Trans

If N.C. Food Trucks Can Discriminate Against Gays, Then Why Aren't They?

Daily Show segment doesn't illustrate a serious problem. It highlights how culture often works issues out on its own.

|

'The Daily Show'
'The Daily Show,' Comedy Central

Let's start off by fact-checking and correcting both The Daily Show's and Huffington Post writer Cavan Sieczkowski's understanding of North Carolina's HB2. This is the controversial "bathroom bill" that requires transgender people to use the government and public school facilities that match the sex listed on their birth certificates.

There's more to the law, but it does not, as The Daily Show claims, permit or suddenly change state law to exclude gay and transgender people from antidiscrimination protections. In reality, North Carolina does not and never has provided state-level antidiscrimination protection for LGBT folks in employment and public accommodations. It's always been legal to discriminate against gay people and transgender people in North Carolina. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not classified as protected categories in their laws.

What HB2 does is forbid cities within North Carolina from adding sexual orientation and gender identity (or any other classification the state doesn't recognize) to their own antidiscrimination laws. This was done in a response to the City of Charlotte expanding its antidiscrimination and public accommodation laws.

I realize this is probably overly nuanced nitpicking for something like The Daily Show, but based on a stunt they recently pulled, it's really worth reminding folks that the government hasn't given anybody "permission to discriminate." The possibility of this kind of discrimination has been around all along because it hadn't been forbidden. The segment also incorrectly states that discrimination against LGBT people in the state will be legal for as long as HB2 is on the books. It will remain legal even if HB2 is repealed (at least on the state level) because, again, sexual orientation and gender identity are not considered protected classes by the state. (In fact, given the way the law is written, the state actually could add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes without repealing the law at all and keep all the transgender bathroom nonsense intact)

In an attempt to highlight the alleged absurdity of this mischaracterized "permission" to discriminate, The Daily Show sent a BBQ food truck to North Carolina to randomly refuse to serve people in comic fashion. Isn't it strange, the segment wants us to understand, to refuse to just arbitrarily refuse service to people because you think they're gay?

Yes, it is strange for a food truck to refuse to serve customers based on their sexual orientation. Did anybody involved with this stunt maybe stop for a moment and realize that they were criticizing something that wasn't happening and therefore they were actually making a remarkably uncompelling argument?

If there were a serious, widespread problem with discrimination against gay people, they wouldn't have had to set up a fake food truck, would they? They'd be able to just go down to North Carolina and go to one of the existing businesses who were discriminating against gay people and do one of those interviews where they get people to say stupid things so the viewers can feel superior.

But they didn't. They had to fabricate a Seinfeldian Soup Nazi-style environment to try to present an exaggerated possibility. It's an attempt at satire. It's an attempt to comically present a potential logical conclusion. But the flaw is that it actually highlights how little interest there is in widespread discrimination against gay people. There are no scenes of Jim Crow-style behavior targeting LGBT folks. Yes, discrimination exists, but there is no widespread conspiracy to exclude gay and transgender people, and there is so much more cultural pressure that can resolve it positively without getting the state involved.

The irony here is that they're exaggerating the potential threat of a problem to justify legal intervention controlling individual behavior, which is … exactly what Gov. Pat McCrory and supporters of monitoring public bathroom use are doing. There is little actual justification for the state telling transgender people which facilities to use because the potential threats to others are significantly exaggerated. This is what happens when you try to use laws to fight cultural issues. Every problem must be overblown in order to justify using legislation and courts to punish your cultural opposition.

Watch the Daily Show segment below:

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Get More: The Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,The Daily Show Video Archive

Advertisement

NEXT: Inside the Bitter Lobbying War Over Police Body Cam Contracts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Did anybody involved with this stunt maybe stop for a moment and realize that they were criticizing something that wasn’t happening and therefore they were actually making a remarkably uncompelling argument?

    No.

  2. Watch the Daily Show segment below:

    No.

    1. It’s either watch the DS segment or jam this white-hot poker into my eye sockets.

      AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHH!

      Shit, should have gone with the poker.

    2. The Daily Show is unwatchable now. It is a total disaster.

      1. For all values of ‘now’ including the last 8 years.

        1. Yup. I thought it was overrated in the first place. Smug asshole bloviates about politics. Rinse. Repeat.

    3. Megadittoes.

    1. There’s an American University now?

      1. Well, yeah. Since 1893, at least.

    2. Yeah, Robby used that to get his snark on.

    3. If they need to be in every syllabus, wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier just to issue a blanket trigger warning to all incoming freshmen and be done with it?

      1. “You might have your Feels hurt. Adjust your expectations accordingly.”

        1. “Here there bee whyte folke. Beeware.”

      2. Exactly. Give them all a (generic) trigger warning. That’s all they’ve even asked for, really.

        We all know that its a stalking horse for sterilizing class content and the professoriate. That can be headed off, or at least dragged into the open, by putting the same trigger warning on every class.

        1. We all know that its a stalking horse for sterilizing class content and the professoriate.

          I guess that’s how it looks. But I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to do that. I don’t see how that’s supposed to benefit anyone.

          1. Exercising power and punishing your enemies is its own reward.

            1. I think it says good things about me that I don’t get that at all.

              1. I don’t understand the motivation either. I no longer have the innocence of youth as an excuse so I see no justifications in safe spaces.

    4. The student government of your alma mater has gone full retard.

      Did you know who was in the sg or care what they did when you went there?

  3. Viacom and the Masters of the Liberal Universe.

  4. I still don’t know which is dumber the bathroom debate or the anthem debate. I honestly think we must be at peak derp.

    1. Derp has neither bottom nor peak. Derp surrounds us, binds us, flows through everything. Derp is The First and The Last, the Alpha and Omega.

      1. “Use the Derp, Luke!”

        1. “Luke, you’ve switched off your shitposting computer! Is everything alright?”

        2. We’re going in and we’re going in full retard, that ought to keep those trolls off our backs!

        3. “Never. I’ll never turn to the Derp Side. You’ve failed, your highness. I am a libertarian, like…well, not my mother, duh. Not my dad, he voted straight ticket his whole life. Not my poli-sci professor. Not my econ professor. Of course not my sociology professor. I had a cousin who had a bunch of guns, but…no. He put a scrotum on the back of his truck, not him. I was gonna say ‘a bunch of lowlifes at Reason’, but they’re all Tulpa. Oh! Drew Carey, that’s who I was thinking of. Yeah, like Drew Carey before me.”

          1. Cleveland rocks!

            1. I’d post the yinzer’s guide to Cleveland but since it was determined that simply being from Cleveland is a severe disability we are not allowed to pick on them.

      2. Derp is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
        I will face the derp.
        I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
        And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
        Where the derp has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain – Derpfull

      3. You forgot to mention that derp penetrates us.

        1. Isn’t that what Epi’s mom said?

        2. The slow derp penetrates the shield.

      4. If there was peak derp, there is no way we’ve reached it yet; Trumpillary hasn’t even been elected yet.

      1. We are not even close to close. Derp is like dark matter – it permeates the universe.

          1. What happens when Left and Right Derp collide?

            The love child of Anne Coulter and that fella on MSNBC…Whatsisname???

            Keith Madcow?

