Mixed colour marriage refused by white judge

[kishg]

if that pic confused you so much maybe I should have gone with this one.

that's a perfect foil to the counter-argument which is that real racists often pull the race card excuse to silence their critics and claim victory.

[mrsleeve]

ASU that last pic

hahahahahahahhahahahaha

thats great

[E30 Cabrio]

A local art store owner refused a sale to a Palin supporter last year in Tiburon, California which is north of San Francisco. (And a tolerant, liberal county that voted overwhelmingly for Obama)

It was in the local paper.

I'll post the article if I can find it.

It didn't make the national news for some reason.

Discrimination is discrimination, right Lee?

Edit:

Found the article. Here is an excerpt:

"In September, Tom Wright, a Democrat who manages an art gallery in Tiburon, proudly recounted a story on the Web site www.democraticunderground.com about how he refused to sell an expensive artifact to a woman because she was wearing a "Sarah in '08" pin and expressing her strong support for the Alaskan governor.

Wright said he has no regrets.

"Politics has turned into warfare, but they started it first," he said. "You start pushing someone on the playground, and when they punch you in the face, you can't really complain."

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_10878266

So what do you say, Lee?

Discrimination OK in this case?

And here is a web site that has the DU post and comments:

http://rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2008-09-08&ID=249500

"When the woman reached into her purse to retrieve a credit card, I noticed a "Sarah in '08" pin affixed to her purse. So I asked her where she got it and she said she made it on her computer (I was, until today, unaware that one could do that).

So I said, "That's a joke, right?".

And she replied that Sarah Palin is America's only hope for salvation.

I pointed to the doors and said, "The sidewalk is right out there. Enjoy your stay in Tiburon".


The store owner justifies his actions to another poster on DU.com by saying "You wouldn't rent your house out to Nazi's, would you?" equating Palin supporters to Nazi's.

BTW, the store owner probably has the right to refuse service to anyone arbitrarily, but people who buy items in his store also pay sales taxes.

His refusal to sell a $1200 item cost the city and state a good chunk of change in tax dollars due to his intolerance for others with differing viewpoints.

Remind me to pay this asshole a visit next time I'm in Tiburon.

I'm going to dress up really nice, put on my Rolex, look at a bunch of items and ask him a bunch of questions then pick out a really expensive one.

After he rings it up, I'm going to say "aren't you the guy I read about in the newspaper?"

When I say I've changed my mind about the purchase and he says "That's a joke, right?" I'm going to "no it isn't, dipshit"

I'll record an MP3 and post it.

[KenC]

A justice of the peace is a little different than an independent art dealer...

Also, his discrimination was based upon political views, not skin color.

I'm not defending his action, just saying your reference was a poor example for a counter argument.

A local art store owner refused a sale to a Palin supporter last year in Tiburon, California which is north of San Francisco. (And a tolerant, liberal county that voted overwhelmingly for Obama)

It was in the local paper.

I'll post the article if I can find it.

It didn't make the national news for some reason.

Discrimination is discrimination, right Lee?

Edit:

Found the article. Here is an excerpt:

"In September, Tom Wright, a Democrat who manages an art gallery in Tiburon, proudly recounted a story on the Web site www.democraticunderground.com about how he refused to sell an expensive artifact to a woman because she was wearing a "Sarah in '08" pin and expressing her strong support for the Alaskan governor.

Wright said he has no regrets.

"Politics has turned into warfare, but they started it first," he said. "You start pushing someone on the playground, and when they punch you in the face, you can't really complain."

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_10878266

So what do you say, Lee?

Discrimination OK in this case?

And here is a web site that has the DU post and comments:

http://rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2008-09-08&ID=249500

"When the woman reached into her purse to retrieve a credit card, I noticed a "Sarah in '08" pin affixed to her purse. So I asked her where she got it and she said she made it on her computer (I was, until today, unaware that one could do that).

So I said, "That's a joke, right?".

And she replied that Sarah Palin is America's only hope for salvation.

