Arby's apologizes after officer is denied service for being a cop

[*michaelsean*]

(09-04-2015, 12:54 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Just like you can believe that abortion is terrible, but that it's a woman's choice.  You can be against an act and still believe the act should be legal.

[GMDino]

(09-04-2015, 02:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just like you can believe that abortion is terrible, but that it's a woman's choice. You can be against an act and still believe the act should be legal.

I don't think he was saying he was against dicrimination. He replied to this:

(09-04-2015, 12:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Personally I oppose discrimination.  I believe in treating people equally.  I believe in treating other people with respect and dignity.  But I also have a heart and morals.  

With this:

(09-04-2015, 12:15 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I believe in those same things, except I also believe in freedom. 

And to me with this:

(09-04-2015, 01:06 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So in your mind, a woman can choose abortion because it's her body and therefore her choice.

A business owner choosing who to not sell a freaking hamburger to somebody for what reason exactly?

He says he believes in treating everyone equally but also freedom...to discriminate?

To use the abortion analogy I'd have to say I believe in a woman's right to an abortion but also in the freedom to stop her from getting one legally.

The thing that gets me when these conversation happen (again) is why people think its OK at all to discriminate. I mean why can't we just serve one another as human beings and not worry if they like the same god as us or use the same sexual orifice? Or what color they are or if they vote for the "right" party?

If you are against discrimination you are against discrimination. Period. Not against it but support the the people who are discriminating exercising their freedom. I mean I get that we are free to do as we chose as individuals. I don't have to let a democrat in my house if I don't want to and I can justify it as being MY house. But in public? Or where I work? No. And I won't encourage or endorse any discrimination like that.

And before it starts: That, of course, doesn't include legal situations such as a convicted child molester wanting to work in a day care. There are legal cases where you have given up your "freedom" to do whatever you want wherever you want.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-04-2015, 02:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: If you are against discrimination you are against discrimination.  Period.  Not against it but support the the people who are discriminating exercising their freedom.  I mean I get that we are free to do as we chose as individuals. 

No, apparently you don't. 

Do people have a right to buy a hamburger?  Who is the government to tell the owner of hamburgers who he has to sell them to? 

Further, I can be against discrimination but also be against government telling other people what they have to do.  There's no hypocrisy there.  I'm against smoking MJ but I'm completely in favor of it being legal. 

[GMDino]

(09-04-2015, 04:04 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, apparently you don't. 

Do people have a right to buy a hamburger?  Who is the government to tell the owner of hamburgers who he has to sell them to? 

Further, I can be against discrimination but also be against government telling other people what they have to do.  There's no hypocrisy there.  I'm against smoking MJ but I'm completely in favor of it being legal. 

No you do not have a "right" to buy a hamburger.

You do have a "right" to not be discriminated against.

About the only purpose I agree with from the federal government is to ensure that all people are treated equal.  So telling McDonald's or a bakery, or a lady at the DMV that they can't discriminate because their god told them to, or their daddy didn't like "them types" is A O K with me.

[Benton]

(09-04-2015, 04:04 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, apparently you don't. 

Do people have a right to buy a hamburger?  Who is the government to tell the owner of hamburgers who he has to sell them to? 

Further, I can be against discrimination but also be against government telling other people what they have to do.  There's no hypocrisy there.  I'm against smoking MJ but I'm completely in favor of it being legal. 

The entity tasked with regulating commerce. And, secondly in this case, civil rights.

Investor protection, employee protection, consumer protection, contract enforcement. Going back to middle school civics, your government — local, state and federal — has a hand in businesses at all levels.

I think it's hilarious we've had four decades of  businesses manipulating the government and intervention, but we still have companies hiding behind them for benefits. Like the drug company that moved its headquarters to another country earlier this year, then when a hostile takeover was threatening to put them out of business, they came crying for help.

Businesses can't have it both ways. If you want the protections and benefits afforded by a government of the people, then stop wanting to discriminate against the people that make that possible. As long as someone lives here, pays taxes and isn't a felon, you — generally — don't have many reasons to discriminate against them. No matter how much you'd like to.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-04-2015, 04:58 PM)Benton Wrote: The entity tasked with regulating commerce. And, secondly in this case, civil rights.

Investor protection, employee protection, consumer protection, contract enforcement. Going back to middle school civics, your government — local, state and federal — has a hand in businesses at all levels.

I'm well-versed in civics.  I'm not arguing that these laws exist.  I'm arguing that they shouldn't. 

[Blutarsky]

(09-04-2015, 12:16 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I'm glad you posted this, because I have zero doubt in my mind that you, Lucie, and bfine32 all watch Faux News far more than you should (which is to say at all).

So what do you watch since Jon Stewart has retired?

Whatever it is, its worse than FOX there Mr. Kettle.

[Blutarsky]

It looks like Arby's has made amends and is offering free meals to the cops.

Image the long line of men dressed in blue outside a Dunkin Donuts if this unfortunate event happened them.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/arbys-offers-free-meals-to-all-miami-and-broward-cops-7872232

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 07:41 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: So what do you watch since Jon Stewart has retired?

Whatever it is, its worse than FOX there Mr. Kettle.

