Conroe brewery pulls out as venue for Kyle Rittenhouse rally against censorship

[Deleted User 1990]

Have you ever heard of the House Committee on Un-American Activities?

I don’t think you know what “discrimination” means anymore. Discrimination means an unfair and prejudicial treatment against a group based on some characteristics. it doesn’t mean we all have to turn a blind eye to views and ideas we disagree with and be forced to cater to those idea because otherwise it’s “discrimination”.
By your logic, if an anti-Israel, BDS group hires me to cater an event, I shouldn’t have a right to refuse because it’ll be “discrimination”. What exactly would I be “discriminating” against? A political view? A personal opinion? Actions that I believe are unfounded and based on ignorance? And why should I be forced to associate my name and my business with an event that I’m completely against? Now, if a member or members of such a group wish to hire me to cater a wedding, a birthday, anniversary or whatever other event not associated with those ideas, I couldn’t refuse on the basis of what they believe.
You got so tangled in defending this kid that you’re redefining what discrimination is or suggesting what it should be that could result in a snowball effect.

Is that what the Biden Administration is doing?

It has nothing to do with the Biden administration…

[Della]

Have you ever heard of the House Committee on Un-American Activities?

Is that what the Biden Administration is doing?

It has nothing to do with the Biden administration…

Then where is this question coming from?

[Francee89]

No… not in other words… the situation you brought up where someone is yelling and screaming didn’t happen.


This is about renting a facility that everyone else is allowed to rent.


The situation you brought up is why people felt valid discrimination against most other groups that have been discriminated against… because they might bring trouble.


That’s a reason why Black people were discriminated against, Muslims were discriminated against, gays were discriminated against, hell it’s even why people who were thought to possibly have communist beliefs were discriminated against…

If OJ Simpson had wanted to rent out a restaurant for a book launch party when If I Did It came out, and a restaurant said “thanks, but no thanks, we don’t want to be associated with this weird low key celebration of domestic violence and getting away with murder”, is that the same in your mind as them saying “no, we don’t want you here because you’re Black”?

I didn’t say they were the same… I said the acceptance of discrimination opens the doors for future discrimination to take place.


Take that as you will…

I mean, breaking my no junk food diet to have a single square of chocolate opens the door to eating an entire carton of it, but that doesn’t mean “zero consumption” or “total free for all” are the only two realistic options here.

[Deleted User 1990]

Is that what the Biden Administration is doing?

It has nothing to do with the Biden administration…

Then where is this question coming from?

She was talking about political affiliation not being a protected class and I brought up a time in our history when political affiliation discrimination was celebrated…however looking back, most historians agree on those times being detrimental to the values of a nation based on freedom .

[cgd5112]

I don't think this is discrimination. A business has the right to deny services as they see fit. from what I understand . Although not the same thing, the SCOTUS ruled that a cake maker can decline making a cake to potential clients if the clients philosophical ideology/lifestyle conflicts with the cake maker's religious beliefs.

in this case KR's political philosophy and the overall discourse around who he is what he did/got away with, etc, conflicts with this business's ideology of what they want the business to represent. in this case by being inclusive of KR they feel they are validating and giving a platform to exclusion. After all, KR is a controversial figure who now also added strongly anti abortion or pro life ( oh the irony ) to his beliefs.


I think that in this situation, where such controversies lie, the business opted out of this event in their place of business because it can be seen as verging on hate and discrimination.

It's a grey area and businesses like this one must weigh the cost benefits, so as long as they do not break the law. I don't believe they did.

There is a stoic saying/belief that goes something like this: Consider what you say yes to, because when you say yes to one thing, what are you saying no to?

[mcginnisc]

No… not in other words… the situation you brought up where someone is yelling and screaming didn’t happen.


This is about renting a facility that everyone else is allowed to rent.


The situation you brought up is why people felt valid discrimination against most other groups that have been discriminated against… because they might bring trouble.


That’s a reason why Black people were discriminated against, Muslims were discriminated against, gays were discriminated against, hell it’s even why people who were thought to possibly have communist beliefs were discriminated against…

Then I guess we’ll mark you down as a “yes” vote when it comes to embracing discrimination.

If you don’t learn from history, we’re bound to repeat it…Bring on the House Committee on Un-American Activities…we haven’t had to deal with this type of discrimination for a while, I guess we need a refresher course…

