Correct. So let's not compare the two anymore. I only did so because it's the same concept of being within their rights. Otherwise I agree. They are not comparable.

EDIT: I don't agree rhat it wasn't because they were gay. I was saying correct to the first part of your post.

That it'll hurt the left? You don't think that having their political identity threatened like that will galvanize the right? Does this make the left look good?

Yes they were.

I'm going to faint. We actually agree on something :laughing:

Of course she had it coming. But there are better ways to show displeasure. They could have protested her outside for example.

Not really, but look at it this way. If I can refuse Ted Bundy service for being, well, Ted Bundy, somebody could refuse Bernie Sanders service for being a socialist. It works both ways.

Politics doesn't even have to be involved here. She's a ****ty person in general. If she wasn't in politics I'd think the same thing. Maybe it will hurt the left. I'll give you that one.

Womp Womp.

But they are.

Based on what? I didn't know about her until she took the position.

That's exactly it. Why should the left stoop down to the far right's level?

I was just saying it to prove a point. If it knew how ****ty she is in person without politics, I'd still justify the restaurants decision. But yes, politics is involved. But that's not my point.

I imagine discriminating on the basis of political affiliation would be covered under the law, but if not then I'd say it should be. Again, I've not seen any evidence that the restaurant refuses service to conservatives, just this conservative. If someone wanted to refuse Bernie Sanders service on the basis of beating his wife or kicking puppies then I wouldn't care.