any speech which does not threaten harm or hate to others ought to be tolerated by anyone. I'm basically liberal in my politics, but would never think to try to silence someone expressing a conservative economic viewpoint. However, I might think differently about discussing conservative "social values" in a public space that very likely has room for people who are being referred to. Gays and transexuals do eat in restaurants, after all.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The problem I have with the article (and the topic) is that we are not told what "“the language they were using [that] was unwelcome in our space” actually was. Were they espousing conservative ideas like smaller government, or respect for traditions and not tearing down statues? Or were they discussing things like who should be barred from getting married, and who ought to be strung up as "woke?" Tell me something about that, and I'd be better able to answer.

In my view, any speech which does not threaten harm or hate to others ought to be tolerated by anyone. I'm basically liberal in my politics, but would never think to try to silence someone expressing a conservative economic viewpoint. However, I might think differently about discussing conservative "social values" in a public space that very likely has room for people who are being referred to. Gays and transexuals do eat in restaurants, after all.
Should political speech be grounds for legally
trespassing someone, based upon perception
of a threat without an actual threat?
You might be surprised what beliefs could be
considered such a threat by various people.
You might be threatened by gay rights opposition.
I could claim a threat by opposition to capitalism.
What a can of worms, eh.

I've trespassed & evicted people for actual
threats, but never for expressing beliefs.
(Loudness hasn't ever been a problem.)
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
However, I might think differently about discussing conservative "social values" in a public space that very likely has room for people who are being referred to. Gays and transexuals do eat in restaurants, after all.

This is where the loudness comes in. I agree being loud while discussing such beliefs could be rude and disruptive possibly to the point of warranting being kicked out. However, say someone is not being loud enough for anyone but their own friend to hear them, and the restaurant staff catch a glimpse of the fact that they're conservative. That's where I think denying them service could start veering into problematic territory.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
You might be surprised what beliefs could be
considered such a threat by various people.

I have met many who consider atheism, support for LGBT rights, being pro-choice, and feminism to be such "threats," to name a few. This is exactly why I'm wary of the potential for such an approach to go horribly wrong.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have met many who consider atheism, support for LGBT rights, being pro-choice, and feminism to be such "threats," to name a few. This is exactly why I'm wary of the potential for such an approach to go horribly wrong.
We're agreeing?
hell-frozen.jpg
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Should political speech be grounds for legally
trespassing someone, based upon perception
of a threat without an actual threat?
You might be surprised what beliefs could be
considered such a threat by various people.
You might be threatened by gay rights opposition.
I could claim a threat by opposition to capitalism.
What a can of worms, eh.

I've trespassed & evicted people for actual
threats, but never for expressing beliefs.
(Loudness hasn't ever been a problem.)

The US laws favors discrimination.

Because in my country I can't do that. I am forced by the law to serve any paying customer.;)
 
Last edited:

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The liberal practice of foregoing discourse in favor of intolerance is a huge problem right now. Bring back old school liberals!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The US laws favors discrimination.
That's an inadequate description.
Laws favor some discrimination,
but oppose others.
I would like to move to the US and open a café so I can put a sign at the entrance: "No bankers allowed . Go somewhere else".
You'd have the right to do that.

However, it would be illegal to post...
NO DOGS OR ITALIANS
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
This is where the country is at, God help us!
You can be anything but conservative and be accepted.
Except be trans. Or a person wanting to take a course in African American studies. Or want reproductive rights. Or advocate for voting rights. Or drive an electric vehicle. Or understand climate change is real and want green energy. Or accept that vaccines work. Or be a liberal.

Conservatives are the one group that it's ok to hate.
Hmmm, could there be a reason?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Except be trans. Or a person wanting to take a course in African American studies. Or want reproductive rights. Or advocate for voting rights. Or drive an electric vehicle. Or understand climate change is real and want green energy. Or accept that vaccines work. Or be a liberal.


Hmmm, could there be a reason?
It's also wrong that a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
It's a vicious cycle of backlash.
Please....
 
Top