    2. Nope. You can never reach Peak Derp. You can only close half the distance to it.

      1. +1 Achilles and the tortoise

        1. I was thinking more along the lines of mathematical limits, but I’ll take it.

          1. I guess the question is whether derp is an exponential or logarithmic function.

            1. I’ll go with logarithmic. Just because it ends in “mic.”

              1. Shouldn’t you go with logarith then?

                Failure to drop the mic left the opening for me respond.

            2. I don’t know… but it’s definitely quantum and has the benefit of superposition.

              1. To measure speed of Derp, one surrenders precision of knowing where Derp currently is.

                1. +1 Heisenderp’s Uncertainty Principle

                  1. Peak Derp is infinitely expanding, moving away from you faster than you can ever approach it.

          2. I like the idea of Achilles forever closing in on Peak Derp, but never getting there….

            1. Asymptotic, Baby!

            2. What about quantization, aka Planck Derp?

              1. That would imply that there is a smallest possible quantum of derp that cannot be further divided. That seems unlikely. It is more likely that derp is like yin and yang, though I am at a loss to figure out what the yang is to the yin of derp.

        1. + ? Zeno’s

          ?-derp

          It’s derp’s universe, we just happen to do some rational things in it.

          1. Aleph-derp, oh dear lord. But then, what is the power set of derp????

          2. Speak for yourself.

      2. The problem I have with this is that it implies there is, at the least, a theoretical Peak Derp. I’m not sure that’s true.

        1. If there is such a thing, we’ll likely see it in the next four years.

      3. + 1 Zeno’s Paraderp

  5. That which is not prohibited is mandatory.

  6. Sorry, but this video is unavailable from your location.

    There are times it’s good to be a Canadian…

    1. Don’t worry, your liberal friends will still post a link to it on derpbook ….”sigh”

      1. Good point, I’ll have to check the feed when I get home and see how long it took!

    2. It’s probably not available because you’re gay.

    1. You know who else hated gays?

      1. Teh sads?

      2. Feminists hate teh male gaze

        1. [golf clap]

  7. I realize this is probably overly nuanced nitpicking for something like The Daily Show

    Reading text as written would be overly nuanced nitpicking for TDS. Their medium is spin.

    1. ^This. Thanks, Commodious.

    2. The Daily Show is basically what happens if you take a day of MSNBC broadcasting, compress it, add a live audience, and say that it’s comedy.

  8. exactly what Gov. Pat McCrory and supporters of monitoring public bathroom use are doing

    Excellent article, really. Ima nitpick this one, though.

    I don’t think McCrory or the legislature have done one thing to “monitor public bathroom use”. I am not aware that they have required or funded such monitoring, or even called for it. If they have, please let us know how.

    What they have done is say “sex-specific bathrooms will remain sex-specific bathrooms, and we will give transgender people a way to legally use the other bathroom”. That ain’t monitoring anything.

    1. It basically says, “you know those government-owned bathrooms marked ‘Men’ and ‘Women’ which have been around for, like a long time? Well, turns out it actually means ‘Men’ and ‘Women.’ But there’s an escape hatch: If you can put another sex on your birth certificate, we’ll defer to that.”

      1. Or, as I’m sure has happened all along, people can use whatever bathroom they can get away with using.

        1. Yup. The bill was actually status quo ante, plus a new provision for allowing trannies to use the other bathroom.

          The status quo ante had no “monitoring”; so I don’t see why anyone would say that continuing it is support for monitoring.

    2. What level of offense is it in NC to use the wrong government bathroom? ‘Monitoring’ is probably wrong, but ‘policing’ might be accurate. Although, as Eddie pointed out, this isn’t exactly new.

    3. If we’re really going to nitpick, let’s pressure every damn outlet, Reason included, to stop saying “bathroom laws”. You can go into every single public facility in North Carolina, and I guarantee you that you won’t see a single bath.

      They are restrooms. Let’s start calling them such.

      1. Hmmm?

        Nope.

        1. “a washing or immersion of something, especially the body, in water, steam, etc., as for cleansing or medical treatment: … a quantity of water or other liquid used for this purpose:”

          Looks like by the strict definition of the word, it is in fact a bathroom.

          Sorry tough guy.

          1. Nice try, bitch, but…. No.

      2. What do you call your driveway?

        1. My driveway is split by a planted median, so it’s also a parkway.

        2. Oooh, “garage”, Mr. Fancy!

          What do you call it?

          Carhole.

        3. It’s where I DRIVE my car on the WAY to/from the Garage/Street

        4. Frieda Turwilliger-Jones III. You?

      3. They are restrooms

        if that were true, why do i keep getting thrown out for taking a nap in them, huh??!

        1. One: you’re in the women’s restroom. Two: eyeglasses with closed eyelids painted on the lenses isn’t fooling anyone. Three: People don’t commonly nap naked.

          1. Speak for yourself.

      4. “Restroom” is just as euphemistic and technically incorrect as “bathroom”. “Toilet” is probably better, but just to be sure, best to say “place where you shit and/or piss”.

        1. best to say “place where you shit and/or piss”.

          “I’ll be right back, i need to go hit Winston’s Mom”

        2. Yes, the euphemism is a holdover from Victorian England. At least we’re beyond “water closet,” but that was actually a thing up to about 100 ya. IIRC, it’s “Toilet” in continental Europe, but even that is somewhat ambiguous according to dictionary dot com:

          5. a dressing room, especially one containing a bath.
          6. the act or process of dressing or grooming oneself, including bathing and arranging the hair:

          1. In building engineering the the fixture type is consistantly referred to as a “water closet” in specifications.

          2. It’s referred to as a water closet pretty much everywhere else. The abbreviation ‘WC’, is pretty much universally understood everywhere except the United States and maybe Canada.

            1. Which is odd given that it’s an abbreviation of an English phrase.

          3. “‘IIRC, it’s “Toilet” in continental Europe, ‘

            Again, you do not recall correctly. ”

            Again, you do not recall correctly.

            1. Whatever is most common, “toilet” is usually good because people will know what you are talking about and is the English word that people will use in a lot of places.

          4. In Germany they still call it the WC.

            1. And in the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark.

        3. best to say “place where you shit and/or piss”.

          Maybe that’s the key to get around all these stupid non-issues. Instead of men and women’s restrooms, have one for “people who piss standing up” and one for “people who sit down to piss.” Regardless of genitalia.

          1. I want to pee standing up in the place for people who sit down to piss! Stop oppressing me! /next sjw crusade

            1. When I go to the toilet somewhere there is a seat, I always piss on it, because I want everyone to know that it is MINE!

      5. I remember when I was younger and I had just arrived in Germany for my studies, I had asked a bartender where the bathroom was, she told me it was probably at my house. My mistake for literally translating an American colloquialism into German.

        1. Hahaha, that’s a pretty good response.

          1. Yeah she was a cute little thing too. I would have let her make fun of me all day long.

        2. Better than the Canadian “washroom.”

      6. I prefer to call it the Head.

      7. Why aren’t there any sofas in the restrooms, smart guy?

    4. All they really have is make it so that transgendereds do not have a legal right to be in an opposite sex bathroom, especially one in a government facility. That means it is less legally problematic to require someone of the opposite sex who is making a nuisance of themselves to go away.

    5. IIRC, it’s not just government-owned bathrooms, but also ones in “places of public accommodation” like stores, restaurants, etc.

