So I guess it's okay to kick people out of a restaurant because they work for Pres. Donald Trump?

So I guess it's okay to kick people out of a restaurant because they work for Pres. Donald Trump?  | IS THAT SARAH SANDERS? SARAH SANDERS RUINED OUR BUSINESS LET'S KICK HER OUT OF OUR RESTAURANT | image tagged in red hen,bigotry,discrimination,maga,liberal logic,clifton shepherd cliffshep | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
18 ups, 2 replies
trump mad | Rest assured!  That restaurant will be getting a surprise health inspection in a week or two! | image tagged in trump mad | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
15 ups
AND THE COCKROACHES WILL PAY FOR IT | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
:)
reply
11 ups
AND IT’S GOING TO FAIL MISERABLY !! | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Lol, good one, dude :-)
reply
11 ups, 3 replies
Conservatives are fine with denying service to people. Why is it a problem now?
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
As per the meme... the problem isn't with the denial of service per se... It's that when the backlash comes, They're going to Blame her/Trump for the results of Their actions....
(You are free to choose your actions, not the consequences to their actions)

you could use the same template (and someone probably did after the incident) with

"Is that a Gay Couple?"

"Refuse to Bake their cake."

*Boycott (over the crashed bike)

"F'k'n Gays ruined my Business"

and it'd carry the same meaning

and Lets not forget

1. The Baker was Willing to sell them a Cake, he simply refused to Customize it to their specifications
2. The Court Ruled as it did Specifically because it infringed on the Baker's RELIGIOUS Rights
3. For years Muslim Cabbies at the Minneapolis Airport (and one assumes others) have been allowed to Refuse Patrons in Possession of Alcohol (Sealed) for the same reason
4. Before the ruling was even handed down, NYC Courts Sided with a 'Leftist' Bar Owner in his 'Right to Refuse' when he ejected a patron wearing a MAGA Hat...
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people for any reason they want. Like you said, people can't choose the consequences for their actions, and if they lose business as a result, they have no one to blame but themselves.

And the thing about the Muslim cab drivers had to do with alcohol, not with the passenger's race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. so I can kind of understand that one. That being said, I would be tempted to get a ride from them with a tiny bottle of liquor hidden in my luggage and not tell them about it, just to mess with them :)
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Any reason? Such as racism, for just one example?

Seriously - you are going to have to learn how to think one of these days. That, and stop lying.

The problem in this specific case is Lexington, Virginia has codified an anti-discrimination policy. That means it is law in that jurisdiction. That means EVERYONE in that city cannot discriminate for any reason codified in any law superior to Lexington's ordinances. I do quote the law, in part :

"All citizens of the City, individual and corporate, are requested and urged to use their power and influence to the end that this City shall be one of equal opportunity for ALL citizens."

End quote, all emphasis is mine.

The problem is all means all. There is no wiggle room here, and no exceptions have been crafted. The Red Hen, and the management thereof, are in violation of a strict anti-discrimination policy that Lexington - per the ordinance - MUST prosecute with all resources at their disposal. THAT is what is different about this case and the 'baker' case being bandied about.

THAT is how one does basic research, and how one provides full context in one's remarks. It's really sad and pathetic that you cannot, or will not, do the same.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Any reason? Such as racism, for just one example?"

If someone wants to turn away customers for racist reasons, they have that right as a business owner. But they should realize they will lose a lot of business as a result.

"Seriously - you are going to have to learn how to think one of these days."

Just point me in the right direction, o wise one.

"That, and stop lying."

I never started.

Now let's take a look at the rest of your message. You said:

"The problem in this specific case is Lexington, Virginia has codified an anti-discrimination policy. That means it is law in that jurisdiction. That means EVERYONE in that city cannot discriminate for any reason codified in any law superior to Lexington's ordinances. I do quote the law, in part :

"All citizens of the City, individual and corporate, are requested and urged to use their power and influence to the end that this City shall be one of equal opportunity for ALL citizens."

