Costco Bans "America"

[kalm]

I went to a Christian bookstore yesterday hoping to pick up a copy of the Necromicon. They said they didn't carry it... Assholes.

(Probably Liberals too!)

[Ibanez]

The Costoco owner should have the right to sell or not sell whatever f'ing books he wants.
Americans should have the right to shop or not shop wherever they want
Landlords should be able to rent or not rent to whomever they want.

End of story..

Agree on the first two. The second, I would say as long as the person has the financial means and won't damage the property then they should be considered. Now, if you want to discriminate b/c the fucker has "MS 13" tatted on his forehead, then you have a point. But to not rent to a person b/c of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. that's just bigoted. To me. Obviously, not to some people.

[Cap'n Cat]

The Costoco owner should have the right to sell or not sell whatever f'ing books he wants.
Americans should have the right to shop or not shop wherever they want
Landlords should be able to rent or not rent to whomever they want.

End of story..

Agree on the first two. The second, I would say as long as the person has the financial means and won't damage the property then they should be considered. Now, if you want to discriminate b/c the fucker has "MS 13" tatted on his forehead, then you have a point. But to not rent to a person b/c of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. that's just bigoted. To me. Obviously, not to some people.

Tman, like most Conks, is a xenophobic, know-it-all, have-cake-eat-it-too kinda dick.

Forgive him.

[BDKJMU]

The Costoco owner should have the right to sell or not sell whatever f'ing books he wants.
Americans should have the right to shop or not shop wherever they want
Landlords should be able to rent or not rent to whomever they want.

End of story..

Agree on the first two. The second, I would say as long as the person has the financial means and won't damage the property then they should be considered. Now, if you want to discriminate b/c the **** has "MS 13" tatted on his forehead, then you have a point. But to not rent to a person b/c of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. that's just bigoted. To me. Obviously, not to some people.

Bigoted or not, it should be the landlord's right. Say you own a 2nd property that you want to rent out. You interview perspective renters. You sould be able to pick whomever you want for whatever reasons you want without having to explain it to anybody. It's none of the govt's or anyone else's business whom you pick for what reasons. Its your property. And if you want to evict them after giving proper notice you should be able to for whatever reason, and rent to someone else for whatever reason. Its your property.

[Ibanez]

Agree on the first two. The second, I would say as long as the person has the financial means and won't damage the property then they should be considered. Now, if you want to discriminate b/c the **** has "MS 13" tatted on his forehead, then you have a point. But to not rent to a person b/c of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. that's just bigoted. To me. Obviously, not to some people.

Bigoted or not, it should be the landlord's right. Say you own a 2nd property that you want to rent out. You interview perspective renters. You sould be able to pick whomever you want for whatever reasons you want without having to explain it to anybody. It's none of the govt's or anyone else's business whom you pick for what reasons. Its your property. And if you want to evict them after giving proper notice you should be able to for whatever reason, and rent to someone else for whatever reason. Its your property.

No, I get what your saying. But we live in a decent society.



I'm just guessing here, if roughly 75% of America identifies as Christian, and roughly 75% of Republicans are Christian, then wouldn't it behoove them to live up the principles they claim to believe, and treat everyone with love, kindness and respect? Or does all that golden rule bullshit go out the window when you're in bidness? I know...it's a lot to ask to stand by your principles. That's why I give those bakers that deny to make cakes for gays some credit. They have a belief, I don't agree with it and I think it's stupid, but it's their right.

[BDKJMU]

Bigoted or not, it should be the landlord's right. Say you own a 2nd property that you want to rent out. You interview perspective renters. You sould be able to pick whomever you want for whatever reasons you want without having to explain it to anybody. It's none of the govt's or anyone else's business whom you pick for what reasons. Its your property. And if you want to evict them after giving proper notice you should be able to for whatever reason, and rent to someone else for whatever reason. Its your property.

No, I get what your saying. But we live in a decent society.



I'm just guessing here, if roughly 75% of America identifies as Christian, and roughly 75% of Republicans are Christian, then wouldn't it behoove them to live up the principles they claim to believe, and treat everyone with love, kindness and respect? Or does all that golden rule bullshit go out the window when you're in bidness? I know...it's a lot to ask to stand by your principles. That's why I give those bakers that deny to make cakes for gays some credit. They have a belief, I don't agree with it and I think it's stupid, but it's their right.

