Nordstrom is dropping Ivanka Trumps Line in their stores

[redwood66]

Jenn I agree with all of that and you know that I am behind his plans. But please please please do not let this be the new normal. I am not sure that the Congress building could stand it. It might turn into those other countries that throw chairs like Rubio talks about in this speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kepdzLUNE64

 

[the_mother_thing]

No, I don't want "HIM" to be the 'new normal'. I guess I'm just saying that what has been 'normal' by way of politics has many as disgusted with THAT 'P' word as much as the other one. I don't want foreign policy dictated via twitter, or an unethical president. But there is as much harm in both of those as someone who does them poorly behind closed doors.

 

[lovedogs]

Trump being not-usual is not the problem.

The problem is he's bad.

I think the problem with the logic of Trump being "different" is that he's not just "different" or doing things "outside of the box". He's doing things that are against the law. He's breaking the constitution. Hence why he has the lowest approval rating of any pres in recent history, and why he has tons of lawsuits/cases against him. You cannot equate him to any of the movements mentioned above, because he isn't being "progressive" and "breaking the mold". He's doing things MANY before him have done--he is trying to be a facist dictator. We don't need to "imagine" what that would look like. We've seen it many times throughout history and are aware of how this story plays out. He is NOT THE NEW NORMAL! We refuse to let him be the new normal. I will never apologize for not "getting used to" him. He is wrong, he is terrible for the country, and he needs to be impeached. Period.

 

[katharath]

Trump being not-usual is not the problem.

The problem is he's bad.

The basic cause of the great divide. Some of us are able to see that he's just a terrible choice for president. Others aren't.

There is a reason he's not like other presidents; there is also a reason that outcry against him is so severe.

The reason is that he's bad.

 

[lovedogs]

Trump being not-usual is not the problem.

The problem is he's bad.

The basic cause of the great divide. Some of us are able to see that he's just a terrible choice for president. Others aren't.

There is a reason he's not like other presidents; there is also a reason that outcry against him is so severe.

The reason is that he's bad.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Trump being not-usual is not the problem.

The problem is he's bad.

The basic cause of the great divide. Some of us are able to see that he's just a terrible choice for president. Others aren't.

There is a reason he's not like other presidents; there is also a reason that outcry against him is so severe.

The reason is that he's bad.

And I'm not saying "he's good"; far from it. I reiterate "... RARELY does the 'prototype' end up ever being the 'best version' of something; it's usually the worst." Just like I felt America could have done better in choosing who would be our first black president, or our first woman president. I KNOW we can/could have 'done better' in this election - on both sides. But going with what was 'normal' in the past election cycles is what put us here now, IMO.

 

[mary poppins]

The Helicopter Parent in Chief has spoken. Buy more Ivanka products!

I would be mortified if I were her. An adult businesswoman's father/POTUS going on a rant about stores carrying her products and people purchasing them. I don't know how the Trump kids have been able stand behind him with a straight face regarding a lot of things he has done and said. Well, they have had a lifetime of conditioning.

This Trump-style behavior and tone from a POTUS (not just limited to Nordstrom issue), who is held to a much higher standard than anyone because his job responsibilities have severe ramifications in a variety of ways worldwide, are not simply unusual.

 

[Dee*Jay]

There are a bunch of stories about Kellyanne Conjob being "counseled' for plugging Ivanka Trump line. Would be great if those same "counselors" would also have a talk with The Angry Daddy in Chief.

 

[lovedogs]

hahahahahaha, no surprise that complaints have already been filed against Conjob.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318747-ethics-group-calls-for-investigation-into-conways-comments-promoting

 

[the_mother_thing]

Obama FORCED citizens to buy something that benefitted others by making it a law. Where was the 'ethical' outrage then?

 

[mary poppins]

A regular federal employee can get fired for doing this just one time.

Kellyanne Conway endorses Ivanka Trump’s merchandise
02/09/17 10:08 AM
By Steve Benen
Donald Trump, already beset by a series of conflict-of-interest controversies, broke new ground yesterday: the Republican president used his office to chastise an American company for no longer selling his daughter’s merchandise. In case this isn’t obvious, we’re not accustomed to seeing the chief executive of a superpower exploit his platform to interfere in his daughter’s retailing opportunities.

Making matters worse, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Nordstrom’s decision to stop selling Ivanka Trump’s products represented an “attack.”

And just when it seemed this story couldn’t get more ridiculous, a prominent member of Team Trump turned things up a notch.
During a Thursday morning Fox & Friends interview, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway told viewers to buy products from Ivanka Trump’s clothing line.

This comes the day after Donald Trump tweeted angrily at Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s line, writing that she had been “treated so unfairly.” Conway referred to Ivanka as a “champion for women empowerment, women in the workplace,” before adding, “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff, is what I would tell you. I hate shopping, and I’m gonna go get some on myself today.”
Hmm. A White House official – which is to say, a public official whose salary is paid by American taxpayers – appeared on national television this morning in what looked like the press briefing room in the West Wing. She then used that platform to, in effect, do a little commercial/testimonial in support of her boss’ daughter’s merchandise, encouraging people to buy Trump products.

It wasn’t long before knowledgeable observers started asking whether this was even legal.

Chris Lu, a former Obama administration official, pointed to a specific legal provision: “An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations.”

We’ll see whether or not Conway feels the need to walk back her comments, and what Sean Spicer has to say about it, but for now, it’s hard not to get the impression that the Trump White House looks at ethics rules and laws as little more than an inconvenient punch-line.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kellyanne-conway-endorses-ivanka-trumps-merchandise?cid=sm_fb_maddow

 

[kenny]

I can't wait for the next SNL!
I read SNL ratings are way way up!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Obama FORCED citizens to buy something that benefitted others by making it a law. Where was the 'ethical' outrage then?

There was plenty of outrage all over the place, ethical and otherwise.

But here we have major differences:

- President Obama did not (not did any member of his family based on any information that I'm aware of) profit from the purchase of healthcare.

- The intent of the ACA was to provide people with healthcare coverage that would be to their own benefit.

- President Obama did not, to the best of my knowledge, take time away from running the country to make petulant and vindictive tweets about a personal matter.

As for the outrage, I recall hearing several flavors:

- "My insurance premiums are going to go up once all Those People sign up for Obamacare." Those People. It's always Those People.

- "Why is the government *in my business*?" I mean, it's My Business if I choose to be able to access adequate care if I hurt myself or become ill. (Of course the fallacy there is that you WILL receive care and ultimately other people/entities will bear the burden.)

There's (much) more on both of these points but I have to run out for a bit. I'm sure by the time I get back someone else will have picked up the torch! (Which is why I luvs you all!)

 

[House Cat]

Obama FORCED citizens to buy something that benefitted others by making it a law. Where was the 'ethical' outrage then?

Did he and his daughters make any kind of profit from the deal?

There was plenty of outrage. The Republicans shut down the government over it.

Several years later, most people like their OBAMAcare.


I guess we will learn to love our IVANKAshoes?

 

[the_mother_thing]

You all do realize that she (Ivanka) stepped down/separated from her 'brand', don't you?

Also, at least one company hired to build the site had ties to the Obamas (specifically, Mrs). And there were a slew of other 'ethical' concerns surrounding this ... don't have the time to dig them up right now but can/will later.

 

[lovedogs]

Obama FORCED citizens to buy something that benefitted others by making it a law. Where was the 'ethical' outrage then?

Did he and his daughters make any kind of profit from the deal?

There was plenty of outrage. The Republicans shut down the government over it.

Several years later, most people like their OBAMAcare.


I guess we will learn to love our IVANKAshoes?

Thanks HC and Dee. I just wanted to add my thoughts that these 2 situations aren't even comparable.

Because No one in the Obama family profits off health care, because the idea was to help citizens get more affordable health care (which he did not profit from), and because he didn't use his standing as POTUS to attempt to make his family money in their personal business.

 

[lovedogs]

You all do realize that she (Ivanka) stepped down/separated from her 'brand', don't you?

Also, at least one company hired to build the site had ties to the Obamas (specifically, Mrs). And there were a slew of other 'ethical' concerns surrounding this ... don't have the time to dig them up right now but can/will later.

Does Trump know that? Does Conjob know that? because they seem entirely unaware of any "separation" between her and the brand.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I guess we will learn to love our IVANKAshoes?

You don't have to love them; you're not being forced by law to buy them.

 

[katharath]

Obama FORCED citizens to buy something that benefitted others by making it a law. Where was the 'ethical' outrage then?

Did he and his daughters make any kind of profit from the deal?

There was plenty of outrage. The Republicans shut down the government over it.

Several years later, most people like their OBAMAcare.


I guess we will learn to love our IVANKAshoes?

Thanks HC and Dee. I just wanted to add my thoughts that these 2 situations aren't even comparable.

Because No one in the Obama family profits off health care, because the idea was to help citizens get more affordable health care (which he did not profit from), and because he didn't use his standing as POTUS to attempt to make his family money in their personal business.

Whaaat? You mean Obama doesn't "own" Obamacare and personally profit from it???

 

[the_mother_thing]

I can't wait for the next SNL!
I read SNL ratings are way way up!

My money is on a skit involving a Chump family member hocking knock-off White House items (such as MLK's bust) on a shopping channel being filmed in the Roosevelt Room.

You read it here first!

 

[AGBF]

Jenn-

I am responding to you. I took your first challenge, giving Senator Tim Scott a try, and listened to his entire speech although, as I said when I responded in that thread, I was initially skeptical.

I also tried to accept this challenge of yours. (I believe-although your mileage may vary-that I am become quite broadminded in my old age.)

I tried to let go of some of my old ideas about the mold of US presidents and to think about Donald Trump as just something new.

But unlike my experience with Senator Scott, I did not come up with a result that was in line with your thinking (that thinking of Trump as "just different" made him at all acceptable).

The images that came into my head were, actually, I have no idea why-of the leaders in Israel. The Israeli leaders: battle-hardened generals; the Prime Minister, the President, Members of Parliament, all meet in the Knesset in their shirt sleeves without ties. They discuss the most important matters of national security, of life and death, looking like men sitting in a delicatessen on The Lower East Side in New York. (Well, maybe not Abba Eban.) I have no problem seeing these men, who sometimes argue loudly, as statesmen.

My problem with Donald Trump is not his lack of polish or his lack of intellectualism, but his lack of thinking; his lack of morality; his unwillingness to learn what the country needs; and his unwillingness to learn the rules by which the US is governed. It was clear when Trump was cavalierly suggesting the things he would do when became president that he had no notion of how the US government was supposed to work, that there were three branches of government. Take for example his saying that if he became president he would build a wall or that Hillary Clinton would be "locked up". I know this phenomenon. I am a former history teacher. I have seen it many times. But I usually see it in students before they take their first class with me, not after they have been nominated for president. Someone who thinks he can lock up a political enemy because he becomes president is obviously lacking a basic knowledge of how the US system of justice works. Has no one told him that if one is charged with a crime, he is entitled to a trial? That he is entitled to an attorney? That he is innocent until proven guilty? That the burden of proof is on The State? That not everyone who is found guilty of a crime is "locked up"?

Now you may say that Trump did not really think he could do these things, but the evidence is that he does think he do them. he has tried to ban Muslim immigrants. Only the courts stand between him and that.

I reject your suggestion that Trump is different but acceptable. I think he is different and completely unacceptable. He is trying to tear up The Constitution and we have to stop him.

AGBF

 

[the_mother_thing]

Because No one in the Obama family profits off health care, because the idea was to help citizens get more affordable health care (which he did not profit from), and because he didn't use his standing as POTUS to attempt to make his family money in their personal business.

But ethics rules don't apply to just family members. If they did, there'd be no problem with KellyAnn saying positive things about Ivanka's (former) line.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Jenn-I reject your suggestion that Trump is different but acceptable. I think he is different and completely unacceptable. He is trying to tear up The Constitution and we have to stop him.

AGBF

I didn't say "he's acceptable". I said he (this 'type' of president) is different.

A lot of people (myself included) thought the same of the last administration (with regard to overreach/abuse of power); we let the courts decide. And that's what will happen here. I happen to think that the TRO will be overturned and the immigration EO will be ruled constitutional, given the language of 8 USC 1182 (f), but I'm not a judge.

If he commits an impeachable offense, then he gets impeached.

 

[jaaron]

Because No one in the Obama family profits off health care, because the idea was to help citizens get more affordable health care (which he did not profit from), and because he didn't use his standing as POTUS to attempt to make his family money in their personal business.

But ethics rules don't apply to just family members. If they did, there'd be no problem with KellyAnn saying positive things about Ivanka's (former) line.

The thing is, we have a president who:

1. either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the ethical quagmire of not disentangling himself from his business
2. uses an official White House account to complain about what he perceives as a slight to his daughter's business, followed by two federal employees taking up the same cause
3. has refused to release his tax returns
4. whose wife has filed a $150M lawsuit claiming, that the Daily Mail has denied her “the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity … to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world”.

and we're comparing it to this?

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal/

 

[the_mother_thing]

Because No one in the Obama family profits off health care, because the idea was to help citizens get more affordable health care (which he did not profit from), and because he didn't use his standing as POTUS to attempt to make his family money in their personal business.

But ethics rules don't apply to just family members. If they did, there'd be no problem with KellyAnn saying positive things about Ivanka's (former) line.

The thing is, we have a president who:

1. either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the ethical quagmire of not disentangling himself from his business
2. uses an official White House account to complain about what he perceives as a slight to his daughter's business, followed by two federal employees taking up the same cause
3. has refused to release his tax returns
4. whose wife has filed a $150M lawsuit claiming, that the Daily Mail has denied her “the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity … to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world”.

and we're comparing it to this?

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal/

Yes, and I'm comparing it to this:

76 Times Obama's White House Illegally & Unethically Abused Its Power
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The%20Legal%20Limit/The%20Legal%20Limit%20Report%204.pdf
(footnotes are available in the doc if you have questions about any of the items noted)
1. Disregarded 1996 welfare reform law in granting broad work waivers for work requirements of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
2. Implemented portions of the DREAM Act, which Congress rejected, by executive action.
3. Ended some terror asylum restrictions, by allowing asylum for people who provided only “insignificant” or “limited” material support of terrorists.
4. Allowed immigrants in the U.S. illegally, who are relatives of military troops and veterans, to stay in the country and get legal status.
5. Extended federal marriage benefits by recognizing, under federal law, same-sex marriages created in a state that allows same-sex marriage even if the couple is living in a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.
6. Recognized same-sex marriage in Utah, even though the Supreme Court stayed the court order recognizing same-sex marriage in Utah and Utah said it would not recognize same-sex marriages performed before the stay.
7. Refused to prosecute violation of drug laws with certain mandatory minimums.
8. Issued signing statements, refusing to enforce parts of congressional-enacted statutes.
9. Illegally refused to act on Yucca Mountain’s application to become a nuclear waste repository.
10. Falsely portrayed the Benghazi terrorist attack as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim YouTube video, and then lied about the White House’s involvement.
11 Illegally revealed the existence of sealed indictments in the Benghazi investigation.
12. Failed to enforce the Magnitsky Act as required by law, by not adding Russian human rights abusers to a list of people not permitted to travel to or do business in the U.S.
13. Killed four Americans overseas in counterterrorism operations without judicial process.
14. Continued to give Egypt aid after the military took over its government, even though federal law prohibits aid to Egypt in the event of a coup.
15. Granted a “hardship” exemption from the individual mandate for people whose health plans were canceled because their plans weren’t Obamacare compliant.
16. Delayed the individual mandate for two years.
17. Allowed individuals to buy health insurance plans in 2014 that did not comply with Obamacare. Extended this delay until 2016—past the mid-term elections.
18. Extended the deadline to enroll in Obamacare.
19. Illegally granted businesses a waiver from Obamacare’s employer mandate. Twice.
20. Illegally continued the Obamacare employer contribution for congressional staffs.
21. Illegally delayed the Obamacare caps on out-of-pocket healthcare payments.
22. Illegally delayed Obamacare verification of eligibility for healthcare subsidies.
23. Illegally required people to violate their faith via the Obamacare contraception mandate.
24. As of May 2011, over 50% of Obamacare waiver beneficiaries were union members (who account for less than 12% of the American work force).
25. Ordered Boeing to fire 1,000 employees in South Carolina and shut down a new factory because it was non-union.
26. Implemented a moratorium on offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill without statutory authority, and continued to enact new versions after federal courts repeatedly invalidated the moratorium.
27. Treated secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy.
28. Terminated the pensions of 20,000 non-union Delphi employees in the GM bankruptcy.
29. Had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws—but no charges were filed.
30. Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as “ammunition sales."
31. Made illegal “recess” appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board when Congress wasn’t in recess. Ignored the rulings of three federal courts of appeals that held those nominations unconstitutional. 2.
32. Appointed czars to oversee federal policy specifically because czars do not require Senate confirmation, earning criticism from stalwart Democrats such as West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.
33. As of January 2012, 36 of the President’s executive office staff owed $833,970 in back taxes.
34. As of 2011, 311,566 federal employees or retirees owed $3.5 billion in taxes.
35. Illegally targeted conservative groups for heightened IRS scrutiny.
36. Circumvented the Freedom of Information Act, by requiring White House Counsel review of all documents to be released under the Freedom of Information Act that the Administration believed pertained to “White House equities”—and then delayed in producing many of these documents by FOIA’s statutory deadline, or didn’t produce them at all.
37. Got secret permission from the FISA Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and emails, permitting the NSA to search American’s communications in its databases.
38. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking to monitor about 80% of U.S. credit card transactions.
39. Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak.
40. Secretly obtained phone records from staff at the Associated Press.
41. Had meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops near White House to avoid disclosure requirements.
42. Aided drug cartels instead of enforcing immigration laws—as found by a federal judge. Border Patrol agents, multiple times, knowingly helped smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.; “the DHS is encouraging parents to seriously jeopardize the safety of their children.”
43. Illegally sold thousands of guns to criminals, in the operation known as Fast and Furious and then refused to comply with congressional subpoenas about the operation.
44. Dismissed charges filed by Bush Administration against New Black Panther Party members who were videotaped intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.
45. Argued for expansive federal powers in the Supreme Court, which has rejected the Administration’s arguments unanimously 9 times since January 2012.
46. Sued Louisiana to stop school vouchers and keep low-income minorities trapped in failing schools.
47. Threatened to arrest military priests for practicing their faith during the partial government shutdown.
48. Muzzled the speech of military chaplains.
49. Sued fire departments saying their multiple-choice, open-book written employment tests were racially discriminatory.
50. Gave 23,994 tax refunds worth more than $46 million to aliens here illegally using the same address in Atlanta, GA.
51. Released a mentally ill Guantanamo detainee... who had been a high-risk al Qaeda fighter in jihad combat since the 1980s.
52. Backed release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
53. President Obama told NASA administrator to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world.”
54. Claimed the Fort Hood shooting was “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.
55. Signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives, and then acted shocked and outraged at the bonuses.
56. Gave $535 million to Solyndra, which went bankrupt; Solyndra shareholders and officials made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign.
57. Reneged on a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.
58. Increased the national debt more in one term than President Bush did in two terms.
59. Extended mortgage assistance to people who bought multiple homes during the housing bubble.
60. Proposed rules that would have decimated family farms, by prohibiting children under 18 from doing many forms of farm work.
61. Former “safe schools czar” has written about his past drug abuse and advocated promoting homosexuality in schools.
62. Nominated Timothy Geithner—who had significant tax issues —to head the Treasury Department, which enforces tax laws.
63. Reneged on campaign promise to broadcast healthcare reform negotiations on C-SPAN.
64. Reneged on a campaign promise to wait five days before signing any non-emergency bill (at least 10 times during first 3 months in office).
65. Unilaterally, increased the minimum wage for federal contract workers from $7.25 to $10.10, via executive order.
66. Cancelled all White House tours after sequestration—purportedly saving $18,000 per week—even though President Obama had spent more than $1 million in tax money to golf with Tiger Woods one weekend a few weeks before.
67. Adopted pro-union “ambush election” rules.
68. Pressured Ford to pull an anti-auto-bailout TV ad.
69. Actively, aided in George Zimmerman protests.
70. Tried to seize a privately owned motel when guests used illegal drugs at the motel.
71. Shut down the Amber Alert website, while keeping up Let’s Move website, during the partial government shutdown.
72. Gave supervised release to a convicted criminal (an alien here illegally) who later killed a nun in a DUI.
73. Shut down an Amish farm for selling fresh unpasteurized milk across state lines.
74. Spent $7 million per household in “stimulus funds” to connect a few Montana households to the Internet.
75. Spent $205,075 in “stimulus” funds to relocate a shrub that sells for $16.
76. Fired an inspector general after investigating an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant received by a nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson (now mayor of Sacramento).

 

[Arcadian]

The Affordable Care Act is not unethical as its a government program. Obama nor his family made money from it. And the people that built the website...yeah they're the same idiots that built the one for Massachusetts. Obama, his wife nor his children made money off of them either.

Kelly Anne did cross the line of the Code of Ethics for government employees once she uttered words to buy Ivanka's stuff online as she was working in her official capacity. If she were on her own time, it would have been different.

Ivanka, from what I'm told might have visibly separated part of herself from her line, however she still makes money from it. And of course this line very clearly still bears her name.

If Trump himself were to say go buy her line, that also would be an ethics violation. At best he can complain about people dropping her line which wouldn't trigger a violation. He's got bigger fish to fry than this frankly but well.....

At any rate Ethic violations in the executive branch don't trigger congressional oversight unless its a really big deal. This is not that big of deal, There will be some side-eye and whispers and all, but, people SHOULD remember this kind of behavior come voting time. Smaller fish in the fed gov, in some cases will get fired for the very same thing depending on the severity.

As far as her being dropped from stores; its a free market economy. That means that any store should drop or not drop brands as they see fit for whatever reasons they want. If that store doesn't carry what you want, then go to another. Stores like Nordstom, et al, not only have customers to think about, but they also have to bend to the will of their boards and their investors. I shopped nordstom before they dropped her line, and I'll continue after.

 

[the_mother_thing]

As far as her being dropped from stores; its a free market economy. That means that any store should drop or not drop brands as they see fit for whatever reasons they want. If that store doesn't carry what you want, then go to another. Stores like Nordstom, et al, not only have customers to think about, but they also have to bend to the will of their boards and their investors. I shopped nordstom before they dropped her line, and I'll continue after.

I would agree, but that doesn't work when it's a conservative-owned business and a dem/lib who is not happy; the owners get sued and slandered until forced to comply.

 

[monarch64]

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa *cough* RFRA *cough*

 

[OreoRosies86]

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa *cough* RFRA *cough*

Your sig line is GOLD.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa *cough* RFRA *cough*

You should take something for that cough.