      And don’t give the government any ideas. Think of the jobs and control that would come with bathroom monitors. Think TSA but ten times worse.

      1. IIRC, it’s not just government-owned bathrooms, but also ones in “places of public accommodation” like stores, restaurants, etc.

        Not exactly. The only ones compelled to practice biological sex discrimination in multiple-occupancy restrooms under the law are boards of education and public agencies. The law forbids lesser governmental units than the state from enacting regulations pertaining to public accommodations.

        Stores, restaurants, etc. are free to set whatever policies they want, and importantly can’t be forced to do anything in particular by local governments.

      2. You do not recall correctly.

      3. “Ah needs to check ya junkhole!”

        1. “I couldn’t hack it in the TSA, so I transfered to shitter patrol”.

      4. It would be a good southpark episode. Oh wait.

  9. I love that sort of logic, and both sides do it.

    If HB1 isn’t repealed, businesses will discrinimate against gays, and to prove it we’re going to film it as real businesses do it as we pretend to be a business and do it ourselves!

    Pretty much the same thing from the conservative side re: pervs in women’s bathrooms peeking under the stalls. I expect a James O’Keefe film showing some actor furtively trying to check out girls peeing anytime now.

    1. Its pretty much like hiring a bunch of actors to dress in Klan costumes and burn a cross, for a story about how the Klan is still a real and present danger.

      1. MAN IN KLAN COSTUME: “They dressed me like this!”

        NOAH: “Well, we *did* do the hood.”

        STEWART: “And the robe.”

        NOAH: “But he’s a witch – I mean racist!”

        BYSTANDERS: “Burn him!”

    2. True perverts prefer to listen to girls peeing.

      1. Who listens to the listener?

        Is the listenor a pervert if the listenee is a pervert?

  10. It’s like the fake GM pickup explosions. They had to force explosions because the real problem was so small.

  11. You know who else solved cultural issues on their own?

    1. Alexander Fleming?

      1. Thanks for reminding me of that! I’ve got to see if MM has published anything lately.

        1. Nothing new but some reprints with new covers that look like they came from the 70’s.

          Elric – still one of my favorite characters.

    2. The Idirans?

      1. +3 Hey

  12. do one of those interviews where they get people to say stupid things so the viewers can feel superior.

    This. There’s nothing more irritating than them cherry picking a stupid sounding statement out of an hour long interview and editing in a post interview shot of the interviewer nodding his head and almost winking at the camera while an audience full of retards roars with laughter at those dumb hicks — I mean, “people like this really exist!!!!” you can almost hear them say….

    Fucking Daily Show pioneered this and still by far the worst offender.

    At least I think, because like the rest of America I haven’t watched the Daily Show in years.

    1. Sasha somebody somebody has made an entire career of this.
      As did some dim-bulb on TV, “somebody 2.0”, who seems to have died in a fire someplace

      1. Sasha somebody somebody has made an entire career of this.

        Baron-Cohen?

        His shtick is a little different. He mostly tries to confuse his subjects by appearing completely stupid himself.

        1. In the hopes of getting *them* to say something stupid, so the audience can feel smug.

    2. Next, on ReasonTV: These totes not-cherry picked and heavily edited responses to totally-not-loaded questions reveal attitudes of all millenials everywhere!

    3. +1 woman walking around NYC for hours for the sake of recording three ‘catcalls’.

    4. At least the Daily Show has the excuse of being a “comedy” show

      What is Katie Couric’s excuse, I wonder?

      1. What is Katie Couric’s excuse, I wonder?

        She’s a talent less partisan hack?

        1. So it sounds like she’s exactly like the Daily Show

          1. She doesn’t normally perform in front of a live crowd of hyenas.

  13. Yes, it is strange for a food truck to refuse to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

    You agree it is a strange thing to do and that no one ought to do it. Therefore, you should have no problem making it illegal to do it.

    QED

    1. If we fail to stop the scourge of Things People Aren’t Doing, it will be the end of us all.

      1. I know the only reason I don’t pump myself of beans and go to the symphony, and try to fart in sync with the orchestra the whole time is because there’s a series of laws and a special police force to stop people from doing that.

        1. You have’t lived until you’ve done that, but it’s only fun during the quiet parts.

          1. *haven’t

  14. FIRE, out there doing God’s work.

    After seeking counseling following a sexual assault, NMU student Katerina Klawes received one of these emails in March 2015, informing her that it was “important that [she] refrain from discussing these issues with other students.” An administrator clarified to Klawes in a subsequent email that she “cannot discuss with other students suicidal or self-destructive thoughts or actions.”

    Kill yourselves.

    1. Ancient news, well covered here and everywhere.

      1. If I hain’t seen it it’s news to me.

        1. Jesus died for your sins.

  15. “…Did anybody involved with this stunt maybe stop for a moment and realize that they were criticizing something that wasn’t happening and therefore they were actually making a remarkably uncompelling argument?…”

    Lighting the Tony lamp!

    1. Watching this clip is the only way he can get off anymore.

      1. *turns green, dry heaves*

    2. “…Did anybody involved with this stunt maybe stop for a moment and realize that they were criticizing something that wasn’t happening and therefore they were actually making a remarkably uncompelling argument?…”

      Hahaha you’re asking if a group, known for being humorless scolds, and taking every statement in the worst possible way, while utterly misrepresenting anyone who they percieve as disagreeing with them as the worst possible example of humanity? has any self awareness?

      Ahhaahah

      Good one.

    3. Well, he showed up two hours late, but damn if it didn’t work!

  16. It’s not the total state if there isn’t a law covering everything.

    1. He’ll be back 10 hours later in the hopes nobody’s watching to ‘get in the last word!’

  17. “Watch the Daily Show segment below”

    Nah, I’ll pass. But thanks.

  18. Oh, and not a whole lot of diversity on that attached picture, Scott. Your clever alt-text can’t disguise that.

  19. How many of tbe actual incidents anywhere were businesses refusing to serve gays at all, rather than refuse to serve an event which celebrated homosexuality as a positive? The Daily Show is conflating two somewhat different issues and beating up a strawman as well.

    It is another example of what Shackford referred to the other day as “literalness”.

    1. Indeed, there is a rather important distinction between “you may not shop here” and “I won’t make a cake that endorses something I disagree with”. Although, the law should not penalize either one of those things.

      1. AFAIK, all the baker/photographer kerfuffles have involved services for same-sex weddings. Nobody has yet refused to provide services to gay people for birthday parties, retirement parties or other events for which one might reasonably engage the services of a baker or photographer.

        1. Exactly. It’s a refusal to celebrate a practice that the business-owner disagrees with, not the refusal to treat gay people with the basic respect due to all human beings and, more importantly, paying customers.

          1. not the refusal to treat gay people with the basic respect due to all human beings

            Except that’s not in evidence, either.

            Would be interesting to see what one of those bakers would do if a woman walked in and tried to order a birthday cake for her wife. Not that I encourage “test cases” (entrapment). Also, as a gay person I would refuse to do business with anyone who had a history of discrimination; which is a far different thing from wanting the government to force them to not discriminate.

            1. as a gay person I would refuse to do business with anyone who had a history of discrimination

              I used to DJ in gay bars, and i was asked to leave when i wasn’t working (*and so were the few straight people who randomly showed up to see me)

              Would you refuse to patronize gay bars that discriminated against straight-customers, and asked them to leave? Do you think they should be barred by law from doing so?