The problem is all means all. There is no wiggle room here, and no exceptions have been crafted. The Red Hen, and the management thereof, are in violation of a strict anti-discrimination policy that Lexington - per the ordinance - MUST prosecute with all resources at their disposal."

So let me get this straight. The city of Lexington has "requested and urged" its citizens to "use their power and influence to the end that this City shall be one of equal opportunity for ALL citizens". Let me repeat that. They have "requested and urged" that people do this. That is not even close to a "strict anti-discrimination policy that Lexington - per the ordinance - MUST prosecute with all resources at their disposal" Can you honestly not tell the difference between a city requesting that people do something, and a city passing a law requiring that people do something?

"It's really sad and pathetic that you cannot, or will not, do the same."

Calling me sad and pathetic after blatantly contradicting yourself is rather funny.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Except - once again - you have stepped on a rake. I only quoted part of the ordinance, not it's entirety. You commented as if what I quoted were the entire ordinance. I should think the "in part" wording would have been a clue, but nope... you jumped with both feet on that rake. Once again you speak from a position of ignorance, and in the process you represent that what you say is the truth. Never started you say? In reality you never, ever stop.

Then you said : "If someone wants to turn away customers for racist reasons, they have that right as a business owner". This is hilariously wrong. Almost every jurisdiction in America has an anti-discrimination law of one stripe or another that makes this behavior illegal, so no - it is not a right. Add on top of that the Feds coming down on someone that would try, and... well... I might just stop laughing at you sometime in the next decade.

Again, why anyone here would hold you in the slightest esteem given how consistently wrong, deceitful and just plain dumb the things are you post... I am still aghast.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I never once said or implied that you quoted the law in its entirety. I'm not sure why you would claim that.

I just looked into it, and indeed there are jurisdictions that prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers based on their race. I was wrong about that.

"Again, why anyone here would hold you in the slightest esteem given how consistently wrong, deceitful and just plain dumb the things are you post... I am still aghast."

A few reasons:
-I don't repeat myself as nauseum
-I admit when I'm wrong, as I just did
-I am actually not deceitful, despite your claim to the contrary
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
... except EVERY WORD of your comment was predicated on the belief I did quote the entire law, despite the disclaimer that YOU did not read. That's on YOU, not me.

You don't repeat yourself? ROFLMAO! Then what's with the repeating parrot pictures? I will tell you what - you are still pissed at being held to account for LYING and inserting words that didn't exist into a Bible passage. You NEVER admitted YOU were wrong, but did blame everything and everyone else for YOUR lies and errors. YOU also didn't admit I was not the only one that called you on YOUR bullshit.

You admit when you are wrong? The entire Bible passage fiasco gives lie to that, and the most beautiful part of that is YOUR own words condemn you. You couldn't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, and you are proven a liar because YOU couldn't admit YOU were wrong.

You are not deceitful?!? That's deceitful right there, because you are incapable of telling the truth. Almost every post you make is riddled with deception, inaccuracies, falsehoods and sins of omission. Weep, wail and gnash your teeth all you wish, but NOTHING you can do will ever change that. It's who you are. It's what you do. You simply cannot tell the full truth ever.

So yes - I am aghast there are sycophants that hold you in esteem.
reply
1 up
"except EVERY WORD of your comment was predicated on the belief I did quote the entire law, despite the disclaimer that YOU did not read."

Despite the fact that in your other comment you clearly said "I do quote the law, in part..." I never once said or implied that you were quoting the entire thing, because I knew you weren't.

"You don't repeat yourself? ROFLMAO! Then what's with the repeating parrot pictures?"

It's mocking you for your tendency to repeat yourself word-for-word

"you are still pissed at being held to account for LYING and inserting words that didn't exist into a Bible passage."

I never inserted words into a passage. I took what the passage said and make logical inferences from it. It's not my problem if you can't read between the lines.

"You admit when you are wrong? The entire Bible passage fiasco gives lie to that, and the most beautiful part of that is YOUR own words condemn you."

