DC hotel frequented by Proud Boys to close Jan. 4-6

Snip!~ A D.C. hotel that is located blocks from the White House and, in recent months, has been frequented by the far-right group the Proud Boys announced Monday that it will be closed during the planned pro-President Trump demonstrations next week.
Snip~

Based on the liberal's standards, this is pure and simple discrimination based on Political ideology. I know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only included race, color, religion, gender or national origin, but the liberals have essentially added Gay rights as a Civil right. So, they would have to add political ideology to those rights also. Otherwise a conservative could discriminate against gays based on political ideology. Since they are not, the political ideology is obvious relevant.

So, the Harrington Hotel closing to keep the Proud Boys to stay there while rallying against the DNC stealing the elections, is pure and simple discrimination. No, different then a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/531933-dc-hotel-frequently-by-proud-boys-to-close-jan-4-6

 

The polite way to tell the Proud Boys to piss off.

 

How is refusing to provide temporary housing to EVERYONE discrimination against a particular person/group based on their political ideology?

 

Well, lobbied by BLM to not allow them based on the ill informed ‘white supremacist’ issue. Basically racism.

 

Uh...no. Closing a hotel is not discrimination.

 

And your evidence of that was............. (made it up again!)

 

Proud Boys behavior in the bar got the hotel cites three times for social distance rules. The mob clearly made staff and other guests uncomfortable.

 

If the hotel wants to burn money, let them.

 

Except the hotel is closing. A closed business cannot discriminate against anyone.

 

Shutting a business down to avoid an event, regardless of the event, does not violate public accommodation laws. I don’t see an issue here.

 

Maybe they want to celebrate El Jefe one last time too.

 

Lmao what a bunch of gibberish. Gender/sexual preference is covered, political ideology isn’t. Even if it was, the entire hotel is closed, not just closed for proud boys.

 

I am beginning to think the right wing do not understand what discrimination actually is.

That explains much of the narrative so it makes sense I guess.

Also, sexual orientation isn’t a political ideology.

Our public education system seems to have failed so many.

 

I agree. I wish there was some way that people could talk to each other without declaring war. Sometimes, it really is just a matter of understanding the other side's point of view. So few are willing to give it a try. A shame.

 

Discourse has definitely fallen drastically in the last four years and after it’s downward trend in 2008 (from my perspective at least). So much of the new Republican Party has become based around mocking and trolling the other side that it has created an animosity that I don’t know if it can be healed in the near future.

How do you try an understand the other sides point of view when it is not based on logic or reason? I do not understand hypocrisy and — while both sides are guilty — only one side has embraced it as a party platform.

 

I know that that is what the Hotel claimed was the reason for the closure, but that does not change the fact that this action is discriminatory in nature. If you notice, the article stated that the staff and other guests were uncomfortable because they were African American and Hispanic. Imagine if whites objected to African American and Hispanics staying at the Hotel and frequenting the Bar. Do you think the Hotel would not be discriminating if they shutdown during a BLM or La Rosa rally? The Hotel could have refused service to those that exceeded the capacity of the Bar, or refused to follow the Hotel's Social Distancing rules. The police could then be called in to remove those that violated these rules. But that is not what the Hotel decided to do. They continued to provide the services of the Proud Boys at the time. That is the reason that they were cited for the violations to city ordinances. Not because it was the Proud Boys that were staying there. Again, would this Hotel have shutdown if the claim offenders had been supporters of BLM? I personally, don't think so. They would have been viscerated by the MSM.

 

The following is the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, as it appears in volume 42 of the United States Code, beginning at section 2000e. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-2) amend several sections of Title VII. In addition, section 102 of the CRA (which is printed elsewhere in this publication) amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 did not include sex, but it had noting to do with sexual prefrence. This is something that the liberals have pushed for and a bunch of liberal judicial advocates have supported. Bit that does not make it a real law. The fact that the legal system have allowed something that is not spelled out in the Civil Rights bill, then it sets the standards that would include political opinions. I guess you would support a bakery chose for a day that a gay couple wanted a cake?

Further, if the Hotel had discriminated against the BLM or La Rosa, would you have supported that also? Plain and simple, discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is against.

 

HOW is it discriminatory when they are not allowing ANYBODY to stay at the hotel due to its closure? Yes, it would be if they were open and denied access to a specific person/group, but they aren't. They are closed for business to EVERYONE.

 

"Uncomfortable"? I'll see your discomfort and raise you several torched city centers and about 40 KIA over this past summer. I predict the whole damned country is about to suffer some discomfort if Slow Joe and his Ho are inaugurated. The nutters on the Left seem to believe they can dictate terms and the rest of us will fall in line. Their coming outrage should be something to see.

 

If you will hire women who have sex with men, but not a man who does, then it’s gender discrimination.
How would a bakery close for a day to avoid a gay couple who want a cake? That doesn’t even make sense lol
But yah itd be fine because it would impact all customers.

 

Is there a LINK in there somewhere?

As is required in Current Events?

Obviously.

A Great Move.

 

They won't be the only ones...

Every business in a downtown area closes when they believe Antifa is going to show up. Its happened numerous times now, in dozens of cities.

 

It is impossible to discriminate when it impacts all persons equally. If they had said members of a specific group were not allowed that is discrimination, this is saying no one is allowed.

 

How is it discrimination when the Hotel was previously allowing the Proud Boys into their bars? Is it discrimination if the bar asked the Proud Boys to leave after closing time also?

 

they are closed to everyone, that is not discrimination, if they were only closed to white people, that would be - besides, the hotel lets the Proud Boys stay there when they are open....

should the government tell them they have to stay open?