So, in other words, when someone is being belligerent in a store and acting the fool, a business will no longer be allowed to ask them to leave.. Why? Because they are going to scream that they are a protected class and can't be discriminated against. Either a business has the ability to decide not to be associated with people like Rittenhouse, or they don't. According to you, he is being discriminated against and that is a no-no. He is not being discriminated against. Conroe's owner decided he didn't want to host this craziness at his place of business. It is his right as a business owner. If businesses are not allowed to make those decisions, that is infringing on them and their rights. Kyle Rittenhouse has every right to go in and get a beer when the little twit is 21 years of age. Nobody is stopping him. He just can't hold a rally there.
It's the same thing as the restaurant a few months ago that was protecting their staff by not allowing people to have a party there. They are loud mouths and the owner said no because the staff was uncomfortable. You were fine with that because the servers were LGBTQIA+, but now...you are not okay with RIttenhouse being turned away. Either it is okay or its not. It doesn't matter if the owner of the first place was doing it to protect his servers ( I applaud him for it!), he did the same exact thing as the brewery owner. He said no. Was that discrimination too in your book because they are anti-LGBTQIA+ and were told no they couldn't eat there? Rittenhouse is also a loud mouth little twit and was told no. So, now he is whining all over the place because a brewery said no thanks to having his rally there. Both establishments had the right to say no. You can't pick one over the other as they did the same exact thing. ( although the restaurant owner was shady and should have said no much sooner than an hour before hand).

Dude.. it happens all the time when people get tossed out for being belligerent a-holes. You absolutely cannot scream that Conroe Brewery is discriminating against Rittenhouse, but be okay with another business owner telling someone else no that is a twit. What I am saying is if businesses are not allowed to tell people no, then the next step is apparently to tell them they can't kick people out for being a-holes because then *they* will cry discrimination. It is a two edged sword.
You cannot have it both ways. You were a-ok with the other business owner saying the people that protest LGBTQIA+ not being allowed in for their get together, but all of a sudden you are not okay with a business owner telling RIttenhouse and company no. That's a double standard. It's either ok, or it's not. If this guy is discriminating against Rittenhouse, then the other owner was discriminating against the protestors. Which is it?
They can either make decisions based on actions, or they can't. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is discrimination. It just doesn't. Just because someone *can* rent an establishment does not mean the owner has to allow it. They get to make those decisions unless it is discrimination by law- race, S*x, LGBTQIA+, creed, religion. There are laws in place for that. There is no law on the books that say the Conroe Brewery has to rent to someone they don't want to rent to based on prior behavior. Again, actions have consequences. It doesn't matter where the actions were good, bad or otherwise..we all have to deal with our actions. It does not ever mean we are free from consequences.

[Deleted User 1990]

No… not in other words… the situation you brought up where someone is yelling and screaming didn’t happen.


This is about renting a facility that everyone else is allowed to rent.


The situation you brought up is why people felt valid discrimination against most other groups that have been discriminated against… because they might bring trouble.


That’s a reason why Black people were discriminated against, Muslims were discriminated against, gays were discriminated against, hell it’s even why people who were thought to possibly have communist beliefs were discriminated against…

So, in other words, when someone is being belligerent in a store and acting the fool, a business will no longer be allowed to ask them to leave.. Why? Because they are going to scream that they are a protected class and can't be discriminated against. Either a business has the ability to decide not to be associated with people like Rittenhouse, or they don't. According to you, he is being discriminated against and that is a no-no. He is not being discriminated against. Conroe's owner decided he didn't want to host this craziness at his place of business. It is his right as a business owner. If businesses are not allowed to make those decisions, that is infringing on them and their rights. Kyle Rittenhouse has every right to go in and get a beer when the little twit is 21 years of age. Nobody is stopping him. He just can't hold a rally there.
It's the same thing as the restaurant a few months ago that was protecting their staff by not allowing people to have a party there. They are loud mouths and the owner said no because the staff was uncomfortable. You were fine with that because the servers were LGBTQIA+, but now...you are not okay with RIttenhouse being turned away. Either it is okay or its not. It doesn't matter if the owner of the first place was doing it to protect his servers ( I applaud him for it!), he did the same exact thing as the brewery owner. He said no. Was that discrimination too in your book because they are anti-LGBTQIA+ and were told no they couldn't eat there? Rittenhouse is also a loud mouth little twit and was told no. So, now he is whining all over the place because a brewery said no thanks to having his rally there. Both establishments had the right to say no. You can't pick one over the other as they did the same exact thing. ( although the restaurant owner was shady and should have said no much sooner than an hour before hand).

Dude.. it happens all the time when people get tossed out for being belligerent a-holes. You absolutely cannot scream that Conroe Brewery is discriminating against Rittenhouse, but be okay with another business owner telling someone else no that is a twit. What I am saying is if businesses are not allowed to tell people no, then the next step is apparently to tell them they can't kick people out for being a-holes because then *they* will cry discrimination. It is a two edged sword.
You cannot have it both ways. You were a-ok with the other business owner saying the people that protest LGBTQIA+ not being allowed in for their get together, but all of a sudden you are not okay with a business owner telling RIttenhouse and company no. That's a double standard. It's either ok, or it's not. If this guy is discriminating against Rittenhouse, then the other owner was discriminating against the protestors. Which is it?
They can either make decisions based on actions, or they can't. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is discrimination. It just doesn't. Just because someone *can* rent an establishment does not mean the owner has to allow it. They get to make those decisions unless it is discrimination by law- race, S*x, LGBTQIA+, creed, religion. There are laws in place for that. There is no law on the books that say the Conroe Brewery has to rent to someone they don't want to rent to based on prior behavior. Again, actions have consequences. It doesn't matter where the actions were good, bad or otherwise..we all have to deal with our actions. It does not ever mean we are free from consequences.