If that's true, then show the conversation to other people and see what they say.

"You couldn't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, and you are proven a liar because YOU couldn't admit YOU were wrong."

Nice try :) I won't admit to something I didn't do.

"...you are incapable of telling the truth. Almost every post you make is riddled with deception, inaccuracies, falsehoods and sins of omission."

Now you're just embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.

"Weep, wail and gnash your teeth all you wish, but NOTHING you can do will ever change that. It's who you are. It's what you do. You simply cannot tell the full truth ever."

Lulz :)
reply
0 ups
Privately owned businesses should be allowed to deny services for ANY reason, even race. Publicly owned entities absolutely must not discriminate for any reason. A private entity that receives any funding from the State (ie. some daycares and preschools for their meal programs), then they absolutely cannot discriminate.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Good job at detailing the hypocrisy tho.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"RELIGIOUS"... reading comprehension is your friend

The left has been embracing 'right to refuse' based on Politics, even without the supposed approval granted by the SCOTUS ruling... The Hypocrisy cuts both ways...
reply
3 ups
So the point wasn't lost on you? Good boy *pats head*
reply
1 up
Watch the YouTube video "The Case of Cake," by Scholoryteller.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
Why is it not okay for a baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but it is okay for a restaurant to refuse service to someone because of who she works for? I don't have a problem with denial of service, and have no problem with this man refusing to serve Sanders. My issue is with the inconsistency and political parties not standing by their positions when it affects the other side.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
As far as it being "okay" or "not okay", I think what the baker did was wrong because he discriminated against them because they were a gay couple. That's not something they could change. Sanders wasn't discriminated against because of some immutable characteristic like her gender or skin color. Should both business owners be legally allowed to do what they did? I believe so. Does that make what they did "okay"? Not necessarily.
reply
3 ups, 4 replies
So now explain why Muslims get to refuse to transport alcohol, but Christian bakers do not get to follow their religion and refuse to bake a cake.

We'll wait... and wait... and wait... and wait...
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I already said that Christian business owners should be legally allowed to turn away customers.

As far as the Muslim alcohol thing, they aren't discriminating against a person based on the person themselves, but rather what the person is in possession of. For that same reason, if someone was in possession of pornography and a Christian taxi driver didn't want to transport them, they shouldn't have to.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Walgreens is defending one of its pharmacists who refused for religious reasons to dispense medication to a woman who was miscarrying. Now I really think that one was wrong.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Medication is one area where I don't think businesses should be allowed to turn away customers, since that impacts someone's health (and possibly safety).

What were the details of that Walgreens case?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Doctors gave her a choice to get a DNC or use meds because she was miscarrying and there was no viable fetus. She chose the less invasive method. The doctor, not sure which religion but I've heard Walgreens is owned by Mormons, refused to fill it. Walgreens said they reserve their pharmacists' right to step away and allow someone else to fill a script only this guy didn't do that. He just turned her away.
reply
0 ups
Wow :/
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker. So I guess it's okay for the Muslims, too?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Muslims have REFUSED to bake cakes for gay couples and NOBODY says a single word about that. That's not right and it's not fair. I think using religion to discriminate is WRONG. Jesus never turned away a sinner, we are all sinners.
reply
1 up
I'm with you on that. I don't think anyone should use religion as an excuse to discriminate on any level, whether it be turning away people seeking asylum or someone just trying to buy a wedding cake.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Make sure that he doesn't. add. words. this time.
reply
4 ups
XD
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Should both business owners be legally allowed to do what they did? I believe so. Does that make what they did "okay"? Not necessarily."

