Quoted:
You don't make things better by acting like a fool.  It just alienates people from your position.  Imagine if your hero in this case allowed the clerk to screech uncontrollably and then walked out as asked.  Then, contact the owner.....post the video if he wanted to.  The owner may be a good guy who just hired a dumbass.  Now the Trump shirt wearing tard made Trump supporters look like fools.  Stupid behavior on the part of so called conservatives won't win anyone over.  Stupid behavior on the part of liberals is the best chance for us to convince the majority of fence sitters to look away from liberals.  Behaving just as stupidly as the liberal side does us no favors.

Also, side note....there are lots of things that are crimes that ultimately can only be prosecuted if there is a willing victim in prosecution.  Doesn't mean a crime wasn't occurring and if LE has a reasonable belief that a crime was occurring, they can take enforcement action.  The Supreme Court has already weighed in on this.....recently.

Booze, drugs, strippers -- and trespassing, Supreme Court says

WASHINGTON  "Peaches" got creamed at the Supreme Court Monday.

The justices ruled unanimously that District of Columbia police were within their rights to arrest 21 partygoers for trespassing and disorderly conduct in 2008 at a boozy bachelor party hosted by a woman named Peaches.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that police made an "entirely reasonable inference" that those attending the party, which featured booze, drugs and strippers, knew they shouldn't be there because the home was vacant and in disarray.

"The living room had been converted into a makeshift strip club," he wrote. "Strippers in bras and thongs, with cash stuffed in their garter belts, were giving lap dances. Upstairs, the officers found a group of men with a single, naked woman on a bare mattress  the only bed in the house  along with multiple open condom wrappers and a used condom.

"Taken together, the condition of the house and the conduct of the party-goers allowed the officers to make several 'common-sense conclusions about human behavior.' "

Furthermore, Thomas said, there was the problem of "a bachelor party without a bachelor."

The case is important in setting a precedent for what police can and cannot do when confronted with similar situations. Here, a federal jury awarded $680,000 to the partygoers who sued the district after the arrests, and a federal appeals court upheld the verdict.

While the court's judgment was unanimous, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said it need not have backed the police department's version of events.

"The court's jurisprudence, I am concerned, sets the balance too heavily in favor of police unaccountability to the detriment of Fourth Amendment protection," Ginsburg wrote.

When the case was heard during the first week of the court's 2017 term in October, several justices showed their age. Justice Stephen Breyer, 79, said it's no longer uncommon for young people to show up for a party without knowing all the details  as opposed to during "the Middle Ages, with which I am more familiar."

Justice Elena Kagan, 57, recalled parties she was invited to "long, long ago" where "marijuana was maybe present" and attendees didn't always know the host.

The details were so tantalizing that after nearly an hour's debate, Justice Samuel Alito, 67, asked an obvious question. "Just out of curiosity," he said, "who is the bachelor at this bachelor party?"

Even that was unclear to many celebrants, said their lawyer, Nathaniel Garrett.

"So Peaches is the host at a bachelor party," Justice Anthony Kennedy, 81, mused.

In his opinion for the court, Thomas cut into Peaches:

"When the officers spoke with Peaches, she was nervous, agitated, and evasive," he wrote. "After initially insisting that she had permission to use the house, she ultimately confessed that this was a lie  a fact that the owner confirmed. Peaches' lying and evasive behavior gave the officers reason to discredit everything she had told them."

Quoted:
I have no problem with this.

You don't beat them at their game by playing the same game.

Quoted:
So what exactly is the Ginger Booty Bandit going to tell 911? There is a guy wearing a Trump Shirt in the store?

ok........

Quoted:
Are you this wrong in everything you do in your daily life?

Or is your confusion just a show for the rest of us?

Quoted:
So where is your videos of you taunting liberals?  What have YOU done to push your agenda via extremism?

Or are you just all talk?

Quoted:
In this case the guys 1st Amendment rights were being violated. And the guy I was responding to thinks it's ok for because it's "their buisness their rules"

Quoted:
So where is your videos of you taunting liberals?  What have YOU done to push your agenda via extremism?

Or are you just all talk?

And, just to point out, you claim you are embracing capitalism.  Ok. So, why are you NOT ok with someone denying service to someone?  Why are you endorsing the socialistic idea of a business being prohibited from denying service to someone, anyone...for any reason?  Shouldn't a business have the right to deny service in a capitalistic society?

You are so inconsistent with your beliefs it's absurd.

Quoted:
In this case the guys 1st Amendment rights were being violated. And the guy I was responding to thinks it's ok for because it's "their buisness their rules"

Quoted:
You couldn't find any proof so you decided to make make counter accusations.

How very Alinsky of you.

Quoted:
Says you and when did private buisness get the authority to infringe on individual rights? In your mind are they allowed to infringe on all rights or just the ones you don't like?

Quoted:
You can't answer because it would show your hypocrisy and inconsistency.

So you resort to insults. I'll admit I expected that.

Quoted:
Since you edited you post after I responded I will respond to the edit.

I never said anhthing about the clerk refusing service. Don't add something to my post that wasn't there. It shows a lack of intelligence.

I have no problem with someone denying service and never said that they had to provide any service to him.

Quoted:
(Removed -40xb)

Quoted:
You want us (but you aren't willing to do it yourself) to be radical. What's radical about leaving a business when ordered to? Nothing so you are opposed to it. You want us (but you aren't willing to walk the walk yourself) to go out, be radical, make a scene (like your hero did in the OP video) and refuse to leave just like your hero did in this video.

Then, while you are doing nothing to further your cause, you demand that we should do the very thing you refuse to do.

You sound like a community organizer. "You all need to do what I don't have the balls to do"

There's a term for people like you. It's called a hypocrite.

Quoted:
Quoted before the warning is received.

Quoted:
You are a insulting little fellow. Quite a few states don't allow discrimination based on political views.

Quoted:
(Removed -40xb)

Quoted:
I guess you didn't get the news. Here it is.   June 2018 decision.  7-2.

"The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony.

The case  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission  asked the high court to balance the religious rights of the baker against the couple's right to equal treatment under the law. Similar disputes have popped up across the U.S."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-decides-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case-a-timeline-of-events