You should have freedom to be what some would call an azzhole.

[travelinman67]

To
Agree on the first two. The second, I would say as long as the person has the financial means and won't damage the property then they should be considered. Now, if you want to discriminate b/c the fucker has "MS 13" tatted on his forehead, then you have a point. But to not rent to a person b/c of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. that's just bigoted. To me. Obviously, not to some people.

Tman, like most Conks, is a xenophobic, know-it-all, have-cake-eat-it-too kinda dick.

Forgive him.

Fuck you, Moby Dick. You stopped being relevant years ago. I've played the hate-driven progressives on this site like a cheap fiddle. Save your stereotyping for the next Donk circle jerk.

[Ibanez]

No, I get what your saying. But we live in a decent society.



I'm just guessing here, if roughly 75% of America identifies as Christian, and roughly 75% of Republicans are Christian, then wouldn't it behoove them to live up the principles they claim to believe, and treat everyone with love, kindness and respect? Or does all that golden rule bullshit go out the window when you're in bidness? I know...it's a lot to ask to stand by your principles. That's why I give those bakers that deny to make cakes for gays some credit. They have a belief, I don't agree with it and I think it's stupid, but it's their right.

You should have freedom to be what some would call an azzhole.

How am I the asshole?

That's another thing. If you're going to swear, type it. I hate pussies that type like a 15 yr old girl. Z's are not S's. V's are not U's.

[BDKJMU]

You should have freedom to be what some would call an azzhole.

How am I the asshole?

That's another thing. If you're going to swear, type it. I hate pussies that type like a 15 yr old girl. Z's are not S's. V's are not U's.

Wasn't saying you were the asshole. I meant when I said "you" that everyone should have that right be what some would call an asshole, bigot, whatever. I should have made that more clear by saying people instead of you. My bad.

And most people on here do that type of typing. But for you, I wrote it all out.

[Ibanez]

How am I the asshole?

That's another thing. If you're going to swear, type it. I hate pussies that type like a 15 yr old girl. Z's are not S's. V's are not U's.

Wasn't saying you were the asshole. I meant when I said "you" that everyone should have that right be what some would call an asshole, bigot, whatever. I should have made that more clear by saying people instead of you. My bad.

And most people on here do that type of typing. But for you, I wrote it all out.

Ah, the "understood you". We're good. Sorry for jumping down your throat.

[travelinman67]

The Costoco owner should have the right to sell or not sell whatever f'ing books he wants.
Americans should have the right to shop or not shop wherever they want
Landlords should be able to rent or not rent to whomever they want.

End of story..

Agree on the first two. The second, I would say as long as the person has the financial means and won't damage the property then they should be considered. Now, if you want to discriminate b/c the fucker has "MS 13" tatted on his forehead, then you have a point. But to not rent to a person b/c of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. that's just bigoted. To me. Obviously, not to some people.

Glad to see you finally looked up protected classes. That, however, doesn't change the essence of this debate: Discrimination based on political belief. ANY censoring of free speech is morally wrong. When you begin rationalizing or parsing the failure of protections, you've abandoned integrity.
It really doesn't matter whether it's Costco's Jim Sinegal, or Tman the Terrible, or Uber-American 7-11 owner Raj Patel, who recently became a U.S. citizen and HATES the people with pro-union bumper stickers so he fabricates reasons to refuse service...

...discrimination is morally wrong, all the time, by all people, for any reason.

That you would passionately defend one of our nation's largest retailer's decision to ban the sale of a book with political message divergent to the CEO's, is morally wrong.

Yes, he has the legal right to discriminate.

Yes, I have the right to shove it in the hypocritical face of corrupt progressives.

Please excuse me, but I need to start vetting rental applicants to eliminate those applicants whose political beliefs are opposite to mine.

[Ibanez]

Agree on the first two. The second, I would say as long as the person has the financial means and won't damage the property then they should be considered. Now, if you want to discriminate b/c the fucker has "MS 13" tatted on his forehead, then you have a point. But to not rent to a person b/c of their sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. that's just bigoted. To me. Obviously, not to some people.