Maybe while you're waiting you can try your hand at reading what he already said.
reply
4 ups
In case this is confusing within the jumble of various replies, that one was to JohnDynamo. I was pointing out that he was asking Octavia_Melody something he had already answered prior with the quote I provided.
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
Why is it okay for a baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but it is not okay for a restaurant to refuse service to someone because of who she works for?
Goose/gander

For the record, I do have a problem with the backlash against Sarah Sanders. She does not set policy, does her job faithfully, hasn't done anything wrong, yet is met with the most peurile of insults.
That most of it is focused on her looks or other irrelevent nonsense as opposed to what the source of the ire is (her boss) speaks of the level of crass thoughtlessness people have come to accept in public discourse. Bunch of overgrown uncouth grade schoolers run amok.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
She's his spokesperson. She stands up there on camera and shovels lies, deflects, defends his BS, acts all remorseless and disdainful... She's not just some unknown aide. She's the mouth of Donald Trump. She knew what she was signing up for. Just saying...
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
She's told what to say. She's not going to disagree with her boss, and what is a lie is subjective sort of art.

I'm not giving her a pass, but compare what she gets to what Sean Spicer got. Lampooned, yes, but none of this storm of digs concerning looks, weight.
Reminds of Bill Clinton, when Monica Lewinsky got more flack than he did, over the same reasons.
Yeah, Sanders's demeanor may be off putting, but people should focus on that and what she says instead of belittling her because of her physical features.
reply
2 ups
I honestly haven't seen people ridicule her looks as much as what she says and how she says it. Not that she doesn't get shamed for her appearance (I'm sure she does, I mean Hillary does as well) but she does represent someone who says things like a flat-chested woman can never be a 10.

But tying this back to the parallel people are drawing here, she's in our faces on the TV constantly. And she represents someone who is making very controversial changes to our government and our society that affects all of us and for many, it's not for the better. She's not just some anonymous member of the GOP she's the face and voice of it and she makes no apologies to the ones getting screwed over.

The gay couple who wanted the wedding cake weren't asking the guy to write "Homos Forever" or anything gay related on the cake. He was judging them by what they do in the privacy of their homes. That's where I think the two stories diverge.
reply
1 up
Same point, from the opposite side.
reply
1 up
Because one has to do with deeply held religious convictions and the other does not. It's so simple only Liberals can't understand it.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
The Baker was willing to make other types of cake for the gay couple. He just refused to start making a new, specific product.
The restaurant, on the other hand, threw the woman out, just because of who she is.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
So the Red Hen could've told Sanders "I know you want dinner, but because I disagree with your lifestyle, you can only get french fries?"
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
TRY to use logic here. Would you force a vegan restaurant to serve meat?
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
You are not getting this. The 1st and 13th amendments protect Americans from being forced to serve an ideology they don't believe in. They ensure we don't have to endorse lifestyles that are against our beliefs.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Yeah I get all that. SCOTUS sided with the baker...You argued that the baker said he'd give them something other than what they asked for because he didn't agree with their lifestyle. My question to you was, would it have been okay if the Red Hen refused to make Sanders dinner, but told her she could have a baked potato instead? You know, 1st amendment rights and all...?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The Baker was willing to Provide a 'Stock' Cake... he refused to Customize one with a gay wedding Theme,

a Better analogy would be that they were willing to serve a Baked Potato side, but NOT French Fries because 'reasons'
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
7 ups
Dry baked potatoes are from the pit of Hell !!!!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Did the restaraunt refuse to serve dinner to all its customers? No, it specifically refused Sanders. If the baker refused to sell the same type of cake it makes for traditional weddings to the gay couple, then it would have been discrimination.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
It was discrimination. SCOTUS just gave him a pass because of the religion angle.
reply
1 up
I just TRIED to use YOUR 'logic'
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Birthday cake. Welcome home cake. Happy retirement cake. Halloween cake. Christmas cake. Etc.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Why would they want those other cakes for a wedding XD
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
My point is that he didn't deny them his services. Making a gay-endorsing cake wasn't one of his services in the first place. Scholoryteller's youtube video "The Case of Cake" explains this.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Okay, perhaps his website or window menu should list the products he WON'T make.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Arguing with blue ninja is a waste of time. I use to debate with a lot of people on here using a different account that I deleted a while back. I created a new account and try to resist debating the typical leftist trolls. They never concede their point when logic show's they're wrong. They only obfuscate the argument to the point of frustration. After they get to a certain level of stupidity, I stop responding.
3 ups
No need to bring your Imgdlip baggage into this.
2 ups
You deleted because you're a chicken shit dimwit whose arguments consist of ad hominems but the responses butthurt you too much. Go dip your head mother's milk.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Responding to your below comment. You're right, you were having a civil conversation. I shouldn't have been so harsh. I apologize.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I know I've had my moments but I am trying to be less aggressive around here ;)
2 ups
Upvoted
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
They were having a wedding. They weren't having a "gay-endorsing".
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
It was a gay event. Don't force Christians to contribute to it. We won't force people to contribute to OUR events. Individuals can do what they want with their lives, but they can't force others to take part.
reply
5 ups
I'm not forcing anyone to contribute to it.

