(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:25 AM)shere khan Wrote:  I like it. Tell me you don't want my money. I will oblige you

I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

I have a plan. Before you leave a tip but after you've eaten dinner ask your waitress if they are a Trump supporter or a Democrat.

Tip accordingly.

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:25 AM)shere khan Wrote:  I like it. Tell me you don't want my money. I will oblige you

I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

I just want to know who doesn't want my business so I can take it elsewhere. Much easier than lawsuits and forcing them to begrudgingly serve me. I'd rather just give my money to someone who wants my business. If someone can run a business and thrive while openly discriminating against whatever group, more power to them. They should be required to be open about it. Wouldn't you rather a sign on a restaurant that says "gays not welcome" than to unknowingly go in and pay for a meal plus tip to benefit someone that thinks that way but is not allowed to say it?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-24-2018 12:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:25 AM)shere khan Wrote:  I like it. Tell me you don't want my money. I will oblige you

I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

I just want to know who doesn't want my business so I can take it elsewhere. Much easier than lawsuits and forcing them to begrudgingly serve me. I'd rather just give my money to someone who wants my business. If someone can run a business and thrive while openly discriminating against whatever group, more power to them. They should be required to be open about it. Wouldn't you rather a sign on a restaurant that says "gays not welcome" than to unknowingly go in and pay for a meal plus tip to benefit someone that thinks that way but is not allowed to say it?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I would rather not be discriminated against. For small minorities, discrimination frequently means a loss of service at the same price and in some cases, it means no service at all.

There isn't enough demand for a LGBT friendly gas station in many areas. What is the state going to put up signs on the freeway stating... No Gas or Restrooms for LGBT people for the next 200 miles?

Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

Honest question: Do you really think the way Libturds hateful actions will galvanize Trump supporters or change any of those on the fence? No, really?

Honestly, I have a few Trump haters as friends and relatives but I wouldn't ostracize them. I just disregard their stances. I have actually told them not to speak about politics as it would only create discomfort for all.

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

LOL. Anyone that would care more

that an enabler of forcibly and ELECTEDLY separating kids from parents as an instrument of deliberate cruelty for the purpose of trying to extract political leverage was denied service at an establishment using the same principles she defends when used against others

than the policy of cruelty in the first place

is already in the bag for DJT.

Now a delusional leftie is claiming Sarah Sanders violated ethics rules by tweeting the fact that she was asked to leave the Red Hen diner. Apparently, he is under the impression that administration members he doesnt agree with cannot tweet facts. He also seems to be unaware that a administration member must profit from the tweet for it to be an ethical violation. Either---he's not a very knowledgeable expert or---he is simply an unethical lying "ethics expert".


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/e...&ocid=iehp

I have you on ignore Lazy so I really can't read a word you're posting. WHAT!

Hee, hee.

(06-24-2018 12:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

LOL. Anyone that would care more

that an enabler of forcibly and ELECTEDLY separating kids from parents as an instrument of deliberate cruelty for the purpose of trying to extract political leverage was denied service at an establishment using the same principles she defends when used against others

than the policy of cruelty in the first place

is already in the bag for DJT.

Interesting, this was completely acceptable when Organizer In Chief BHO was POTUS. What changed other than liberals desire for open borders?

(06-24-2018 12:46 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

Honest question: Do you really think the way Libturds hateful actions will galvanize Trump supporters or change any of those on the fence? No, really?

Honestly, I have a few Trump haters as friends and relatives but I wouldn't ostracize them. I just disregard their stances. I have actually told them not to speak about politics as it would only create discomfort for all.

I think that there are many Americans that want a reason to vote for Trump. The economy and North Korean peace if it happens, will give many that reason. What I feel will add an additional extra push to vote for Trump will be the hateful actions the left is demonstrating at almost a daily basis now.

Many Americans will be offended by these actions and in the privacy of a voting booth will have a chance to voice their disgust at threatening women and children. The irony is that the left rants about President Trump's supposed hate and horrible actions, while they visibly exhibit far worse actions of intimidation and hate. Voters will recognize that irony.

(06-24-2018 12:53 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

LOL. Anyone that would care more

that an enabler of forcibly and ELECTEDLY separating kids from parents as an instrument of deliberate cruelty for the purpose of trying to extract political leverage was denied service at an establishment using the same principles she defends when used against others

than the policy of cruelty in the first place

is already in the bag for DJT.

Interesting, this was completely acceptable when Organizer In Chief BHO was POTUS. What changed other than liberals desire for open borders?

Dang Herd, here I was perfectly content in not knowing (or caring) what Lazy posted and you had to go and quote his post. Thanks...for nothing.

(06-24-2018 12:57 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:53 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

LOL. Anyone that would care more

that an enabler of forcibly and ELECTEDLY separating kids from parents as an instrument of deliberate cruelty for the purpose of trying to extract political leverage was denied service at an establishment using the same principles she defends when used against others

than the policy of cruelty in the first place

is already in the bag for DJT.

Interesting, this was completely acceptable when Organizer In Chief BHO was POTUS. What changed other than liberals desire for open borders?

Dang Herd, here I was perfectly content in not knowing (or caring) what Lazy posted and you had to go and quote his post. Thanks...for nothing.

I ignore NO ONE......

there's a simple reason for that......

if one ignores, they only have themselves to blame for being ignorant relative to their surroundings......