              My point isn’t any ‘gotcha’; its just that i think the idea that “Discrimination is Always Bad” is nothing but an assumed “moral consensus” which isn’t based on any rational application of principles.

              I think people who run businesses should be free to set whatever policies they want, and let their business succeed or fail based on their choices. I think the idea that discrimination should always be “fought” by default is also a erroneous presumption. What about the small town business that wants to cater to an under-served minority? The gay bar in yokel-america need only refuse entry to one Redneck asshole, and whammo! Lawsuit which shuts them down. This isn’t nearly as invented as scenario as the NC food-truck fantasy the Daily Show portrayed – its happened.

              I think freedom of association is a double-edged sword, and has both deplorable and defensible consequences. But i think its still worthwhile to defend people’s freedom to choose.

              1. True story: Decades ago, I went to a great Japanese restaurant in the Montrose area of Houston. I moved away, got married, and moved back to Houston about a decade later. In the intervening years, Montrose went from merely bohemian to exclusively gay, but I didn’t know it. After I returned, I suggested to my wife that we go to this great Japanese restaurant that I had been to. As soon as we entered the restaurant, the maitre d’hotel kindly advised us that this was a gay establishment and suggested that we’d probably have a more pleasant dining experience elsewhere. In my opinion, one should never eat at an establishment where one is unwelcome, so we took his advice.

                1. Don’t order the clam chowder.

                2. A gay restaurant?

                  That’s not what i was expecting.

                  In NYC there’s a sake bar called Decibel (*awesome place and one of my fave spots of all time) which for many years had a “Japanese customers first” policy.

                  their entrance has a roped off area where you come in and wait; late at night the place gets crowded, so there will be a dozen people packed in this small waiting area. In the late 90s, there were multiple occasions where i’d be standing there, and a japanese couple would come in and quickly be ushered through the scrum to a table, while everyone else collectively moaned “OH COME ON ALREADY” and the bouncer person would smile and shrug and be like, “Sorry round eye, you shut up and wait”.

                  I actually liked it, mostly for their unapologetic “tough shit, yuppies” attitude.

                  I think it might have changed policy since then; my memories of the place tend to be fuzzy at best.

                  1. It was just a restaurant and bar when I first went there, and it’s name and signage had not changed a decade later. We were early, and the maitre d’hotel’s suggestion wasn’t for lack of available tables. Because we followed his kind suggestion, I have no idea what other entertainments were on offer within.

                    1. There was a interesting restaurant concept in Chelsa/ west23rd back in the late 1990s as well.

                      La Nouvelle Justine / aka “Maison De Sade”

                      La Maison de Sade

                      Best Bar to Order Baby Food From a Dominatrix While in a High Chair
                      Smile and say Gerber’s. You can request the nightly mistress to strap you in, whip in one hand, and feed you slowly. But be warned: It may get a bit messy. At La Maison de Sade, you can swap dinner and a movie for crushed carrots and a taste of latex. The center of this Chelsea bar houses a cage made to fit three, plus a few poles where professional and first-time “submissives” spread their arms and bend over while voluptuous, mean doms have their go. The highchair is just one option.

                      I went on a few first (mostly last) dates there. It was a ‘conversation starter’, at least.

  20. I realize this is probably overly nuanced nitpicking for something like The Daily Show

    Any argument that requires more than a second of thought is too nuanced for The Daily Show. They, and their viewers, don’t think, they emote.

  21. Before reading anything I will propose an answer to the question in the title; Because business people don’t really care about black, white, straight, gay, male or female, they only care if you are a paying customer that doesnt disrupt their business?

    I dunno, maybe I’m nuts.

    1. In prog-world, all bakers are secretly evangelical fundamentalists who are just longing for the opportunity to deny cake all the homos who just want to exercise their God-given right to the perfect wedding cake.

      1. In prog-world, all bakers are secretly evangelical fundamentalists who are just longing for the opportunity to deny cake all the homos who just want to exercise their God-given right to the perfect wedding cake.

        Well, after the fundamentalist doctors spent the previous two decades throwing homosexuals out of emergency rooms, why would bakers treat them any better?

  22. “No Gays Allowed”

    What i find even more ridiculous is their belief that any such exaggerated form of “discrimination” is even enforceable.

    Its not like gays walk around screeching “YOO HOO!! LOOK AT ME!!! GAY OVER HERE!” before ordering their meal.

    And if they tried to suggest that they wouldn’t serve you because of your “sexual orientation”, what exactly would they do to PROVE they had a basis to do so? “You sure do LOOK gay”?

    Its absurd.

    What they are trying to undermine w/ this dramatic-fantasy is the idea that anyone can/should be able to refuse service to people for any reason.

    that’s not the same as “discrimination” at all; its just protecting businesses from being !(@#*&! sued for kicking people out who happen to be members of ‘protected classes’. (*examples mentioned here previously)

    the pre-emptive discrimination depicted (“No X Allowed”) seems to me an extreme distortion of that idea – one which has no rational basis to be ‘feared’ anyway; let bigots advertise themselves. The marketplace will make short work of them. Pretending that “laws” will protect you from bigots is a silly juvenile myth. The law simply forces them to hide. Let them expose themselves if they exist.

    1. Its not like gays walk around screeching “YOO HOO!! LOOK AT ME!!! GAY OVER HERE!” before ordering their meal.

      But they do occasionally hold hands with their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend. Holding hands with a same-sex person not your child is a pretty obvious tipoff that those people are gay.

      So, not as absurd as you think.

      1. No, it’s still absurd.

      2. You’re missing the point;

        its not about whether or not there are “tipoffs”, its the fact that one party has to “accuse the other” and still have no proof other; unless being ‘too affectionate’ is somehow also grounds for barring-service. its about the onus of enforcement of their own policy being highly subjective.

        IOW, its nothing like “Racial” discrimination, which is largely self-evident. (*tho if you’re in the quibbling mood you surely can find exceptions there as well)

        The point is that the parallels between racial discrimination and ‘sexual-orientation-discrimination’ are a stretch, at best.

        We were talking about this issue once, and Rhywun insisted he was thrown out of a cab for “being gay”. I was skeptical and asked… “well, how the hell did the cabdriver *know*?!?” …At which point he explained that someone had been putting their head in the other persons’ lap… (THEY WERE RESTING) …at which point the cabdriver screeched to a halt and booted them.

        And i pointed out that had nothing to do with “being gay” and everything to do with cabdrivers panicking about people hooking up in their cabs. Its not like straight people get taxi-head all the time without problems.

        The same issue came up w/ the Memories Pizza thing; where they admitted they had no problems SERVING gays; it was participating in gay-weddings that they objected to; yet everyone pretended that their posture was similar “No Gays Served Here” policy; a contrived exaggeration.

        1. You’re missing the point.

          Perhaps so. Don’t care.

          But I do seem to have raised a point which deflates your earlier claim, and which you don’t want to deal with head-on, rather bringing up things like the head-in-lap-in-taxi incident which are not equivalent. I deliberately chose the hand-holding because it is 1) normal couple behavior, 2) a pretty clear-cut indication that the people are, indeed, gay and 3) behavior that is generally considered acceptable in public, unlike tongue-kissing (generally acceptable, but frowned upon) or public sex (unacceptable).