Calling it a gay event just sounds weird, though.
reply
3 ups
The Supreme Court agrees with you. Since they have the last word on things like this no one is going to force him to bake cakes for gay couples. Although I don't know why he would want to martyr himself over it. That couple isn't hurting anyone.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Once again you commit the sin of omission by not providing the full context in your remarks.

Once again, I have to question why anyone on IMGFLIP holds a liar in any esteem at all.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Once again, I have to question why anyone on IMGFLIP holds a liar in any esteem at all."

The answer is that no one holds you in any esteem at all.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The problem with that is, quite simply put, I do not care. I grew up and left the petty high school popularity contests behind me. I now practice full-contact adulting, and I really couldn't give a crap about your feelings and I sure as hell don't care what you think about me.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So stop going from thread to thread throwing a hissy fit you obnoxious 12yo stalker boi.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
So I should stop doing exactly what you do?

Hypocrisy much there, idiot?
reply
0 ups
I do whatever the f**k I want. If you're gonna have a cryfest about it, I ain't got a problem with that. Carry on, stalker boi.
reply
3 ups
and you were the one who.added.words
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I don't think that's actually true. If they're open to the public they have to be open to everyone. They've got to have a legal reason to refuse service.

The baker used religion to deny the gay couple a gay cake.

Tijuana_Slim mentioned that Islamic taxi drivers have gotten to use religion to deny service to people with alcohol.

I don't think there's legally any way to justify throwing someone out because of their political affiliation. That's messed up and they messed up.

Liberals don't hate because of race, they hate what isn't one of them. What's the word for that?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I like the way you said he "used" religion, though. I saw it that way, too...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I wonder if he could have gotten away with saying he's an artist and that gay cakes weren't his thing.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
The word? Bigotedintolerantconservative?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I support that. It is funny though how hypocritical the left is on this subject.
reply
4 ups
I'm not sure it's necessary or useful to require a 'legal' reason. Those who think you're bigot won't patron your business - making both sides happy. If enough people decide you're a bigot, you go out of business - solving both problems. We don't need to nake laws about everything, but it would be useful if the laws we make were applied evenly, i.e. both refusals are okay, or neither are.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
At least she took the high road and didn't use her political platform and place in the government to call out the company and hurt them, right?
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
You're right, she didn't. One of the waitresses did. Sanders only confirmed after she was asked.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
She used her government account. Which by the way is illegal. She should have just said nothing.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
So in your mind, in order to be blameless, Sanders would have had to:
1) be unfairly kicked out of restaurant
2) politely leave without protest and even offer to pay for your partial meal
3) not confirm or deny the events after it is already all over the internet

Your requirements are ridiculous and ignore the fact that most people would not have handled this situation with as much class as Sanders.

Also, how is Sandlers tweet illegal?

Just admit it, you don't like her and will find blame no matter what she did.

