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

[Shadow Wolf]

If someone is a conservative and discusses their personal politics with a friend over breakfast at a restaurant, should they be kicked out?

If they're being disruptive and bothering others with degrading language and excessive volume, yes. That is a right of the business owner in America. No one should have to suffer blatant hatred and rudeness, especially if it doing so may harm business.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I want you to define exactly what makes New York and California the "most oppressive states".

Nitpicking rules that interfere with people's personal lives.
Let's look at a few from California:
According to Chapter 6 of the San Francisco Housing Code, “Private and public storage garages in apartment houses and hotels shall be used only for storage of automobiles.” Failing to comply with the law can lead to fines of up to $500. [Added by Ord. 399-89, App. 11/6/89; amended by Ord. 161-92, App. 6/4/92; Ord….

It's literally illegal to store your own stuff in your own garage. You really could not make this up.

It's illegal to set of mouse trap in California without a hunting license.

They have a slew of stupid gun laws that do nothing to stop shootings.

But hey, if you are here illegally, because you are Mexican cartel and sneak into California cities they will not report you, so it's all good.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Name some.

Possession of any handgun.

Driving a SUV.

Having private property.

Eating meat.

Being allowed to gather for worship during the so-called NeverEnding pandemic.

Even having a garden.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If they're being disruptive and bothering others with degrading language and excessive volume, yes. That is a right of the business owner in America. No one should have to suffer blatant hatred and rudeness, especially if it doing so may harm business.

I elaborated on this in posts #5, #22, and #29, but to reiterate, I see the loudness as a separate issue from the overarching subject of denying service based on personal politics. A vulgar and loud person should be kicked out regardless of their politics, but if someone got kicked out in another situation solely based on their politics, would that be a desirable or healthy decision?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Being allowed to gather for worship during the so-called NeverEnding pandemic.

Minimizing a pandemic that killed several million people globally and caused many others to suffer long-term side effects doesn't exactly make a good case that conservative politics should be tolerated. You could have used better examples.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I elaborated on this in posts #5, #22, and #29, but to reiterate, I see the loudness as a separate issue from the overarching subject of denying service based on personal politics. A vulgar and loud person should be kicked out regardless of their politics, but if someone got kicked out in another situation solely based on their politics, would that be a desirable or healthy decision?

In that case it's not good. But it is what Conservatives want, even though they seem to think the rules of social decency and terms they agreed to don't apply to them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Minimizing a pandemic that killed several million people globally and caused many others to suffer long-term side effects doesn't exactly make a good case that conservative politics should be tolerated. You could have used better examples.

Life goes on... You can't just shut down churches indefinitely. People have the right to take their own risk, if they so choose.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Nitpicking rules that interfere with people's personal lives.

Gee, like what you're allowed to identify as, how you're able to dress, what you're able to believe in, who you're able to love, etc?

Let's look at a few from California:

Okay, let's see them.

According to Chapter 6 of the San Francisco Housing Code, “Private and public storage garages in apartment houses and hotels shall be used only for storage of automobiles.” Failing to comply with the law can lead to fines of up to $500. [Added by Ord. 399-89, App. 11/6/89; amended by Ord. 161-92, App. 6/4/92; Ord….

It's literally illegal to store your own stuff in your own garage. You really could not make this up.

What you're failing to convey is that the ordinance is for Apartments and Hotels. Not houses. But nice try at scare-tacticing that the Libs are "coming for your garage!" Also, what you fail to bring forward:

EXCEPTION:
In buildings defined as a dwelling or apartment house in this Code, or buildings defined as a residential hotel in the Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Chapter 41 of the San Francisco Administrative Code), garages may also be used for the storage of bicycles, scooters, and other personal items of the tenants, provided that this storage satisfies the automatic sprinkler system requirements set forth in Section 904 of this Code.

It's illegal to set of mouse trap in California without a hunting license.

Citation needed.

They have a slew of stupid gun laws that do nothing to stop shootings.

Sounds like an America problem in general. Still, citation needed.

But hey, if you are here illegally, because you are Mexican cartel and sneak into California cities they will not report you, so it's all good.

Citation needed.

Possession of any handgun.

Citation needed.

Driving a SUV.

Citation needed. Are you noticing a trend here?

Having private property.

Citation needed.

Eating meat.

As I eat a steak, Citation needed.

Being allowed to gather for worship during the so-called NeverEnding pandemic.

As DebateSlayer noted, what a terrible example. Not only was this a global advisement (not a forbiddance), it advised in-person gatherings be limited (generally to 10 people) and that safety measures be observed. Yet still, several churches the world over stupidly ignored such guidance, putting their communities in harm and resulting in the deaths of millions.

Even having a garden.

And yet again... citation needed.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Someone should start a new business: a cafe or restaurant that operates also as a forum. You are to take a seat next to someone with differing beliefs, enjoy your coffee, and civilly discuss or debate these beliefs. There will be waiters, and moderators as floor staff.