The sad part is that a guy with a comedy show was far more accurate than the brain-eating propaganda of Faux.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2015, 04:04 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Further, I can be against discrimination but also be against government telling other people what they have to do.  There's no hypocrisy there.  I'm against smoking MJ but I'm completely in favor of it being legal. 

You can't compare discriminating against people based on race to smoking weed.  Smoking weed does not create a class of victims.

Based on your logic you could be opposed to stealing, but also think that the government should not ionterfere with a persons right to steal whatever he wants.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 12:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Based on your logic you could be opposed to stealing, but also think that the government should not ionterfere with a persons right to steal whatever he wants.

No. 

It's saying that I personally don't believe or advocate for discrimination, but I do believe and advocate for a private business to have a right to serve or not serve who they wish. 

It doesn't matter what analogy I come up, you're going to revert to your same strawman argument that it creates a class of victims, which is pure nonsense. 

Government has no business forcing a private business to serve anyone.  If it creates a void in the market, someone will most certainly fill it. 

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 01:09 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Government has no business forcing a private business to serve anyone.  If it creates a void in the market, someone will most certainly fill it. 

Government has the same duty to protect its citizens from discrimination as it does to protect them from any other harm.

And you clearly have no knowledge of history or even current events in places where discrimination is legal.  You live in a complete fantasy land where right wing speaking points are reality instead of rhetoric.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 01:09 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: It doesn't matter what analogy I come up, you're going to revert to your same strawman argument that it creates a class of victims, which is pure nonsense. 

You really need to develop some sort of debate skill other than just saying "Nu-uh. That's stupid."

For example please explain how discrimination does not create victims of discrimination.  Feel free to use lots of examples from history and current events to back up your claim.

You also need to look up the definition of "strawman argument".

Educate yourself.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 01:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You really need to develop some sort of debate skill other than just saying "Nu-uh. That's stupid."

For example please explain how discrimination does not create victims of discrimination.  Feel free to use lots of examples from history and current events to back up your claim.

You also need to look up the definition of "strawman argument".

Educate yourself.

Again, you keep confusing my take on this stuff as saying that it's constitutional to discriminate, and that's what you're basing you're entire argument on. 

I acknowledge full well that it's unconstitutional to do that, but my argument is that it shouldn't be.  Not for a private business, at least. 

If a government receives public funding or is entirely taxpayer supported (schools, libraries, hospitals, etc..) that's an entirely different matter altogether. 

I just don't see how the consumer getting protection and the business being forced can somehow equal liberty. 

Educate that.  

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 01:55 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Again, you keep confusing my take on this stuff as saying that it's constitutional to discriminate, and that's what you're basing you're entire argument on. 

I acknowledge full well that it's unconstitutional to do that, but my argument is that it shouldn't be.  Not for a private business, at least. 

If a government receives public funding or is entirely taxpayer supported (schools, libraries, hospitals, etc..) that's an entirely different matter altogether. 

I just don't see how the consumer getting protection and the business being forced can somehow equal liberty. 

Educate that.  

I am not confusing anything.  

Why should businesses be allowed to do anything they want?  Should I be allowed to sell fake medicine?  Should I be allowed to make my employees work in dangerous conditions.  Should I be allowed to lie to people to get them to give me their money?  Should I be allowed to walk around in my place of business naked and masturbating?  Should I be allowed to hire children and pay them a quarter an hour?

What exactly is it about owning a business that should allow a person to victimize people anyway he wants to?

And if you don't understand how forcing a business to serve minorities can equal liberty then please tell me how you think the Jim Crow South equaled "liberty". 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 02:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not confusing anything.  

Why should businesses be allowed to do anything they want?  Should I be allowed to sell fake medicine?  Should I be allowed to make my employees work in dangerous conditions.  Should I be allowed to lie to people to get them to give me their money?  Should I be allowed to walk around in my place of business naked and masturbating?  Should I be allowed to hire children and pay them a quarter an hour?

What exactly is it about owning a business that should allow a person to victimize people anyway he wants to?

And if you don't understand how forcing a business to serve minorities can equal liberty then please tell me how you think the Jim Crow South equaled "liberty". 

What does any of that blather have anything to do with a private business refusing service to someone?

It's called private property rights.  

[BmorePat87]

I'm just going to assume that the only reason why this thread is this long is because you guys are debating whether or not Arby's is awful or just bad.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 10:34 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm just going to assume that the only reason why this thread is this long is because you guys are debating whether or not Arby's is awful or just bad.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 10:25 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What does any of that blather have anything to do with a private business refusing service to someone?

It's called private property rights.  

The questions I asked have EVERYTHING to do with your claim that people should be allowed to do whatever they want if they own a private business.  

All of those questions point out the fact that people are not allowed to victimize whoever they want just because they own a business. You mention "private property rights", but you have no clue what that even means.  

You also failed to explain how the Jim Crow South stood for "liberty".

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 11:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The questions I asked have EVERYTHING to do with your claim that people should be allowed to do whatever they want if they own a private business.  

All of those questions point out the fact that people are not allowed to victimize whoever they want just because they own a business.  You mention "private property rights", but you have no clue what that even means.  

You also failed to explain how the Jim Crow South stood for "liberty".

Yes, I do know what it means.  It's the difference between socialistic private property rights and libertrarian private property rights.

Educate yourself.