I support a private business refusing service to anyone for any reason. I also support the public ridicule when it occurs.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
1) I thought restaurants can kick out whoever they want?
2) Yes if businesses can refuse service which she wants anyway.
3) You do realize she has far more power and public spotlight than 99% of us ever will right? And she used that power to hurt a business when she didn't get her way.
4) it's illegal because it's on her government twitter account, she used her political power to hurt a business.
5) I have no problem with public ridicule, I do have a problem with a government employee using his or her stance to send her followers to attack a business. That's not having "class".
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Lol she said she does her best to treat people with whom she disagrees with respect :D
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
She did a terrible job in doing so lol.
reply
3 ups
It probably won't last long but maybe it was a wake up call. Trump should follow her lead and stop being such a tool.
reply
2 ups
Your list of requirements are yours, not his. Derp.
reply
1 up
And whined about it again during a press conference yesterday.
reply
5 ups
reply
4 ups
I’m just here for the comments really
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Is this real?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Hacked
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Well yeah, I mean was it actually hacked vs is this a photoshop
reply
4 ups
News claims it was actually hacked.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I'm a Christian. To be honest, I would have just baked them a cake. As a Christian, I know that homosexuality is not accepted by God. I also know that there is noone on the face of this Earth who wasn't born without sin. So therefore, who am I to judge. I have to answer for my own sins as will others have to answer for theirs.
reply
1 up, 4 replies
I'm an aspiring screenwriter. I don't want to be forced to write scripts for satanic, atheist propaganda.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
No one's forcing you to.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The jew/Illuminati/Muslim/translizardpeople are!!!!!!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Oh yes!! #MAGA #ALEXJONES2024 #PIZZAGATEIANOTFAKENEWS
reply
2 ups
:D
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Do you have a scriptwriting store that's, by all appearances, open to the public where someone might come in off the street and ask you to do something like that?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The bigger issue is the creative freedom of artists, professionals, and entrepreneurs.
When I walk into a McDonald's and discover that they don't carry root beer, what should I do? Sue them?
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
If you want to get paid you will. There's a lot about Hollywood that you have to learn.
reply
1 up
I didn't say I would be moving to LA and writing for the big studios.
reply
1 up
"Satanic, atheist propaganda"

Lulz :)
reply
3 ups
To be fair, she is alright with kicking LGBT people out. She can dish it, but she can't take it.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 4 replies
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups
"And they wonder why we dislike them"

That's kind of a messed up way to say it. I don't know who "we" are. You can only speak for yourself. And I don't dislike "them", because I don't look at "them" as one monolithic group. They are individual people.

And there are many people who dislike gay people just for being gay; just for being who they are. Gay people don't need to discriminate in order for people to hate them.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
All gay people discriminate against all Sarah Sanders people, obviously.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Why do you guys think Trump doesn't have minority supporters? I admit, it sounds crazy but they're out there.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I do think Trump has minority supporters; I'm very aware of that. My comment above was mocking the outrageously bad hasty generalization that Supercowgirl was making.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Oh I didn't notice that was you Myrian. I should've recognized the sarcastic obviously. :)))
reply
3 ups
Don't worry. No problem. :)
reply
1 up
There are plenty of Black, Latino, and even Muslim Trump supporters. The media doesn't show it because they don't want the people to see it. That's why they won't pan out the cameras at his rallies.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
When a gay couple is refused service: It's because the restaurant is exercising their religious freedom to remind gay people that being gay is a choice.

A Trump executive is refused service: LIBERAL BIGOTRY!!!!!!!11111!!!!111!1!!!
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Sigh. The Christian Baker was willing to make a birthday cake, a welcome home cake, a Christmas cake, a Happy Retirement cake, or whatever, for the gay couple. The restaurant, on the other hand, threw Sanders out without any service whatsoever.
Would you force a vegan restaurant to serve meat? Because that is basically what a lot of liberals want to force Christians to do.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Firstly, I wouldn't force a vegan restaurant to serve meat because, like BlueNinja said, vegan restaurants advertise their veganism. If there's anything that vegans are good at, it's letting people know that they're vegan. Meanwhile, Christians aren't alerting newcomers that they're a Christian business. It's been well known that several "Christian" businesses don't serve customers on the basis of sexual orientation.