          1. I do seem to have raised a point which deflates your earlier claim

            No, you’re arguing that being gay is “sometimes”, debatably self-evident – which still doesn’t quite say very much on its own, or address my point re: the weak parallels between “gay” and racial-discrimination.

            Accepting your niggle = so what?

            Given that discrimination against gays was theoretically already “allowed” under the law in NC, are you claiming its happening all the time, and is somehow unreported?

            IOW – I fail to see how your argument that pre-emptive discrimination is “theoretically more-possible than i assume” suggests it is actually a problem requiring the urgent attention of the law.

        2. And i pointed out that had nothing to do with “being gay” and everything to do with cabdrivers panicking about people hooking up in their cabs. Its not like straight people get taxi-head all the time without problems.

          If you’re talking about the same Rhy story I’m thinking about, it was more about the fact that the cab driver was Abu Muhammad ibn Mohamed ibn Muhammed al-Mohammed.

          1. If you’re talking about the same Rhy story I’m thinking about, it was more about the fact that the cab driver was Abu Muhammad ibn Mohamed ibn Muhammed al-Mohammed.

            i think that added to the assumption that he was being singled out for “gay head” instead of plain old “hetero-head”.

            But isn’t that itself a bit of a bigoted (albeit rational) presumption? (that muslim cabbies are more likely to be ‘anti-gay’)

            Would it be seen as “less bigoted” if say, a white female cab-driver* booted them out for the same?

            (*footnote = i confess: i don’t think i’ve ever seen a white female cabbie in NYC in my entire life – or at least i can’t remember ever having seen one; **double footnote = i have also nearly been thrown out of a cab for “falsely assumed to be getting head”. a very drunk girl DID put her head in my lap. I had to argue with cabbie for 10 mins and refuse to get out before he finally relented and finished taking us home. He ranted the entire time about how “he’d lose his medallion” etc. To assume the thing that provoked the cabbie reaction was ‘being gay’ is entirely projection, imo )

      3. Middle Eastern men hardest hit.

        (Seriously, it’s not uncommon for men to hold hands in their culture. Now shoving their tongues down each others throats….NTTAWWT.)

        1. Hey that’s ok too, as long as they are doing it in the name of Jihad

    2. Well, see, you ask every guy who comes in your store if they want a blow job, and the ones who say yes, you refuse to serve.

      1. Brett, in your store, does the BJ count as service?

        /Asking for a friend

  23. Just think, if public accommodation laws are ever repealed, the country will be awash in liberals with cameras pretending to be business owners discriminating against people, and it will be totally legal!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

  24. Its not like gays walk around screeching “YOO HOO!! LOOK AT ME!!! GAY OVER HERE!” before ordering their meal.

    Clearly, you’ve never watched Bravo.

    1. ok, there are certainly some neighborhoods where that’s sort of a thing.

      my point was that, ‘pretending that racial discrimination and sexual-orientation-discrimination are neat parallels’ is ridiculous on the face of it…. yet the Daily Show people seem to want to get away with acting as though what they depict would be the ‘obvious consequence’.

      1. Like the article says, all they need to do is send “testers” into NC restaurants and businesses pretending to be gay, and if they’re refused service, air the footage.

        They went straight for the “fake business” route for some reason…

        1. Because they would probably have gotten the shit sued out of them by the businesses for doing that. Not sure if NC is a one-party or two-party consent state for recording. By setting up a “fake” business* they minimized their liability.

          (*)Assume that it was fake only in that they weren’t really there to make money, and that they were compliant with all licensing and regulatory requirements for food trucks in that jurisdiction.

  25. Good luck everyone in Florida! If you are a libertarian and/or bitch about your taxes you should probably patch together your house and belongings with pluck and aplomb. I don’t want to hear your pleadings for fresh water and power over the loud and obnoxious Trump 2016 yard signs now impailed in what is left of your rooftop. Up yours mooch.

    1. Look at the bright side, if their house gets destroyed, they can just walk away from their mortgage.

      1. Assuming they were properly insured (at tax payer expense).

    2. Excellent illustration of the discussion upthread, but you’re still not quite at peak derp.

      1. Pretty close. Libertarians are moochers.

    3. Yeah, cause it’s not like they don’t pay monthly for that water or power service.

      Jesus christ you are one dumb, disingenuous piece of shit.

      1. Look, if you don’t like government doing something then you’re supposed to go without. Oppose Social Security in principle? Well you better not accept it when you get to that age or you’re a fucking hypocrite and everything you ever said or did in life was wrong. The validity of your ideas and arguments and actions hinge not upon their merit, but upon you as a person.

        1. ROADZ! Aren’t you the guys that make fun of anyone suggesting that taxes go to pay for the things people actually use.bwouldn’t that apply to federal disaster assistance?

          1. Indeed. Without state-funded transportation infrastructure, how could we forcibly relocate entire communities of Muslims to labor camps, as you praised the Soviet Union for doing in these very fora?

            1. “Jewish Autonomous Oblast”

              Do a search commie-kid. You’ll wet your pants at the thought of deporting all those Jews.

          2. Which article of the constitution grants the feds the power to dole out disaster assistance? I’m not seeing it.

            1. One of the emanations, i think. Or maybe it was a penumbra.

        2. By that logic someone that is opposed to SS should forgo taking disability if health issues leave them penniless and unable to work full time.

          I have only met one of these people in my lifetime. Do you know any more? He could really use some friends with similar beliefs.

    4. Riddle me this Batman, who’s more likely to be a prepper with a bug-out-bag and a storage bin full of water and canned goods? A libertarian or an “american socialist”?

      1. As a good Socialist-American, amsoc knows very well that anybody who claims to be prepared for anything without government help is lying. After all, before the advent of municipal utilities, everybody died all the time. Do you want to go back to that, HM? Do you?

        1. Some folk jus’ need dyin’.

          *spits into spittoon*

      2. Those people are only preppers until a disaster actually happens, then in AMSoc’s lexicon they magically transform into hoarders

        1. At what point do they transition to kulaks? And is that the stage before or after wreckers?

    5. I do so love when lefties let the mask slip and show themselves as the horrible misanthropic monsters that they truly are. Never mind the fact that there are quite a number of strongly Democrat areas in the path of the storm and never mind that the people who will suffer most are the very minorities your ilk claim to be the champion of, no, all that you care about is seeing your perceived villains suffer. Such a sad little hatred is almost amusing, as you’ve obviously bought into the left think that anything south of the Mason-Dixon is full of nothing but rednecks and honkeys. Florida may lean Red, but we are quite Purple in many places. Tell you what? I’ll listen to your holy progressive sermon of a great Amerikan Socialist Circle-Jerk Gulag at the promised land when you statist slaves can figure out a way for FEMA to even do half a good as job at disaster relief as Waffle House!

      1. And, no, citing the Red Cross won’t help with whatever jackbootlicking rationale you’re going to try to vomit all over this thread. Those guys and gals have been known to do good work on foreign shores, but here in the States they’re so far up Uncle Sam’s ass the only thing they’re good for is photo ops with dipshit narcissistic celebrities. Fuckers can barely manage to get blood drives right. Clara Barton would be pissed!