 

[fantome profane]

Someone should start a new business: a cafe or restaurant that operates also as a forum. You are to take a seat next to someone with differing beliefs, enjoy your coffee, and civilly discuss or debate these beliefs. There will be waiters, and moderators as floor staff.

Of course there would still need to be rules like there are in any reasonable forum.

I think it might be really interesting to go into such a cafe with rules somewhat similar to RF.

But there is no way I would go into “the 8chan cafe.”

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I elaborated on this in posts #5, #22, and #29, but to reiterate, I see the loudness as a separate issue from the overarching subject of denying service based on personal politics. A vulgar and loud person should be kicked out regardless of their politics, but if someone got kicked out in another situation solely based on their politics, would that be a desirable or healthy decision?

I see that you've seemed to repeatedly try to make a point here to us americans, which I think is important, but which might not have received a lot of critical thought from us. The way I might explain the difference you're pointing out, is one between levels of discipline, more than it is about differing beliefs. To put it this way, I think I will respect a disciplined person, with differing beliefs to me, more than I will ever respect a vulgar person, who might share my exact beliefs. Though seeing that I want to keep 'the merit of discipline' as a strong belief of mine, it is unlikely that a vulgar person would share it

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, social disruption in general is an entire topic on its own. "Blasphemy" is one of the most socially disruptive behaviors possible, but I suspect you and I agree that it should not be banned.

I think the dynamics and rules simply change based on the venue (e.g., a restaurant versus a seminar or public speech). Inside a restaurant, social disruption is a no-no, in my opinion.

It gets very difficult to answer such questions. I would say that any church, mosque, temple, synagogue, etc. should be perfectly correct in ejecting someone blaspheming in their space.

Further, I talk about religion only with those people who are willing to discuss it with me. I do not inflict my views on people who have given me no indication that they are interested in hearing about them. I would hope that we would all do that, simply out of respect for each other.

But at the end of the day, I could not deny a Muslim's right to say they do not believe that Jesus is God, nor would I deny any non-Muslim the right to draw pictures of Muhammad. That goes under the heading of freedom of expression.

We do not have laws against being rude or unfeeling. And if our feelings are hurt, well, shouldn't we be strong enough to cope with that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Hard to gauge from this far, but it _is_ about time to call on Fox News speakers for their irresponsibility.

We may laugh at them or we may tell them to shut up and grow up already. We ought not to condone their cowardly victimization and crude manipulation, even by omission.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are Conservatives discriminable?

Political orientation isn't a protected group.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the exact definition of juridical doublestandardism.

Meh...I'll bet every country in the world
uses a double standard of some kind.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I did say I "might" think differently. I'm a liberal, and I believe in the right to freedom of expression. I do not believe in the right to be disruptive, however, especially when it might disrupt my other customers -- and that is a reason to consider not serving.

As it happens, my partner and I have been in restaurant situations where people have called us g'dam **** etc. We have not complained, nor asked them to be removed. Although I will tell you -- it is hurtful, even though we're both strong enough to deal with it.

Some comments about inter-racial relationships
have been interesting too. More strange to us
than hurtful, fortunately.

Hey, is this legal in Canuckistan?
Canada's National Arts Centre sparks outrage with black-only events

 

[Heyo]

Possession of any handgun.

Driving a SUV.

Having private property.

Eating meat.

Being allowed to gather for worship during the so-called NeverEnding pandemic.

Even having a garden.

Yep. And the conservatives regressives have their own set of people or rights they don't like. Right to bodily autonomy and free speech come to mind.
Almost all politicians score "authoritarian" in a political compass test. They only differ in what they want to legislate.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is the exact definition of juridical doublestandardism.

No, Estro.

It is the definition of drawing lines and say that enough is enough already.

There are limits imposed by basic decency. And they change along time; they better change if we have any hopes of eventually developing a better society.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, Estro.

It is the definition of drawing lines and say that enough is enough already.

There are limits imposed by basic decency. And they change along time; they better change if we have any hopes of eventually developing a better society.

I give you an example.
A judge fines a man for parking in a forbidden, governmental area.

A hour later a sexy and attractive woman has a hearing with the same judge, same law-breaking. The judge decides to condone her behavior because he is a male watching a beautiful woman.

That's doublestandardism. In my country it is not tolerated and that judge will be sanctioned. And punished.

In the US, it is normal because doublestandardism is normal.

 

[LuisDantas]

I give you an example.
A judge fines a man for parking in a forbidden, governmental area.

A hour later a sexy and attractive woman has a hearing with the same judge, same law-breaking. The judge decides to condone her behavior because he is a male watching a beautiful woman.

That's doublestandardism. In my country it is not tolerated and that judge will be sanctioned. And punished.

In the US, it is normal because doublestandardism is normal.

.. have you even read what I wrote?