You're viewing a single thread.
showing up in dirty overalls for my one (1) free beer and then going to the better bar across town to actually spend my money
Shotgunning my free natty light then removing my coveralls to reveal a rainbow speedo
This is almost the Party Boy bit from Jackass
Yeah and while it would be very visually funny to watch me do it, I'm not about to do this in the US where as far as my outside perspective is concerned, i would die instantly
well it's America so obviously your rainbow speedo would need to have a belly band holster belt holding up your shiny chrome FREEDOM EQUALIZER .45 AARP caliber sidearm
I try to do a bit in America and am instantly shot dozens of times from multiple angles
It's Idaho, so you're probably surrounded by neo-Nazis and Klansmen as soon as you set foot in the bar
Mormons too, but maybe that’s redundant
And an unhealthy smattering of Witnesses to boot
I don't trust any movement that intentionally mispronounces their name and claims to have divine knowledge.
I just want to see turf wars erupt between Mormons and JWs going door-to-door in the same neighborhood.
oh man now I'm imagining bib overalls with buttons up the sides of the legs like those rip-off trainer pants
This is what I and every person I willingly drink with would do.
"Thanks fuck you, see you tomorrow. Can't wait for you to have to explain what about my attire isn't straight so you're not running up against false advertising claims by not giving us a free beer everyday."
Also this really seems like about the easiest slam dunk ever for discrimination against a protected class but I assume lgbtq people aren't a protected class in whatever windswept sithole this is in.
I think federally at least sexuality is a protected characteristic, but I don't think the courts in Idaho would respect that so you'd need to have the funds to appeal it up a few levels
Btw the ruling to make sexuality a protected characteristic was an incredibly rare Gorsuch W where he ruled that discriminating based off of sexual orientation was discriminating based off of sex (i.e. if you refuse service to Jim because Jim dates Bob, but you wouldn't refuse service to Jane because Jane dates Bob, then that's implicitly discrimination based off of sex)