      2. Oh, and let’s not forget about the hundreds of thousand tourists from all over the world who were trapped in the storm’s path and are now in danger. Big fucking thank you needs to go out to all the assholes in the media for stirring them and the non-natives into a state of pants shitting terror. I work as a ferry boat captain at Walt Disney World and I spent most of last night having to help evacuate the Fort Wilderness Campground guests to the Wilderness Lodge and Contemporary Resort. I lost count of how many little kids I had to help calm down because the local weather cocksucker had told them that Matthew was coming to get them. I guess those poor kids should just eat shit because they dared to go see Mickey Mouse in a state with a Republican Legislature!

    6. you should probably patch together your house and belongings with pluck and aplomb

      Or plywood, which is what’s normally done. What’s your point?

  26. OT: Widespread voter fraud by non-citizens:

    According to Pew, there were over 1 million immigrants in Virginia as of 2014. In 2013, according to the Census, the number of non-citizens in the state was 427,535, but given the fast pace of new immigration to the region, that number has likely grown. If a random sampling from just eight counties showed over 1,000 non-citizens registered to vote, one can easily speculate that thousands more are registered statewide.

    This random sampling on non-citizens voting dovetails well with a 2014 study from three prominent political scientists who found that up to 6.4% of all non-citizens participated in the 2008 elections and up to 14.7% voted.

    http://www.conservativereview……d-disaster

    Let’s say 12% of non-citizens vote this time around. There are around 42 million non-citizens these days, which would be about 5 million votes.

    1. Terry McAuliffe would never dream of such a thing.

    2. There are around 42 million non-citizens these days, which would be about 5 million votes.

      Which is approximately the margin of Obama’s lead over Romney in the popular vote.

    3. RC, you need to chill out because a desire for Voter ID is spurred by latent racism.

      Supporters of voter ID laws say they want to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Now, critics say these laws are a veiled attempt by Republicans to deny African-Americans and other predominantly Democratic voters the opportunity to cast a vote. Well, there’s new social science research that could offer some insight into why people might support voter ID laws. And to explain it, we’re joined by none other than NPR social science correspondent Shankar Vedantam.

      They did. So political psychologist Antoine Banks at the University of Maryland and his colleague, Heather Hicks, ran experiments on more than a thousand white volunteers. Here’s Banks.

      ANTOINE BANKS: What we found was, when we made white Americans afraid or fearful, it actually made them more supportive of voter ID laws. So people who scored really high in this unconscious racial bias, when we put them in a fearful state, their support for voter ID laws went from about 76 percent to about 92 percent.

      1. RESEARCHER: “Do you support Voter ID laws?”

        WHITE HONKY OPPRESSOR: No.

        RESEARCHER: “What if I showed you this picture of…Willie Horton?”

        WHITE HONKY OPPRESSOR: Aaah, get him away from me! And I change my answer to support for voter ID laws!

      2. That is one epic stolen base:

        when we made white Americans afraid or fearful, it actually made them more supportive of voter ID laws. So people who scored really high in this unconscious racial bias,

        It basically boils down to, anything white people want, they want because they are racists.

      3. Democrats who hold these unconscious bias, they fall – about 50 percent of them support voter ID laws. But when we make them afraid or fearful, their support jumps up to about 80 percent.

        Study of racism in white people finds white racism!

        Also, Trumps popularity comes from inducing fear/racism in Democrats.

      4. Why do democrats support overt employment discrimination against white people and Asians?

        At least conservatives have the decency to occasionally throw some subtlety into it.

      5. but nothing racist at all about the implication that, for some reason, blacks are incapable of getting IDs. Don’t let the millions who hold driver’s licenses and are on the road daily, or those who board airplanes or do a million other things fool you.

    4. So that would explain the GayJay poll bump!

      But seriously, I keep running across stories like this. And I agree, it’s largely anecdotal, but what concerns me is the people who keep dismissing the concept saying “there’s no evidence of voter fraud” I think have a highly nuanced definition of Fraud. Or perhaps I should say, a very narrow definition. Ie, a shadowy cabal submitting “fake” ballots in a coordinated effort. Not tens of thousands of people not eligible to vote– who may not even KNOW they’re not supposed to vote, who are voting in elections.

      At that point (and assuming that’s the case) we have to decide if we bring them into the fold– to make sure they don’t vote more than once in a single election– or tighten up the registration and voting requirements to shut that activity down.

      1. The argument I hear is “sure there’s fraud, but it’s not people impersonating registered voters, it’s other kinds of fraud, so Voter IDs aren’t needed!”

        1. The Democratic argument is basically, “look, if, hypothetically, someone wanted to commit voter fraud, they wouldn’t impersonate people on the voter rolls, they’d simply register under a fictitious name…or maybe simply stuff the ballot boxes, or whatever people do when they commit voter fraud, *we* wouldn’t know.”

          1. If you want one example on the type of fraud that has actually occurred I recommend Jimmy Carter’s ‘Turning Point’. I don’t expect that you are a big fan of Carter but the book describes fraud in the Democrats.

            In summary this fraud was done by the election officials stuffing the ballot box. ID laws do nothing to stop it.

            What is really needed is real world examples of what problem ID laws solve. Until I see those ID law supporters might be better off setting up a fake food truck polling staff to build hype. So far there just aren’t the reports to justify my rage induced approval of yet another law.

      2. I think your right, but I also think (especially in districts that are overwhelmingly D or R) that “fake ballots” are submitted by voting for registered voters who failed to show up at the polls either because they forgot, didn’t want to or had no idea they were registered in the first place.

    5. RC, did you see the link I posted earlier this week where they caught some “community activist” college students in Virginia who were doing voter registration and tried to register a recently-deceased and well-known local figure?

    6. Who the hell is registering all these people? Seems like that’s when you should be weeding out ineligible voters.

      A good start would be to outlaw third parties going around registering voters. If you want to vote, you need to go to Town Hall or whatever and register.

      1. The DMV in VA, the only reason they caught the VA people is they self reported when they reregistered their licenses. They had been registered previously.

      2. The progs would go ballistic over that, Zeb. The narrative is that poor people (codeword for “black”) are unable to register at the voter registrar office because they lack reliable transportation, and are unable to take time off from work to register. I always rebut that by asking the prog how many rides to the registrar’s office they have personally given to poor people; they don’t like that question. The second issue is somewhat more valid. I would be fine with having the Registrar offices open 24×7 for one full week six months before the election, or any other reasonable accommodation.

      3. In some cases they are people who have been registered for years but have either died or moved away and someone else is keeping their registration alive so they can vote in their place.

        remember, campaigns are given access to lists of registered voters and they do take the time to check up on them and see if their registrations are accurate

        1. campaigns are given access to lists of registered voters

          I wish they’d cut that shit out too. I expect to start receiving 20 or so campaign mailers daily pretty soon. And I get about 4 polling calls a day.

  27. As pedantically unfunny as Jon Stewart had become by the end of his tenure (by which I mean 2008 and on, actually), I can only assume that this new guy is worse. I can’t even remember the last time I saw a headline about how the Daily Show LITERALLY DESTROYED some conservative or libertarian straw-man strawperson person of straw.