I pointed to the doors and said, "The sidewalk is right out there. Enjoy your stay in Tiburon".


The store owner justifies his actions to another poster on DU.com by saying "You wouldn't rent your house out to Nazi's, would you?" equating Palin supporters to Nazi's.

BTW, the store owner probably has the right to refuse service to anyone arbitrarily, but people who buy items in his store also pay sales taxes.

His refusal to sell a $1200 item cost the city and state a good chunk of change in tax dollars due to his intolerance for others with differing viewpoints.

Remind me to pay this asshole a visit next time I'm in Tiburon.

I'm going to dress up really nice, put on my Rolex, look at a bunch of items and ask him a bunch of questions then pick out a really expensive one.

After he rings it up, I'm going to say "aren't you the guy I read about in the newspaper?"

When I say I've changed my mind about the purchase and he says "That's a joke, right?" I'm going to "no it isn't, dipshit"

I'll record an MP3 and post it.

[E30 Cabrio]

So the only difference is semantics?

Discrimination is OK for the art store dealer based on his intolerance?

Like I said, when the art store declined the sale, it deprived the city and state tax dollars.

[KenC]

So the only difference is semantics?

Discrimination is OK for the art store dealer based on his intolerance?

Like I said, when the art store declined the sale, it deprived the city and state tax dollars.

Semantics? You need to read my post again.

I didn't say his discrimination was ok.

So you're saying the shop owner should be rebuked if he decides to close his shop thus depriving the city/state of future tax income?

Once again, I'm not defending the owners actions, but rather pointing out how irrelevant your example was.

[shiftbmw]

This isn't fucking news. This is stupid. Guy doesn't want to do it, his choice. Oh well.

Add another mark to the tally of uninteresting Lee posts...

[E30 Cabrio]

Semantics? You need to read my post again.

I didn't say his discrimination was ok.

So you're saying the shop owner should be rebuked if he decides to close his shop thus depriving the city/state of future tax income?

Once again, I'm not defending the owners actions, but rather pointing out how irrelevant your example was.

No, you're the only one saying that.

Where do you get that from?

And why is my example not relevant?

Discrimination is discrimination.

Period.

Yet when it's discrimination against conservatives, it's suddenly irrelevant.

Thanks for proving my point, whether you realize it or not.

You can't have it both ways.

[kishg]

your example is irrelevant because a justice is not the same as a shop owner. agree that the discrimination is wrong and stupid in both cases though.

[E30 Cabrio]

Discrimination is discrimination.

I'm sure if the store owner discriminated against an Obama supporter it would've been national news and Jesse and Al would still be marching in front of his store...

[KenC]

They're both wrong.

Discriminating against someone for the color of their skin is different than discriminating against someone because of their political beliefs. One you have a choice over, the other you don't.
My argument would be the same if the potential buyer was Ralph Nader, and the couple wishing to elope both had Down's Syndrome.

[Dave]

no law was viloated lee

Umm . . . wrong.

[kishg]

they're both wrong.

Discriminating against someone for the color of their skin is different than discriminating against someone because of their political beliefs. One you have a choice over, the other you don't.
My argument would be the same if the potential buyer was ralph nader, and the couple wishing to elope both had down's syndrome.

+10

[E30 Cabrio]

They're both wrong.

Discriminating against someone for the color of their skin is different than discriminating against someone because of their political beliefs. One you have a choice over, the other you don't.
My argument would be the same if the potential buyer was Ralph Nader, and the couple wishing to elope both had Down's Syndrome.

So then, it's OK to discriminate against someone who had a sex change operation because they had a choice over it?

Keep trying...

I love how you guys are screaming "racism" but then turn around and spin yourselves dizzy trying to rationalize discrimination.

Religion is also a choice and we know that it's OK to discriminate on those grounds as well, right?

Like I said, keep trying...

[mrsleeve]

Umm . . . wrong.

Yes it seems you are correct and yes I am wrong


Was under the impression, that there was still, was a non enforced archaic law of such on the books in LA.