Glad to see you finally looked up protected classes. That, however, doesn't change the essence of this debate: Discrimination based on political belief. ANY censoring of free speech is morally wrong. When you begin rationalizing or parsing the failure of protections, you've abandoned integrity.
It really doesn't matter whether it's Costco's Jim Sinegal, or Tman the Terrible, or Uber-American 7-11 owner Raj Patel, who recently became a U.S. citizen and HATES the people with pro-union bumper stickers so he fabricates reasons to refuse service...

...discrimination is morally wrong, all the time, by all people, for any reason.

That you would passionately defend one of our nation's largest retailer's decision to ban the sale of a book with political message divergent to the CEO's, is morally wrong.

Yes, he has the legal right to discriminate.

Yes, I have the right to shove it in the hypocritical face of corrupt progressives.

Please excuse me, but I need to start vetting rental applicants to eliminate those applicants whose political beliefs are opposite to mine.

Your problem is that you react so fucking quick, and you immediately assume you know what a person is saying. I defended his right to do what he wants. Just like i'd defend your right to be a complete dick and deny a person with an Obama sticker a place to live. Free speech is important, regardless f you agree with the message. You have the right to say what you want, and the right to be ignored. We all have the right to be dicks. To sell and buy what we want.

[dbackjon]

So T-man, where was your indignation when Christian Booksellers refuse to sell pro-gay Christian books?

Or when an association of Christian book publishers kicked out a member because that publisher dared to publish a book that showed that being gay is not a sin?









I'm waiting.

[Ibanez]

So T-man, where was your indignation when Christian Booksellers refuse to sell pro-gay Christian books?

Or when an association of Christian book publishers kicked out a member because that publisher dared to publish a book that showed that being gay is not a sin?









I'm waiting.

Those articles weren't in his news feed.

[travelinman67]

So T-man, where was your indignation when Christian Booksellers refuse to sell pro-gay Christian books?

Or when an association of Christian book publishers kicked out a member because that publisher dared to publish a book that showed that being gay is not a sin?

I'm waiting.

Wow! Dback, you need to get a grip on you hate of Christians.

We're talking about non-protected class discrimination. A religious group's decision to not publish/sell books which violate their religious beliefs, IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!

Whether you agree or disagree with their tenets IS IRRELEVANT.

[Ibanez]

I think this thread is so derailed... to me. This really isn't discrimination. I think T-mans early question about his ability to evict a democrat got us down that path. I think the question is, is this censorship? I don't think it is ( and I hate to admit it, but Rush Limbaugh agrees). This isn't censorship. A store doesn't want to sell something that goes against the owners political idealogy. It might be stupid and be bad for business, for a while, but it's not a discriminatory practice. You may not agree with it, but it's not a discrimination issue, it's a censorship issue.

Or it isn't.

[Ibanez]

The book, heavily critical of Barack Obama, was officially released June 2. A corporate decision to return the books was issued July 1, just as it is about to debut on the New York Times bestseller list.

Galanti confirmed to WND the “pull order” was in effect and that D’Souza’s book is in the process of being removed from Costco stores this week, with the goal to have all copies of D’Souza’s book out of Costco stores nationwide and shipped back to the vendor no later than July 15.

He said the decision to pull D’Souza’s book was not political but was based solely on sales, arguing Costco’s national goal is to market books that show up on the New York Times bestseller list


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/costco-denie ... lWk9L3D.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll have to find the article, but the sales numbers in June would've had it at # 8 or some where close to that.

[travelinman67]

In light of Ibanez's passionate plea against political discrimination against progressive renters, I've decided to make my rentals a politic-free zone. Effective immediately, all tenants displaying or expressing a political opinion will be evicted. I just saw a car in unit 112's parking space with a "Romney 2012" and "America" bumper sticker...



I'm dropping off their eviction notice later today.

[dbackjon]

So T-man, where was your indignation when Christian Booksellers refuse to sell pro-gay Christian books?

Or when an association of Christian book publishers kicked out a member because that publisher dared to publish a book that showed that being gay is not a sin?

I'm waiting.

Wow! Dback, you need to get a grip on you hate of Christians.

We're talking about non-protected class discrimination. A religious group's decision to not publish/sell books which violate their religious beliefs, IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!

Whether you agree or disagree with their tenets IS IRRELEVANT.

Why should hate be protected? Oh - free speech. And several courts have already ruled that gays are a protected class.

One's CHOICE of religion should not give you the right to discriminate against an innate characteristic like race, gender, orientation.