  28. I loved The Daily Show when it was silly, when Jesse Jackson’s description was “Media Whore”, and a high naval source was Captain Crunch. It made me laugh before I went to bed. After Stewart took over, and at some point decided he was An Important Journalist, (despite his protestations that he was not), the whole show eventually became insufferable. I finally stopped watching all together about four years ago; the only thing that had been keeping me watching that long was nostalgia, and the hope that it would somehow return to its roots. But it was not to be.

    1. -5 Questions

      1. 5 Questions was great, as was that guy’s exploding head.

    2. I’m pretty sure 90% of whatever tiny audience it has left is a bunch of East Coast liberal millenials watching out of fear that if they admit it isn’t funny, they will be labeled racists.

    3. I thought Stewart’s version was good for a while. He’s a very talented comedian. But when he started to be seen as some kind of serious participant in the political debate, it got stupid fast.

      1. Uptight conservatives who say Stewart can’t be funny are the yin to the liberals’ who claim nothing Ann Coulter ever says is funny yang. Stewart can be funny and is talented.

        I don’t even begrudge it being slanted liberal. Something can still be funny even if you don’t agree with it. Where it went off the rails is like you say, when his success went to Stewart’s head and he started thinking he was a serious participant rather than a comedian. Pretentiousness is never funny. And picking on people who can’t fight back is never funny. And that is all the Daily Show seems to ever be or do.

      2. I enjoyed watching him give a hummer to a sitting president.*

        *I did not enjoy it at all.

        1. The big Hummer, or one of the smaller models? Wouldn’t that be bribery?

          1. Only if Stewart was asking for something in return.

      3. Stewart was good during the Bush years, the same way Kilborn was good during the Clinton years. The fact that the transition was right around the administration change was a great boon for the show.

        Once Obama was elected, the show stopped being critical and just became a fawning propaganda outlet for the Democrats in power. That, to me, is when the show became unwatchable.

        1. Except that Kilburn was also a Democrat.

          I saw the end as soon as Stewart took over–to show you he’d gotten to the ‘punchline’ he’d ‘laugh’ at his own joke.

          That and how it went from “The Daily Show” to “The Daily ShowwithJonStewart”

          1. I was just quoting Craig Kilborn’s Daily Show the other day- He said that in his acceptance speech, Bill Clinton thanked Bob Dole for being such a “gruesome alternative”. I was thinking that Hillary might be using the same speech.

  29. Up yours mooch.

    Shouldn’t you be getting those shopping carts rounded up?

  30. I just want to thank North Carolina for drawing all this attention so we here in Georgia can bitterly cling to our no gays signs.

    And poach away ACC events.

    1. And hopefully Virginia will get some of those events that are relocating out of NC.

  31. Gays and food trucks. Shackford should have added pot for a Reason trifecta.

    1. Only if it was a Taco truck.

  32. Food trucks discriminating against gays; Ladies and Gentleman we have reached peak Reason. They might as well shut it down because we no have the reasonist story ever. They will never top this. My compliments Scott on being the first man to reach peak reason.

    The Daily Show really is despicable. The same people who have spent the last 8 years acting as a propaganda outlet for the President turn into real tough guys when confronted with some guy who runs a food truck in Charlotte or lives in some small town in Idaho. When Bush was in office people who watched the Daily Show could at least say they were watching something that criticized the powers that be and Jon Stewart could be funny when he wanted to be. Now Stewart is long gone and you have to be a pretty sorry person to watch that garbage.

    1. This was a while back, but I remember some guy once told me that he was really smart and informed because smart and informed people watch that show, so his watching it made him smart and informed. The stupid was so terrifying that I was at a loss for words. Imagine me at a loss for words. It happens. Rarely, but it does.

      1. Someone, I forget who, said it was for today’s Progs, what TV evangelists were to born agains in the 1980s. I think that is a pretty spot on comparison.

        1. I concur.

      2. “Hmm. Smart and informed people also take a crap in the bathroom rather than on the living room floor. If I crap in the bathroom, does that make me smart and informed?”

        Proggies cannot distinguish markers for being smart and informed, with the traits themselves. See, also, college for everyone, home ownership, etc.

        1. I think that’s called a cargo cult.

    2. I have never actually watched it, I’m proud to say. The thing with food trucks just sounds like progtards doing what they do best-trying to start shit because they MUST always be the center of attention.

    3. The Daily Show really is despicable.

      I’ll just go with dumb.

      1. Dumb is making unfunny jokes. They do more than that. They really do selectively edit and humiliate people who are not celebrities or politicians and really have no way to fight back. That is what makes them despicable.

  33. I can’t believe nobody has pointed out the racism of having the black guy be the anti-gay bigot.

    Do you even grievance, bro?

    1. That is the dirty little secret of gay rights, it is an issue that is important to primarily upper middle class and upper class white people. Minorities and poor people in general largely don’t give a fuck about gay rights if they are not outright hostile towards the issue. No one ever mentions that because it interferes with the fantasies about being the most tolerant and inclusive people in the world progressive white people hold very dear.

      1. See also, abortion and general social conservatism. A lot of blacks and Latinos are pretty religious and take that shit seriously.

        1. They do. A lot of black people are big time religious law and order conservatives who really have nothing in common with the Democratic Party. The only thing that keeps them Democrat is social pressure and years of habit reinforced by what can only be described as relentless media propaganda that all Republicans hate black people.

          Identity politics has created some very strange bedfellows in American politics and caused a lot of people in both parties to support politicians who really don’t reflect their preferences or interests.

        2. A lot of blacks and Latinos are pretty religious and take that shit seriously.

          Yes, they often can be seen jamming up traffic on any given Sunday, the Latino lettuce pickers headed to early mass before the start of the work day and the blacks headed to the Baptist churches after a hearty brunch of watermelon and fried chicken.

          Meanwhile, outside of stereotype land, black and white opinions on abortion are identical and Hispanics are evenly spit on the issue.

    1. Well would you want to go back to Afghanistan?

      1. No. I am sure most of them are just rightly figure it is better to live on the street in America than live in Afghanistan. So, I doubt many of them are terrorists. But, I would be surprised if a few of them are not.

        1. John I don’t think that there is anyway our military would train terr. I can’t believe I almost typed that sentence.

          1. I know. Next thing someone is going to claim our government would smuggle guns to Mexican drug gangs. The crazy things these stupid wingnuts will believe sometimes. I tell ya.

      2. Have they checked the local stripper clubs?

    2. You’d think they’d learn from the Cubans not to send anyone they wanted back. Or maybe they did…

    3. I find the idea of shipping afghans all the way to the US to “train them” even more insane than training them over there.

      Which, as has been reported 1000 times over the last 15 years, uh… is sort of an endless shitshow.

      Who the !@()#@) would want to go back to Stone-age-istan after visiting a wealthy, clean, temperate, well ordered society?*

      (*assuming they were not sent to Detroit or Newark for training)

      1. If you train them over there, the Taliban just kill them before they are trained.

        1. We’ve trained tens of thousands of them “over there”, and the Taliban killing them is maybe 1/50th of the problem.

          Trainees selling their issued-weapons to the taliban (or anyone) is a bigger problem; trainees being stoned out of their gourds is a bigger problem; trainees randomly not showing up was a bigger problem. Trainees randomly shooting at each other (or the instructors)… i think you get the idea.

  34. Gee, it’s like businesses will gladly take your money without knowing, or caring, where you like to put your dick.

    That being the case, the retards at TDS had to manufacture their conclusion to demonstrate it for the audience. That should have set off some critical thinking alarms, but, again, TDS is FRBR.