Sorry Stinky but reading some of these Libturds posts are as bad as watching the MSM, you already know where they're going. I don't need that. Call me when they sound like they miraculously acquired "COMMON SENSE".

PS. They sound like children in your SUV arguing in the back seat. No. Really.

(06-24-2018 12:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Now a delusional leftie is claiming Sarah Sanders violated ethics rules by tweeting the fact that she was asked to leave the Red Hen diner. Apparently, he is under the impression that administration members he doesnt agree with cannot tweet facts. He also seems to be unaware that a administration member must profit from the tweet for it to be an ethical violation. Either---he's not a very knowledgeable expert or---he is simply an unethical lying "ethics expert".


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/e...&ocid=iehp

As the left likes to say, actions have consequences. The restaurant owner has a right not to serve people. Customers have a right to know that and cost him half his business.

(06-24-2018 01:25 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Sorry Stinky but reading some of these Libturds posts are as bad as watching the MSM, you already know where they're going. I don't need that. Call me when they sound like they miraculously acquired "COMMON SENSE".

PS. They sound like children in your SUV arguing in the back seat. No. Really.

I get all that....that's why I don't watch that bs and never had an SUV....fwiw, I can still make my daughter cry with a change in 'gravel inflection'

why do you think I come to this board for current events.....

it's easily less taxing on me brain *(what's left anyway)

(06-24-2018 12:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:25 AM)shere khan Wrote:  I like it. Tell me you don't want my money. I will oblige you

I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

I just want to know who doesn't want my business so I can take it elsewhere. Much easier than lawsuits and forcing them to begrudgingly serve me. I'd rather just give my money to someone who wants my business. If someone can run a business and thrive while openly discriminating against whatever group, more power to them. They should be required to be open about it. Wouldn't you rather a sign on a restaurant that says "gays not welcome" than to unknowingly go in and pay for a meal plus tip to benefit someone that thinks that way but is not allowed to say it?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I would rather not be discriminated against. For small minorities, discrimination frequently means a loss of service at the same price and in some cases, it means no service at all.

There isn't enough demand for a LGBT friendly gas station in many areas. What is the state going to put up signs on the freeway stating... No Gas or Restrooms for LGBT people for the next 200 miles?

How would a gas station know you’re gay?

(06-24-2018 12:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:30 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Hateful actions like this just add to Trump's vote total, so libs, keep the hate going.

LOL. Anyone that would care more

that an enabler of forcibly and ELECTEDLY separating kids from parents as an instrument of deliberate cruelty for the purpose of trying to extract political leverage was denied service at an establishment using the same principles she defends when used against others

than the policy of cruelty in the first place

is already in the bag for DJT.

Where was your faux OUTRAGE!!! when zerO pursued the exact same policy?

You do know those pictures were from 14, right?

(06-24-2018 01:47 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 12:07 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

I just want to know who doesn't want my business so I can take it elsewhere. Much easier than lawsuits and forcing them to begrudgingly serve me. I'd rather just give my money to someone who wants my business. If someone can run a business and thrive while openly discriminating against whatever group, more power to them. They should be required to be open about it. Wouldn't you rather a sign on a restaurant that says "gays not welcome" than to unknowingly go in and pay for a meal plus tip to benefit someone that thinks that way but is not allowed to say it?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I would rather not be discriminated against. For small minorities, discrimination frequently means a loss of service at the same price and in some cases, it means no service at all.

There isn't enough demand for a LGBT friendly gas station in many areas. What is the state going to put up signs on the freeway stating... No Gas or Restrooms for LGBT people for the next 200 miles?

How would a gas station know you’re gay?

(06-24-2018 11:26 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-24-2018 10:25 AM)shere khan Wrote:  I like it. Tell me you don't want my money. I will oblige you

I think the law should be to have a sign in the window specifying whose money you don't want: blacks, gays, white men, Trump supporters, pink pusssy hat wearers, people who own Confederate flags, people who own American flags... I want to know. If I knew this place didn't want business from Trump supporters, I would have found somewhere else to eat in Lexington... or kept going to Mrs. Rowe's in Staunton.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I support strong public accommodations protections for ALL. But if we don't have them, the following rules should apply

1) If you discriminate based upon class, you should clearly state that in ALL advertising. And by discriminate, that includes hiring too. And benefits.

2)If you discriminate you should be banned from ANY taxpayer benefits or subsidies or CONTRACTS. That would include access to admitting rights for discriminatory doctors at any hospital that has any taxpayer funding.

3) If there aren't any providers that will serve a community in EVERY AREA, then the government must provide a FULLY EQUAL (cost and location and service level provision) public option. That means, building hospitals, public schools with offerings equal to voucher private schools for people excluded from those schools, and having the state hire doctors and specialists and staff them everywhere so that discriminated persons don't have to ever wait so much as one second more for service. It would also require either a ban on any doctor accepting ANY insurance plan from discriminating or the state to have a public option insurance plan at the same price as the lowest discriminatory plan rate with the same coverage.

Just like you supported the DHS Secretary being able to eat her dinner in public without a threatening group cussing and yelling at her.

Wait, you thought that was just fine.

You're like the frat kid who got badly hazed as a Freshman who is the worst at harrassing the new kids when he is a Senior..