Lastly, and especially, I wanted to put this in the beginning to make your argument seem stupid and typical, because you did the same to me. However, I'll save you pain by putting it at the end instead: "Siiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhh".
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
This baker knew his discriminatory behavior would be frowned upon and possibly lose him customers who wouldn't be affected by it. That's why he doesn't advertise it.
reply
3 ups
True that.
reply
2 ups
Your comparison doesn't work because the homophobe baker didn't advertise that his bakery was for heterosexuals only. A vegan restaurant is usually pretty clear about what they serve either in the name of the place or the menu. But the anti-gay wedding cake baker didn't have any signs saying "no cakes for gays." He wasn't advertising that he discriminates. Maybe he should so he doesn't run into this problem again.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
getting worse - it's kids now
triggered by a maga hat:
i.imgflip.com/2din9d.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
This punk lost his job and caught a felony charge.
i.imgflip.com/2dizxk.jpg (click to show)
i.imgflip.com/2dj0y2.jpg (click to show)
reply
1 up
pretty sure Maxine Waters opend a Pandora's box...
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
The "waiter" that posted the image of the 86 board is the same guy that filmed the Charlottesville protest where the dude ran over a bunch of people. He's a former agent for the state department. I am not making this up.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Google his name. He lists himself as a musician. His wikipedia article goes into his background.
reply
0 ups
Who?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
This Brennan guy? I bet he's just an idiot looking for fame.
reply
1 up
Nailed it.
reply
2 ups
i.imgflip.com/2cvq9h.jpg (click to show)
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
Best comment on this meme!
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
But collusion with which side???
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Business owners have the right to choose why they serve and who they don't. Harden up, cupcake.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Because potentially alienating 50% of your customer base is a smart business move..
reply
2 ups
Harden up snow flake. Christian Taliban members demand the right to choose who they serve so suck it up and grow a spine, boi.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
True, right? I mean how can people be so stupid or prejudiced? The stupidity level and ignorance level of this nation is rising and it has nothing to do with President Trump.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I think it boils down to the fact that nowadays people are caring more about themselves and their own feelings than they do about the country and their fellow man. First the screaming and agitation, then the violence will follow. What a pity.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Violence will follow? It's already happened. Anyone remember Heather Heyer? Of course not. And yes, it was a white supremacist Republican who ran her over because of Trump's racist rhetoric and policies. If you think Trump had nothing to do with this you're naive to say the least.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Actually, he was being chased by a guy with a rifle who happened to be a college professor. What he did was wrong, he killed a woman, but they didn't show the whole clip of his car being hit with baseball bats and then the college professor chasing the car with a rifle. I'm not sticking up for this sick SOB, but Antifa made him go down that street. Look up the court case.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I saw the video. Whatever BS he's slinging in court to defend his actions I'm not buying. The video clearly shows him down the street just sitting there all by himself before he guns it straight for the crowd. No one was behind him or anywhere near him. This was a heinous act of pure hate and not some innocent guy trying to escape anything.
reply
0 ups
Like I said, I'm NOT defending this scum, not at all. His actions were his actions regardless.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If I remember correctly, which I do. A gay coffee shop owner kicked Christians out of his store and said vile things to them, all of which were caught on video.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Really compares to Christians calling for gays to be executed, huh?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't know any Christians calling for gays to be executed. I think you might be referring to that Crazy Westboro Baptist Church Group. Yeah, we Christians know who they are. They are the so-called Christian version of ISIS. They call on dead soldiers too.
reply
2 ups
You should try some research.
reply
1 up
I can't see the meme it has Obama pointing at himself in the mirror
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
IS THAT SARAH SANDERS? LET'S KICK HER OUT OF OUR RESTAURANT; SARAH SANDERS RUINED OUR BUSINESS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back