    Amazingly, Carolinians of the Southern variety regard our Northern neighbors mostly as hippie scum, but in TDS world, I guess NC is where the Klan patrols the streets for uppity darkies and homos to lynch.

    1. Think about how tight the profit margins are running a food truck. They are very tight. Then remember how hard you have to work to make any money and how frenetic it can be when you are attracting customers. When you consider those things, it becomes very obvious how absurd the idea that a food truck owner would care if a customer was gay or have the time to figure it out even he did care.

      You really have to be a complete retard who has limited connection with reality to believe this shit. You really do.

      1. John, the eight seconds you spent thinking about that as you were writing it is eight seconds more time than the average Daily Show watcher will apply.

        1. They are like cocaine addicted lab rats. If something feels good and gives them a smug high, that is all that matters.

      2. See: Tony.

    2. Gee, it’s like businesses will gladly take your money without knowing, or caring, where you like to put your dick.

      Except certain bakeries I name.

      1. Except certain bakeries I name.

        So: you’ve got two bakeries – Goodthinkful Wedding Cakes, Inc. and The Great American Racist Sexist Homophobe Bakery. Goodthinkful will sell to anyone, Great American won’t…I wonder which business will prevail in the long run.

        1. I wonder which business will prevail in the long run.

          Jr., come on, you know retards like Tony never think about the long run.

        2. I don’t give a shit, but the Christians who run them apparently think abiding by basic norms of civilization makes baby Jesus send them straight to hell.

          1. Don’t give a shit? Good, then shut the fuck up about it already.

          2. The bakery who takes more money from more people will be the more successful bakery.

            The other bakery can do whatever they want. Their right to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings is the right of, say, a Jewish baker to refuse to bake a Hitler cake for a bunch of skinheads, which is a point you refuse to grasp and try to negate by creating special classes of people.

            You do this instead of seeing this as a free speech and free market issue that should sort itself out, and because you refuse to admit that all state power is derived from the capacity of the state to inflict violence upon citizens.

            1. Not being a retard libertarian, I don’t buy the idea that the market mechanism solves literally all problems (except getting government out of the way, dammit).

              1. Not being an easily befuddled drone, I applaud your strawman, but I’m not going to engage it, especially since you put zero effort into addressing my legitimate points.

                I’d bake a cake for your wedding, Tony. If you asked. I hope you can understand that.

                Since I don’t feel like fighting tonight, here’s a girl killing Pantera on drums:

                https://youtu.be/1psWYobvH48

  35. Gee, it’s like businesses will gladly take your money without knowing, or caring, where you like to put your dick.

    That being the case, the retards at TDS had to manufacture their conclusion to demonstrate it for the audience. That should have set off some critical thinking alarms, but, again, TDS is FRBR.

    Amazingly, Carolinians of the Southern variety regard our Northern neighbors mostly as hippie scum, but in TDS world, I guess NC is where the Klan patrols the streets for uppity darkies and homos to lynch.

  36. NC is where the Klan patrols the streets for uppity darkies and homos to lynch

    *Searches “lawyer-wanted” websites for hospital lawyer jobs in NC*

    1. Lots of hospitals in Charlotte, but too damn many hippies.

  37. Proggies cannot distinguish markers for being smart and informed, with the traits themselves

    They’re just a little confused about the distinction between causes and correlations.

  38. Well would you want to go back to Afghanistan?

    I have it on good authority that Afghanistan is a fabulous place, as long as nobody is shooting at you or trying to blow you up.

  39. Yes, this is too nuanced a criticism for the point the segment was getting across, which, wittingly or not, was a larger comment on the absurdity of the supposedly sacred right to discriminate.

    People naturally find it to be incongruous with basic social expectations when vendors can arbitrarily decide whom to serve and not serve. People who aren’t members of any traditionally discriminated-against minority find it especially shocking.

    1. People naturally find it to be incongruous with basic social expectations when vendors can arbitrarily decide whom to serve and not serve.

      If The Daily Show had shown any such thing, you might be within shouting distance of a point. But they didn’t – they set up a temporary business whose sole purpose was to intentionally and randomly discriminate. It had none of the actual incentives of a food truck that was trying to, you know, make money and stay in business.

      1. I’m talking about the reactions of the customers, which, if you’re a normal human being and not one of the autism-spectrum market cogs you people assume everyone to be because that’s the only type of person you understand, seems perfectly natural. I get it. Been here long enough. The market mechanism solves literally all problems. But that’s beside the point here.

        1. You’ve been here long enough and yet you fail to grasp even simple economic concepts, logic, or basic reasoning.

          And don’t pretend you understand normal people Tony. It’s beneath you.

        2. Projection, thy name is “Tony”:
          “not one of the autism-spectrum market cogs you people assume everyone to be because that’s the only type of person you understand,”

        3. So, your point is that pretty much all paying customers will probably not patronize an establishment that discriminates because it violates the sense of basic fairness and humanity (that they somehow simultaneously share exclusively with you as a persecuted minority). Yet we need the government to prevent hypothetical bigoted food truck proprietors from establishing businesses that these paying customers will not patronize. Because… we wouldn’t want the bigoted food truck operator to be embarrassed when his business becomes insolvent?

          Nailed it Tony. Only an autistic zealot could possibly disagree.

    2. Tony|10.6.16 @ 4:01PM|#
      “Yes, this is too nuanced a criticism…”
      See? See?
      Told ya!
      Here’s our resident clown to beat on that strawman.
      Way ta go, Tony!

      1. Learn some more vocab words, child. Don’t you have some feces to play in?

        1. Tony|10.6.16 @ 4:22PM|#
          “Learn some more vocab words, child.”

          Shitbag, if you don’t like being called on your constant bullshit, you could, just once in your pathetic, miserable life, try posting honestly.
          But that’s asking entirely too much of a fucking lefty imbecile.

    3. You’ll never be able to understand the irony of watching you defend the legislation of social norms as totally awesome.

      Gee, when did that ever work against gays?

      1. So the Daily Show is too sophisticated for you guys, I see.

        1. Oh, please. Saying the Daily Show is too sophisticated for me?

          That’s like saying you’re too sophisticated for me.

        2. The Cartoon Network is too sophisticated for you.

    4. People who aren’t members of any traditionally discriminated-against minority find it especially shocking.

      So, when the gay guy walked up to the food truck and was incredulous that he was refused service, that means he’s not part of a traditionally discriminated against minority then, right?

  40. The point of the stunt isn’t to highlight a real threat. It’s to whip people into a defensive frenzy, assured that THOSE PEOPLE (you know, the ones on the OTHER SIDE) and coming for them personally. No baby will be safe once THEY come and take away your freedom to shop (or piss) where you want.

  41. The Daily Show misrepresenting reality so an audience of two dozen barking reprobates – who get to make noise on basic cable while probably inebriated – are satisfied? I am shocked.

  42. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  43. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  44. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  45. my Aunty Alexandra recently got an almost new silver Lincoln MKT Wagon by working part time off of a macbook.
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  46. If a business owner is homophobic, I want them to be clear about it. Anti-discrimination laws force me to financially support people who hate me because they take away my ability to identify such people.

  47. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  48. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.