I don't hate Christians - just those that want to impose Christian Law on the rest of us.

[Grizalltheway]

Wow! Dback, you need to get a grip on you hate of Christians.

We're talking about non-protected class discrimination. A religious group's decision to not publish/sell books which violate their religious beliefs, IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!

Whether you agree or disagree with their tenets IS IRRELEVANT.

Why should hate be protected? Oh - free speech. And several courts have already ruled that gays are a protected class.

One's CHOICE of religion should not give you the right to discriminate against an innate characteristic like race, gender, orientation.

I don't hate Christians - just those that want to impose Christian Law on the rest of us.

Exactly. And can you imagine the shitstorm if the Hobby Lobby case had been about Muslim business owners trying to impose Sharia Law on their employees?

[Ibanez]

In light of Ibanez's passionate plea against political discrimination against progressive renters, I've decided to make my rentals a politic-free zone. Effective immediately, all tenants displaying or expressing a political opinion will be evicted. I just saw a car in unit 112's parking space with a "Romney 2012" and "America" bumper sticker...



I'm dropping off their eviction notice later today.

What a fucking diva.

[travelinman67]

I think this thread is so derailed... to me. This really isn't discrimination. I think T-mans early question about his ability to evict a democrat got us down that path. I think the question is, is this censorship? I don't think it is ( and I hate to admit it, but Rush Limbaugh agrees). This isn't censorship. A store doesn't want to sell something that goes against the owners political idealogy. It might be stupid and be bad for business, for a while, but it's not a discriminatory practice. You may not agree with it, but it's not a discrimination issue, it's a censorship issue.

Or it isn't.

Well, yes, it is censorship, for political purpose, which makes it discrimination, Kalm.

How ironic that progressives have endlessly battled to silence Limbaugh...

...and if you believe that Costco's decision was NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED...you're a deluded moron.

[CID1990]

Wow! Dback, you need to get a grip on you hate of Christians.

We're talking about non-protected class discrimination. A religious group's decision to not publish/sell books which violate their religious beliefs, IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!

Whether you agree or disagree with their tenets IS IRRELEVANT.

Why should hate be protected? Oh - free speech. And several courts have already ruled that gays are a protected class.

One's CHOICE of religion should not give you the right to discriminate against an innate characteristic like race, gender, orientation.

I don't hate Christians - just those that want to impose Christian Law on the rest of us.

Which Christian laws, pray tell, do you think they can realistically foist on you, Jon?

IN a time and country where gay marriage is becoming a reality it seems somewhat SPANDO-ISH to think that America is heading back to the MIddle Ages.

[Ibanez]

I think this thread is so derailed... to me. This really isn't discrimination. I think T-mans early question about his ability to evict a democrat got us down that path. I think the question is, is this censorship? I don't think it is ( and I hate to admit it, but Rush Limbaugh agrees). This isn't censorship. A store doesn't want to sell something that goes against the owners political idealogy. It might be stupid and be bad for business, for a while, but it's not a discriminatory practice. You may not agree with it, but it's not a discrimination issue, it's a censorship issue.

Or it isn't.

Well, yes, it is censorship, for political purpose, which makes it discrimination, Kalm.

How ironic that progressives have endlessly battled to silence Limbaugh...

...and if you believe that Costco's decision was NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED...you're a deluded moron.

Why do you keep saying progressive?

Obvious you don't read anything I post, i've stated it twice that this is obviously politically motivated. Fucking moron.

Do you even know what the fuck is going on? Seriously. You see red so much.

[travelinman67]

Wow! Dback, you need to get a grip on you hate of Christians.

We're talking about non-protected class discrimination. A religious group's decision to not publish/sell books which violate their religious beliefs, IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!

Whether you agree or disagree with their tenets IS IRRELEVANT.

Why should hate be protected? Oh - free speech. And several courts have already ruled that gays are a protected class.

One's CHOICE of religion should not give you the right to discriminate against an innate characteristic like race, gender, orientation.

I don't hate Christians - just those that want to impose Christian Law on the rest of us.

Reality check, Dback.

You hate Christians.

Dback, this is a basic "battle of the protected classes".

Christians cannot impose their beliefs on LGBT, but simultaneously LGBT cannot impose their beliefs upon religious groups.

I'm sorry you're unable to understand this paradox.