There are public accommodation laws on the books to assure that businesses open to the public are, indeed, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Religious dogma cannot be used as an aegis to further discrimination against any group here in the United States of America, unlike countries under repressive Sharia law.
And I'm sorry you never learned the definition of "HYPERBOLE". You employ it so freely, one might assume that you knew its meaning.
You have a right to be wrong. Open to the public, doesn't mean I now can't run my business according to my views.
You are wasting your time. I don't care what you think on this matter. I simply don't. Religious freedom is a constitutional right. You don't have a 'right' to use my business or services. Sucks to be you. Too bad we can vote huh?
I think you are BOTH right.
Both States guarantee rights AND federal govt is supposed to defend Constitutional rights.
Both followers of churches and religions have freedom to practice
AND there should not be govt imposition either way regarding religion.
Both business owners have rights and freedoms to conduct business
AND citizens/consumers have rights protected by laws.
The problem here is what happens when two different beliefs conflict
* beliefs in gay marriage vs. beliefs that exclude gay marriage
* beliefs in prochoice policies vs. beliefs in prolife policies
* beliefs that denying service is discriminatory and unconstitutional
vs. beliefs denying or imposing against one's religious beliefs is unconstitutional
from the perspective of each person with their own beliefs,
you are all equally right.
So the best way I see to accommodate conflicting beliefs to be constitutionally equal
and protected is to RESOLVE the conflicts and arrive at a CONSENSUS on policy
so NEITHER SIDE is imposed upon. All the sides and beliefs are equally right.
So it is wrong to take one side and impose that by govt at the expense of the other.
the govt policy, decision, law or ruling must either be NEUTRAL or ALL INCLUSIVE.
but cannot take one side of such a debate and impose it on the other against those views.
either way, such a one sided decision will be UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it
abridges or denies the equal constitutional protections of the opposing viewpoint or belief.
Last edited: