Basically 4 countries in the immediate vicinity of North Korea. Land border with South Korea and China, obviously, but also apparently a 17 mile land border with Russia, and a short sea distance to Japan.
I wouldn't discount anyone, especially given that the major discussion you just had says that America's 2 biggest geopolitical problems are centered on 2 neighboring countries. Neither of which are...stable, shall we say.
Indeed every country there are significant.
China is particularly significant for their influence alone and that it is a different element to past confrontations with North Korea.
This is unbelievable. He's a walking testament to ignorance of history. Why was there a Civil War?? I'm sure Trump would have "negotiated" with the slaves and plantation owners til they came to an amicable agreement.
@jjstraka34 Read that tweet and Newkirk's reaction to it. I am glad Newkirk mentioned the Trail of Tears in relation to Pres. Jackson. After visiting Junaluska's grave site not far from where I am in Western NC, and talking with other Cherokees , I don't blame Junaluska one bit for rethinking his saving Jackson's bacon form the Creeks. Gave me a whole new outlook on THAT President, I can tell you THAT. I don't care WHAT else he did.
Yep, Pres. Trump could bone up on his history a little bit concerning the Civil War.
@jjstraka34 Read that tweet and Newkirk's reaction to it. I am glad Newkirk mentioned the Trail of Tears in relation to Pres. Jackson. After visiting Junaluska's grave site not far from where I am in Western NC, and talking with other Cherokees , I don't blame Junaluska one bit for rethinking his saving Jackson's bacon form the Creeks. Gave me a whole new outlook on THAT President, I can tell you THAT. I don't care WHAT else he did.
Yep, Pres. Trump could bone up on his history a little bit concerning the Civil War.
Jackson was a genocidal maniac, by all accounts. That Bannon convinced Trump that he was someone to model himself after is both not the least bit surprising and distressing as hell.
@jjstraka34 Read that tweet and Newkirk's reaction to it. I am glad Newkirk mentioned the Trail of Tears in relation to Pres. Jackson. After visiting Junaluska's grave site not far from where I am in Western NC, and talking with other Cherokees , I don't blame Junaluska one bit for rethinking his saving Jackson's bacon form the Creeks. Gave me a whole new outlook on THAT President, I can tell you THAT. I don't care WHAT else he did.
Yep, Pres. Trump could bone up on his history a little bit concerning the Civil War.
Jackson was a genocidal maniac, by all accounts. That Bannon convinced Trump that he was someone to model himself after is both not the least bit surprising and distressing as hell.
And even though he's referred to Jackson as his favorite president and has his portrait in the oval office, Trump obviously hasn't felt the desire to learn anything about Jackson.
This is unbelievable. He's a walking testament to ignorance of history. Why was there a Civil War?? I'm sure Trump would have "negotiated" with the slaves and plantation owners til they came to an amicable agreement.
Yes, actually, that would have been a perfectly fine way to do it.
As evidenced by the fact that negotiating a peaceful end to the slave trade was exactly how Europe did it.
I don't much try to counter anti trump talking points since they're all coming from the same emotional place and one wild accusation is as good as any other, but this one is particularly wrong. There's nothing inherently invalid or ignorant or racist in thinking that the issue of slavery could have been resolved without a civil war. In fact to believe it was impossible, simply couldn't have happened otherwise is a testament to historical ignorance, not the other way around.
This is unbelievable. He's a walking testament to ignorance of history. Why was there a Civil War?? I'm sure Trump would have "negotiated" with the slaves and plantation owners til they came to an amicable agreement.
Yes, actually, that would have been a perfectly fine way to do it.
As evidenced by the fact that negotiating a peaceful end to the slave trade was exactly how Europe did it.
I don't much try to counter anti trump talking points since they're all coming from the same emotional place and one wild accusation is as good as any other, but this one is particularly wrong. There's nothing inherently invalid or ignorant or racist in thinking that the issue of slavery could have been resolved without a civil war. In fact to believe it was impossible, simply couldn't have happened otherwise is a testament to historical ignorance, not the other way around.
Yeah, because the Southern reaction in the 100 years afterwards really lends credence to the idea that they could have been reasoned with in regards to parting with their free labor force. Now Donald Trump has the answers Lincoln did not. And it was tried, on a MASSIVE scale, twice in the 30 years leading up to it. The Compromises of 1820 and 1850. Not that Donald Trump could identity what those were if his life depended on it.
Also, as a project for those who care, start keeping track of how often and quickly the word "emotional" gets tossed out anytime the subject of slavery or the history of American racism, or, for that matter, Donald Trump, comes up.
It was indeed a failure on the part of the Framers not to make slavery and/or indentured servitude of any sort illegal in the Constitution itself. Yes, there were 13 years separating the Declaration from the Constitution but surely they couldn't have forgotten phrases like "all men are created equal" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in that short amount of time...but apparently they did. It is difficult to imagine how the United States would be if slavery and the Civil War had never happened. Engaging in that thought experiment, though, takes us away from the reality which we still need to face: at some point we--the collective we--are going to have to get over the Civil War and leave it in the past; if not, we will never be able to move forward. Incidentally, removing Confederate monuments in New Orleans is *not* the way to move past the Civil War. In fact, removing the monuments is akin to trying to erase the past--"if we don't see the monuments then it is like it didn't happen"--only with one small problem: it actually happened.
It is also a failure on the part of subsequent Administrations to mistreat Native Americans in the manner in which they did. Although history teaches that whenever civilization A and civilization B meet the one with the higher level of technology wins, that doesn't mean the civilization with the technological superiority has to stomp the other civilization into the ground. The insular nature of their home--Europe, Asia, and Africa were blissfully unaware of the lands in the Western Hemisphere for millennia--unfortunately led them into the position of not needing things like gunpowder, metal armor, and large sailing vessels.
Andrew Jackson was horrible and ignorant and famously was mystified by the witchcraft of spelling. The Trail of Tears is also his doing.
Trump also said Jackson, who died 16 years before the onset of the American Civil War, "was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." The civil war pissed off a dead guy.
Trump's the President. He doesn't need innuendo and "you know I think X". He should be providing proof and he can do that. But he doesn't.
"We need to get to the bottom of this"
Sure go ahead, what's the answer Mr. President? Or are you going to try to convince us you can't make a phone call and figure this out? You are the President, you can make that call instead of spreading rumors and "maybe this happened"s
He's just clueless on everything. No clue. But he has his opinions that he's shaped into bluster and that's what he says. He's just an empty talking head. "Tremendous. Sad. Andrew Jackson is a good friend of mine along with Frederick Douglass."
Trump's the President. He doesn't need innuendo and "you know I think X". He should be providing proof and he can do that. But he doesn't.
"We need to get to the bottom of this"
Sure go ahead, what's the answer Mr. President? Or are you going to try to convince us you can't make a phone call and figure this out? You are the President, you can make that call instead of spreading rumors and "maybe this happened"s
He's just clueless on everything. No clue. But he has his opinions that he's shaped into bluster and that's what he says. He's just an empty talking head. "Tremendous. Sad. Andrew Jackson is a good friend of mine along with Frederick Douglass."
He is so goddamn rude it defies belief. Is there any question that this guy is the type of person who flips over the table when he realizes he is losing the game of Monopoly??
Jackson was a genocidal maniac, by all accounts. That Bannon convinced Trump that he was someone to model himself after is both not the least bit surprising and distressing as hell.
He also was famously incorruptible, and was a populist rabble-rouser that did better than most to live up to his election promises. His face was on money for a reason (although ironically, he hated paper money and only trusted specie), and he was generally well-regarded by historians on "best president" lists before the Trail of Tears started becoming really the main public association with his name (and, to be clear, it's certainly good that people recognise at least some of the enormity of that act).
Andrew Jackson is... complicated, his political legacy not easy to summarise or break down into easy good or bad (even what happened to the Cherokee was not straightforward, involving the struggle between branches of government, state versus federal rights, the expansion of slavery and cotton in the south, and tons of other things - it has been argued that Jackson was at least a neutral figure, given the realities of the situation. Of course, it's also been argued he wasn't).
But beyond all that, as a populist who was known for rhetoric about giving power to the people and fighting against government elites, and who is generally agreed to have genuinely believed this and acted on those beliefs, as well as his current "politically incorrect" status in the media, it's not surprising Old Hickory is a favourite and model of Trump, who probably does fancy himself a similar figure. But don't forget that many people compared FDR to Jackson as well, and there's a lot of reasons to do so. For good and for bad, Jackson's a towering figure in American political history.
Fun historical factlet - Jackson's vice-president, Martin Van Buren, succeeded him to the presidency. The next sitting vice-president to successfully do so would be George Bush.
Sure, he said the rocket attack was "in lieu of entertainment" and did not say the attack itself was entertainment but it's pretty sick to use "entertainment" and "rocket attack" anywhere close to one another.
"Mr. Trump repeatedly said that “numerous historians” had told him that the golf club site was known as the River of Blood. But he said he did not remember their names."
EDIT: Looking at the plaque on the golf course, it reads like Trump wrote it himself.
Just for contrast, here's a real historical commemoration with all the extraneous fluff that Trump never bothers with, like names, dates, context...
"Mr. Trump repeatedly said that “numerous historians” had told him that the golf club site was known as the River of Blood. But he said he did not remember their names."
The craziest portion of the article you link is this:
“How would they know that?” Mr. Trump asked when told that local historians had called his plaque a fiction. “Were they there?”
So...unless someone was actually present to give a first-hand account of something which happened in the past then we do not know for certain that it actually happened? That...that makes my head hurt--I need some more coffee.
"Mr. Trump repeatedly said that “numerous historians” had told him that the golf club site was known as the River of Blood. But he said he did not remember their names."
The craziest portion of the article you link is this:
“How would they know that?” Mr. Trump asked when told that local historians had called his plaque a fiction. “Were they there?”
So...unless someone was actually present to give a first-hand account of something which happened in the past then we do not know for certain that it actually happened? That...that makes my head hurt--I need some more coffee.
Two things:
First: This is the type of information that should have come up during the election, to show how unreliable Trump is with the truth. Granted, there was a saturation of this knowledge already, however, a story about recreating history to enhanced the profits of a golf course might have caused more anger than his typical fibs. A missed opportunity to tell the population exactly who Trump is.
Second: Why didn't the reporter ask "Were you?" as childish as it sounds, it would have put his "were they there" argument to rest, unless he wanted to claim he was actually there, which would have made the story even more interesting.
So...unless someone was actually present to give a first-hand account of something which happened in the past then we do not know for certain that it actually happened? That...that makes my head hurt--I need some more coffee.
There was MOUNTAINS of evidence of Trump being on a whole different level when it came to telling the truth during the campaign. He lies about things that have photographic, video and audio evidence that contradict what he is saying. People voted for him anyway. So no, they don't really care about his historically inaccurate golf course, or that his argument about Andrew Jackson relies on him not actually being dead at that time. It doesn't matter. They'll back him to the gates of hell.
His approval rate since being inaugurated don't suggest they'll back him to the gates of hell. The whole health care fiasco knocked him below 40% for the first (and so far only, but hey, they're trying again) time.
That being said, the dumb golf course thing strikes me, as does half of Trump's bullshit, as being more related to him being a 70 year old man who talks without notes or checking any sources. I rather imagine we'd all get caught in some whoppers if we did that, especially if we added a complete unwillingness to ever admit error. That isn't to say Trump doesn't lie a lot even for a campaigning politician, of course.
His approval rate since being inaugurated don't suggest they'll back him to the gates of hell. The whole health care fiasco knocked him below 40% for the first (and so far only, but hey, they're trying again) time.
That being said, the dumb golf course thing strikes me, as does half of Trump's bullshit, as being more related to him being a 70 year old man who talks without notes or checking any sources. I rather imagine we'd all get caught in some whoppers if we did that, especially if we added a complete unwillingness to ever admit error. That isn't to say Trump doesn't lie a lot even for a campaigning politician, of course.
There is roughly 30-33% of the voting populace that won't abandon him no matter what. It's his floor. It's the same floor that existed for Bush even after Iraq, Katrina, and the financial crisis reduced his Administration to rubble. They are, generally, the same people. Technically, Bush hit a low of 22%, but that was at the very end of the Administration when most people would have replaced him with a monkey who had a pulse. Obama never dipped below 41%, which is actually pretty remarkable, since every other President since Kennedy has dipped well into the 30s.
What's most notable about Trump is that every other incoming President has been in the high 50s if not the 60s at this point in their Administration. Trump is pretty much incapable of cracking above 45, or roughly 15-20 points lower than anyone else in modern history.
And even leaving out arguments about the Electoral College, Trump won, but he won by getting a sliver more votes in a couple of the exact right places. He is not popular. Hillary Clinton is also not popular, and she got FAR more votes than Donald Trump. 3 million votes and nearly 2.5%, which is not an insignificant margin in this country. He approval rating reflects that 1.) He got FAR less votes and 2.) the other 10-15% can be accounted for in the fact that many of those people just didn't vote, or certainly didn't vote for either of the major candidates.
Aren't we, hopefully, beyond the 'If I repeat something enough, people will believe me.' thing working that well anymore?
Not even close, it seems fairly clear to me it's working better than ever, and the old axiom that "the bigger the lie, the more they believe" is true. You can get a sizable portion of the public to believe pretty much anything with the right message discipline. Repetition is the key.
Theresa May is currently proving that in the UK election. She repeats "strong and stable leadership" so much that there are drinking games and bingo cards based on it. This is despite repeated u-turns and the 'stability' of Brexit of course...
@calonord Yep, it would be nice if we were, surely.
@jjstraka34 You know, living long way before the internet got goin full steam in the 90's, and seeing things now, IMO if anything, the power of propaganda has gotten even stronger.
I believe that for many, the AMAZING amt of information out there to access has caused information overload in a sense. I would think we need something in schools to help people develop the skills to differentiate the unsubstantiated from the credible. Now I am not just talking politics here, but any different things, so many it is almost too many to list. Yes we have more to choose from but not everyone in the world has the ability to see the misleading from the ...er, less misleading. For many it HAS helped though.
Shoot, I hear things from my own family that makes me think they have totally lost the ability to reason sometimes.
Propaganda is a big enough issue that some schools devote whole classes to that issue alone, in conflict management.
so the GOP is again trying to force legislation without figuring out the damage that it will do. This time it's the healthcare vote (again). Which is up for a vote at the house tomorrow because apparently it's been changed to be awful enough that a couple more repubs want to pass it now.
I believe that for many, the AMAZING amt of information out there to access has caused information overload in a sense. I would think we need something in schools to help people develop the skills to differentiate the unsubstantiated from the credible. Now I am not just talking politics here, but any different things, so many it is almost too many to list. Yes we have more to choose from but not everyone in the world has the ability to see the misleading from the ...er, less misleading. For many it HAS helped though.
Trumpcare barely passed in the house, hopefully it's DOA in the usually more reasonable Senate.
Trump passed an Executive order to like allow Religious Discrimination and let Churches bribe politicians more easily because that is a priority to him. Really rich how he claims to be for Religious Freedom whole he's pushing anti-muslim executive orders and giving speeches about that.
So another day and more awful from Trump and radical Republicans....
Didn't many pastors openly endorse Obama from the pulpit both times he ran? Didn't they encourage their congregations to vote for Obama? The answer to both questions is "yes" and they all risked their church's tax-exempt status by endorsing Obama. Therefore, wouldn't this EO (I really hate those things--they aren't laws even though people behave as if they are) actually give those pastors *more* freedom to endorse candidates? Being a religious/spiritual person does not necessarily equate to being conservative.
Religious discrimination....religious discrimination....no, I am afraid you are mistaken on that one. The rights of a business owner to refuse service to certain customers has absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever (well, I am sure it does in some instances but those are actually statistical outliers, not common occurrences). If you show up at my store--*my* store, not a chain where I am only the manager--and for whatever reason I decide that I don't like you or people like you then you cannot *make* me sell you anything. Maybe I am just a hateful person...maybe I don't like the fact that you are a jugglo...maybe I don't like your full-on otherkin nature, complete with split tongue, cosmetic lenses to give you vertical pupils, and subdermal plates to give your skin a "scaly" appearance. In any event, I am within my rights to ask you to leave.
Now...that being said, there are some things to consider. 1) I am an idiot for turning away a customer who is willing to put money into my pocket. 2) I am an idiot for giving free customers and free money to my competitor whose store is only two blocks away. 3) I risk you going online and encouraging people to stay away from my store in various online fora. In short, the market will *destroy* me for turning away customers; you don't need a law or a lawyer to do it. Logic dictates that store owners attempt to service customers to the best of their ability regardless of their personal feelings...but then many people do not operate from logic.
Speaking of logic, take the idea of "you must serve every customer" to its logical conclusion. Suppose I walk into a Muslim deli and I demand a ham sandwich or a BLT. Maybe I walk into a vegan restaurant and demand a hamburger. Can those stores deny me service? What if I walk into a retail store wearing nothing but a small speedo, angel wings, and a smile? (If I do this, you are all free to tranq me.) What if I decide to be a real jacka** and walk into a black-owned bakery, demanding a cake with the slogan "white power" on it? According to the logic in play here they cannot deny me my cake with the slogan of my choice.
No, it is better to let business owners decide for themselves whom they will or will not serve rather than using the government to force owners to comply to society's whims. If a business owner cannot make decisions about their own store then it isn't really their store any more, is it? At that point, it essentially belongs to the government.
I'm not convinced the government should take action in these cases--unless it's something serious, like refusing to provide somebody with lifesaving medical care--but some of those examples are weaker than the others.
What if I decide to be a real jacka** and walk into a black-owned bakery, demanding a cake with the slogan "white power" on it? According to the logic in play here they cannot deny me my cake with the slogan of my choice.
If they said no, it's not like they'd be discriminating against you. You'd be demanding that they express a view they disagree with--they don't have to do that. They can just bake the cake and let you write that slogan on it.
If they refused to provide normal services to you simply because they didn't like you, that would be discrimination against you. If they refuse to provide nonstandard services because they weren't comfortable with those services, then that's not discrimination against you.
Comments
China is particularly significant for their influence alone and that it is a different element to past confrontations with North Korea.
This is unbelievable. He's a walking testament to ignorance of history. Why was there a Civil War?? I'm sure Trump would have "negotiated" with the slaves and plantation owners til they came to an amicable agreement.
Yep, Pres. Trump could bone up on his history a little bit concerning the Civil War.
As evidenced by the fact that negotiating a peaceful end to the slave trade was exactly how Europe did it.
I don't much try to counter anti trump talking points since they're all coming from the same emotional place and one wild accusation is as good as any other, but this one is particularly wrong. There's nothing inherently invalid or ignorant or racist in thinking that the issue of slavery could have been resolved without a civil war. In fact to believe it was impossible, simply couldn't have happened otherwise is a testament to historical ignorance, not the other way around.
Also, as a project for those who care, start keeping track of how often and quickly the word "emotional" gets tossed out anytime the subject of slavery or the history of American racism, or, for that matter, Donald Trump, comes up.
It is also a failure on the part of subsequent Administrations to mistreat Native Americans in the manner in which they did. Although history teaches that whenever civilization A and civilization B meet the one with the higher level of technology wins, that doesn't mean the civilization with the technological superiority has to stomp the other civilization into the ground. The insular nature of their home--Europe, Asia, and Africa were blissfully unaware of the lands in the Western Hemisphere for millennia--unfortunately led them into the position of not needing things like gunpowder, metal armor, and large sailing vessels.
Trump also said Jackson, who died 16 years before the onset of the American Civil War, "was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."
The civil war pissed off a dead guy.
Trump's the President. He doesn't need innuendo and "you know I think X". He should be providing proof and he can do that. But he doesn't.
"We need to get to the bottom of this"
Sure go ahead, what's the answer Mr. President? Or are you going to try to convince us you can't make a phone call and figure this out? You are the President, you can make that call instead of spreading rumors and "maybe this happened"s
He's just clueless on everything. No clue. But he has his opinions that he's shaped into bluster and that's what he says. He's just an empty talking head. "Tremendous. Sad. Andrew Jackson is a good friend of mine along with Frederick Douglass."
Andrew Jackson is... complicated, his political legacy not easy to summarise or break down into easy good or bad (even what happened to the Cherokee was not straightforward, involving the struggle between branches of government, state versus federal rights, the expansion of slavery and cotton in the south, and tons of other things - it has been argued that Jackson was at least a neutral figure, given the realities of the situation. Of course, it's also been argued he wasn't).
But beyond all that, as a populist who was known for rhetoric about giving power to the people and fighting against government elites, and who is generally agreed to have genuinely believed this and acted on those beliefs, as well as his current "politically incorrect" status in the media, it's not surprising Old Hickory is a favourite and model of Trump, who probably does fancy himself a similar figure. But don't forget that many people compared FDR to Jackson as well, and there's a lot of reasons to do so. For good and for bad, Jackson's a towering figure in American political history.
Fun historical factlet - Jackson's vice-president, Martin Van Buren, succeeded him to the presidency. The next sitting vice-president to successfully do so would be George Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/wilbur-ross-syria-entertainment/index.html
Sure, he said the rocket attack was "in lieu of entertainment" and did not say the attack itself was entertainment but it's pretty sick to use "entertainment" and "rocket attack" anywhere close to one another.
Memorial on Trump golf course commemorates battle that never happened.
"Mr. Trump repeatedly said that “numerous historians” had told him that the golf club site was known as the River of Blood. But he said he did not remember their names."
EDIT: Looking at the plaque on the golf course, it reads like Trump wrote it himself.
Just for contrast, here's a real historical commemoration with all the extraneous fluff that Trump never bothers with, like names, dates, context...
“How would they know that?” Mr. Trump asked when told that local historians had called his plaque a fiction. “Were they there?”
So...unless someone was actually present to give a first-hand account of something which happened in the past then we do not know for certain that it actually happened? That...that makes my head hurt--I need some more coffee.
First: This is the type of information that should have come up during the election, to show how unreliable Trump is with the truth. Granted, there was a saturation of this knowledge already, however, a story about recreating history to enhanced the profits of a golf course might have caused more anger than his typical fibs. A missed opportunity to tell the population exactly who Trump is.
Second: Why didn't the reporter ask "Were you?" as childish as it sounds, it would have put his "were they there" argument to rest, unless he wanted to claim he was actually there, which would have made the story even more interesting.
That being said, the dumb golf course thing strikes me, as does half of Trump's bullshit, as being more related to him being a 70 year old man who talks without notes or checking any sources. I rather imagine we'd all get caught in some whoppers if we did that, especially if we added a complete unwillingness to ever admit error. That isn't to say Trump doesn't lie a lot even for a campaigning politician, of course.
What's most notable about Trump is that every other incoming President has been in the high 50s if not the 60s at this point in their Administration. Trump is pretty much incapable of cracking above 45, or roughly 15-20 points lower than anyone else in modern history.
And even leaving out arguments about the Electoral College, Trump won, but he won by getting a sliver more votes in a couple of the exact right places. He is not popular. Hillary Clinton is also not popular, and she got FAR more votes than Donald Trump. 3 million votes and nearly 2.5%, which is not an insignificant margin in this country. He approval rating reflects that 1.) He got FAR less votes and 2.) the other 10-15% can be accounted for in the fact that many of those people just didn't vote, or certainly didn't vote for either of the major candidates.
@jjstraka34 You know, living long way before the internet got goin full steam in the 90's, and seeing things now, IMO if anything, the power of propaganda has gotten even stronger.
I believe that for many, the AMAZING amt of information out there to access has caused information overload in a sense. I would think we need something in schools to help people develop the skills to differentiate the unsubstantiated from the credible. Now I am not just talking politics here, but any different things, so many it is almost too many to list. Yes we have more to choose from but not everyone in the world has the ability to see the misleading from the ...er, less misleading. For many it HAS helped though.
Shoot, I hear things from my own family that makes me think they have totally lost the ability to reason sometimes.
Propaganda is a big enough issue that some schools devote whole classes to that issue alone, in conflict management.
Trump passed an Executive order to like allow Religious Discrimination and let Churches bribe politicians more easily because that is a priority to him. Really rich how he claims to be for Religious Freedom whole he's pushing anti-muslim executive orders and giving speeches about that.
So another day and more awful from Trump and radical Republicans....
Religious discrimination....religious discrimination....no, I am afraid you are mistaken on that one. The rights of a business owner to refuse service to certain customers has absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever (well, I am sure it does in some instances but those are actually statistical outliers, not common occurrences). If you show up at my store--*my* store, not a chain where I am only the manager--and for whatever reason I decide that I don't like you or people like you then you cannot *make* me sell you anything. Maybe I am just a hateful person...maybe I don't like the fact that you are a jugglo...maybe I don't like your full-on otherkin nature, complete with split tongue, cosmetic lenses to give you vertical pupils, and subdermal plates to give your skin a "scaly" appearance. In any event, I am within my rights to ask you to leave.
Now...that being said, there are some things to consider. 1) I am an idiot for turning away a customer who is willing to put money into my pocket. 2) I am an idiot for giving free customers and free money to my competitor whose store is only two blocks away. 3) I risk you going online and encouraging people to stay away from my store in various online fora. In short, the market will *destroy* me for turning away customers; you don't need a law or a lawyer to do it. Logic dictates that store owners attempt to service customers to the best of their ability regardless of their personal feelings...but then many people do not operate from logic.
Speaking of logic, take the idea of "you must serve every customer" to its logical conclusion. Suppose I walk into a Muslim deli and I demand a ham sandwich or a BLT. Maybe I walk into a vegan restaurant and demand a hamburger. Can those stores deny me service? What if I walk into a retail store wearing nothing but a small speedo, angel wings, and a smile? (If I do this, you are all free to tranq me.) What if I decide to be a real jacka** and walk into a black-owned bakery, demanding a cake with the slogan "white power" on it? According to the logic in play here they cannot deny me my cake with the slogan of my choice.
No, it is better to let business owners decide for themselves whom they will or will not serve rather than using the government to force owners to comply to society's whims. If a business owner cannot make decisions about their own store then it isn't really their store any more, is it? At that point, it essentially belongs to the government.
If they refused to provide normal services to you simply because they didn't like you, that would be discrimination against you. If they refuse to provide nonstandard services because they weren't comfortable with those services, then that's not discrimination against you.