Business owner refusing service to Trump supporters

[Vyxn]

There has been so much divisiveness in the two weeks since the presidential election, but an Albuquerque business is going a step further by refusing to have any dealings with Donald Trump supporters.
Matthew Blanchfield runs 1st in SEO, an Albuquerque-based internet marketing company. He's making his case pretty clear in a blog post, writing “if you are a Republican, voted for Donald Trump or support Donald Trump, in any manner, you are not welcome at 1st in SEO and we ask you to leave our firm."
In an interview with KOB Tuesday, Blanchfield said he has a moral obligation to stand up for what he believes is right and against injustice.
“It is my firm belief that we elected a fascist as our next president,” he said.

Blanchfield does admit there are no real means to weed out those unwelcomed clients. He hopes they would come forward on their own and then get out.
He's certainly not worried about the loss of business. Blanchfield has no guess as to how many clients he might lose, but he said one has left so far.
“The expense financially to me is immaterial,” he said. “Morality, justice and doing what's correct far supersedes financial gain for me.”
http://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/...mpany/4325531/

with all the hate and vindictiveness by liberals after Trump won
It is time we conceder making ones political affiliation a protected class like we do with ones religion
make it against the law to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation

[Lenonis]

Wait -- I thought they were supposed to just go elsewhere aren't they? That's what the right keeps telling gays.

[NED funded]

Funny thing is that there literally is another thread that complains of the unfairness of not being able to deny homosexuals services.

[Sinyc]

with all the hate and vindictiveness by liberals after Trump won
It is time we conceder making ones political affiliation a protected class like we do with ones religion
make it against the law to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation

What makes this story even more hilarious to me, is that dude doesn't know what fascist means.

an Albuquerque-based internet marketing company... What better marketing scheme than to say this and get national spotlight.

EDIT: Also, this guy is the literal definition of a bigot. Don't see that mentioned anywhere.

Funny thing is that there literally is another thread that complains of the unfairness of not being able to deny homosexuals services.

But... but.. this book told me I can't serve them. (it actually doesn't)

[Machismo]

It's always humorous to watch conservatives demand for government to come in and protect them and their hurt feelers.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

This is, in fact, illegal.

Bigotry is bigotry, may it be against LGBT or against political ideologies.

EDIT: Some precisions, as this message keep being quoted over and over without the full picture:

I've clarified what I meant: You cannot arbitrarily refuse service. I can't refuse someone because he "looks like a republican". Likewise, republican stores cannot deny someone because "they looks like a democrat". Because how do you define that?

If I was a far-right evangelical store, could I refuse a client because he looks like a democrat, while in reality he's just exhibiting some stereotypical homosexual behavior?

Likewise, if I was a far-left libertarian store, could I refuse a client because he looks like a republican, while in reality he's just wearing a religious cross necklace around his neck?

Both are protected classes: Religions and Sexual Orientation. But unless your customer clearly come forward and state his affiliation, then you cannot arbitrarily make the decision of what define "Republican" and "Democrat".

The owner also has no clear way to prevent a sale unless the customer come and admit his affiliation of his own will:

Blanchfield does admit there are no real means to weed out those unwelcomed clients. He hopes they would come forward on their own and then get out.

[Bodakane]

Its against my religion to serve people who think other people and religions are lower then them.

[Lenonis]

This is, in fact, illegal.

Bigotry is bigotry, may it be against LGBT or against political ideologies.

Is it? Last I checked political views weren't protected -- and LGBT is only a protected class in some states, not federally, so in some cases you actually can discriminate legally.

[monkmastaeq]

with all the hate and vindictiveness by liberals after Trump won
It is time we conceder making ones political affiliation a protected class like we do with ones religion
make it against the law to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation

No one should be protected when it comes to an owner refusing service, they should do it for any reason they want. If it negatively impacts the business that is up to them to accept that consequence. This should be the right of any owner

[Lenonis]

No one should be protected when it comes to an owner refusing service, they should do it for any reason they want. If it negatively impacts the business that is up to them to accept that consequence. This should be the right of any owner

I'm not going to debate this for the 293403289084th time...but
1) This was tried before and it was a miserable failure. Businesses, as it turns out, don't go out of business when they are dicks to people.
2) Small town America makes this completely unreasonable as an approach.