This is not about anyone being belligerent in a restaurant.


That is the way you are trying to spin what the conversation is about.


No one is talking about people acting irresponsibly in a business, in fact it is specifically about businesses denying service based on their biases, that have often included “they’ll cause trouble” as their reasoning.

I honestly can’t remember which post about LGBT protester you are referring to… but yes, you’re right I would have to reconsider my position if I suggested they should be denied service for their beliefs. Even though I would despise their beliefs…

[EarlGrayHot]

Rittenhouse is an idiot anyway. He should be in prison now anyway instead of free to yammer after what he did.

[Quorra2.0]

No… not in other words… the situation you brought up where someone is yelling and screaming didn’t happen.


This is about renting a facility that everyone else is allowed to rent.


The situation you brought up is why people felt valid discrimination against most other groups that have been discriminated against… because they might bring trouble.


That’s a reason why Black people were discriminated against, Muslims were discriminated against, gays were discriminated against, hell it’s even why people who were thought to possibly have communist beliefs were discriminated against…

Dude.. it happens all the time when people get tossed out for being belligerent a-holes. You absolutely cannot scream that Conroe Brewery is discriminating against Rittenhouse, but be okay with another business owner telling someone else no that is a twit. What I am saying is if businesses are not allowed to tell people no, then the next step is apparently to tell them they can't kick people out for being a-holes because then *they* will cry discrimination. It is a two edged sword.
You cannot have it both ways. You were a-ok with the other business owner saying the people that protest LGBTQIA+ not being allowed in for their get together, but all of a sudden you are not okay with a business owner telling RIttenhouse and company no. That's a double standard. It's either ok, or it's not. If this guy is discriminating against Rittenhouse, then the other owner was discriminating against the protestors. Which is it?
They can either make decisions based on actions, or they can't. Just because you don't like it does not mean it is discrimination. It just doesn't. Just because someone *can* rent an establishment does not mean the owner has to allow it. They get to make those decisions unless it is discrimination by law- race, S*x, LGBTQIA+, creed, religion. There are laws in place for that. There is no law on the books that say the Conroe Brewery has to rent to someone they don't want to rent to based on prior behavior. Again, actions have consequences. It doesn't matter where the actions were good, bad or otherwise..we all have to deal with our actions. It does not ever mean we are free from consequences.

This is not about anyone being belligerent in a restaurant.


That is the way you are trying to spin what the conversation is about.


No one is talking about people acting irresponsibly in a business, in fact it is specifically about businesses denying service based on their biases, that have often included “they’ll cause trouble” as their reasoning.

I honestly can’t remember which post about LGBT protester you are referring to… but yes, you’re right I would have to reconsider my position if I suggested they should be denied service for their beliefs. Even though I would despise their beliefs…

You are assuming bias, which in and of itself prejudice. There’s no proof of discrimination, you’re assuming.

One thing you seem to not realize is constitutional and civil rights aren’t black and white. There’s also absolutely no way for either of these, especially morally, to be an absolute. It’s not discrimination to allow the venue to be used for a full wedding service and reception but not allow it to be used to hold Sunday services. It would be discrimination to allow it to be used for multiple Christian services but refusing Islamic services. So far, there’s been absolutely no proof or evidence of discrimination. Just evidence of assumptions being made.

[Pjmm]

He went to his Aunt’s neighborhood that was only a few miles from his house.

He didn’t belong there because he was a kid, but he was found not guilty, so it kind of brings up a new question of whether or not people can be discriminated against for going on trial.

If we are a country that values “ innocent until proven guilty” and someone was not proven guilty, discrimination against them is an interesting subject…

If he took his not guilty verdict and lived a quiet life I wouldn't give two shits about him but because he's trying to capitalize off of it and gets treated like some sort of hero, that's where I have a problem.

There’s no reason he would have to go away and live a quiet life. He was found not guilty.

If we have now decided that we aren’t going to stand behind our own justice system that declares people to be innocent until proven guilty, we are opening up the door for so many more instances of discrimination that we will not be ok with seeing, but will have to accept since we set the bar.

He’s not guilty but we still don’t have to like his behavior going forward. And if this beer company decides they don’t want to be involved with him that’s fine. It’s just like I’m allowed to remove someone from my workplace if they harass the staff or are extremely racist. Heck a restaurant can refuse to serve you if they require black tie and you show up in blue jeans. This isn’t discrimination against a class of people. It’s refusing to do business with one individual. “We reserve the right to refuse service” has always been enforced here.