[NED funded]

This is, in fact, illegal.

Bigotry is bigotry, may it be against LGBT or against political ideologies.

It's not illegal. Political ideologies are not a protected class. I think Seattle is the only place that considers political ideologies a protected class.

[Vyxn]

Wait -- I thought they were supposed to just go elsewhere aren't they? That's what the right keeps telling gays.

either civil rights for all or civil rights for none. you decide

- - - Updated - - -

It's not illegal. Political ideologies are not a class. I think Seattle is the only place that considers political ideologies a protected class.

you tell me the difference with ones religion and political affiliation

[ovm33]

I do not believe that a person should be forced to give up an inherent right, freedom of association, just because they're trying to put bread on their table.

Yes, that means some ass-hat in Alabama will be able to deny service to African Americans. Yes, it means bakers can refuse to make cakes for gay weddings. Yes, it means liberal business owners can refuse to serve Trump supporters.

It's not the Government's job to force us all to "like" each other. It's the Government's job to ensure that our rights are protected. There is no right to buy stuff from wherever you want. It comes down to this: The Government is overriding peoples inherent rights for "feelsies."

I'm sure this post is going to get hit with all sorts of hate replies, what about hospitals, cops, firemen, etc.?!?!1??1!! (Those positions are public service ones in which an individual already knows that they have to serve the entire public before joining.)

Flame away, you're not going to change my opinion.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Is it? Last I checked political views weren't protected -- and LGBT is only a protected class in some states, not federally, so in some cases you actually can discriminate legally.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/t...-of-appearance

It's touchy, but there could be a strong case where the refusal is arbitrary. Trump supporter can be many things and can easily be misinterpreted and be transformed into a completely arbitrary way of filtering their clientele.

To be legal, they'd have to make very clear guidelines which has a direct impact with customer. So it would be fine to refuse a customer who wears a "Make america great again" hat if you have a no hat rule, but you cannot on the basis that he is supporting a party.

EDIT: I want to precise, it is actually legal to refuse a customer on political beliefs, but you cannot arbitrarily decide who support and who don't. So unless they come forward and literally tell the owner or even the clerk that he is a republican/democrat/independant, then there's a strong legal case for arbitrary discrimination.

[NED funded]

either civil rights for all or civil rights for none. you decide

- - - Updated - - -



you tell me the difference with ones religion and political afflation

The dude can just found the new church of Trump affiliate to it and have his support for Trump be protected by the nanny state.

[Machismo]

either civil rights for all or civil rights for none. you decide

- - - Updated - - -



you tell me the difference with ones religion and political affiliation

I'm not sure you know what a civil right is.

[Lenonis]

either civil rights for all or civil rights for none. you decide

You seemed to have entirely missed my point.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Judging people for choices they make is not the same as judging someone for choices they didn't make.

I've clarified what I meant: You cannot arbitrarily refuse service. I can't refuse someone because he "looks like a republican". Likewise, republican stores cannot deny someone because "they looks like a democrat". Because how do you define that?

If I was a far-right evangelical store, could I refuse a client because he looks like a democrat, while in reality he's just exhibiting some stereotypical homosexual behavior?

Likewise, if I was a far-left libertarian store, could I refuse a client because he looks like a republican, while in reality he's just wearing a religious cross necklace around his neck?

Both are protected classes: Religions and Sexual Orientation. But unless your customer clearly come forward and state his affiliation, then you cannot arbitrarily make the decision of what define "Republican" and "Democrat".

[NED funded]

either civil rights for all or civil rights for none. you decide

- - - Updated - - -



you tell me the difference with ones religion and political affiliation

Difference of degree. If these individuals express cult like behavior to Trump they should officialiaze it.

[Deleted]

Judging people for choices they make is not the same as judging someone for choices they didn't make.

I thought being straight was a social construct?