Bigoted Florist Loses Again

[Synthaholic]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

 

[Synthaholic]

Since it's a Washington Post article behind a pay wall I can't give you a direct link. Click the tweet, then click the article.

 

[Desperado]

Why would people want to hire someone that does not want to work for them unless they are ust looking for a lawsuit.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No binding precedent was set by the decision. It will be revisited and soon, I'll wager.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s a settled, accepted fact of law that religious beliefs don’t justify ignoring or violating just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws.

Moreover, the enforcement of just and proper laws in no manner restricts or violates religious liberty or expression.

 

[San Souci]

Synthaholic

Since it's a Washington Post article behind a pay wall I can't give you a direct link. Click the tweet, then click the article.

No. A person has the RIGHT to refuse Fags. Disgusting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why would people want to hire someone that does not want to work for them unless they are ust looking for a lawsuit.

Why would any business owner seek to discriminate against patrons is the better question.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

Where do you get you ghey queer homo man love flowers?

 

[bodecea]

Why would people want to hire someone that does not want to work for them unless they are ust looking for a lawsuit.

Was there a sign on the door saying "We don't serve gay people" so the couple would know ahead of time. Maybe there should be.

 

[bodecea]

Synthaholic

Since it's a Washington Post article behind a pay wall I can't give you a direct link. Click the tweet, then click the article.

No. A person has the RIGHT to refuse Fags. Disgusting.

If you have a business license, you follow business, safety, and health laws......or get your license pulled.

 

[Dusty]

Since it's a Washington Post article behind a pay wall I can't give you a direct link. Click the tweet, then click the article.

Do you bake cakes for homos?

Oh sorry everything you bake is for a homo.

My bad

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No binding precedent was set by the decision. It will be revisited and soon, I'll wager.

Which unfortunately might be the case – why anyone would persist through the courts to propagate their bigotry and hate remains a mystery.

 

[progressive hunter]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

so whos more of a bigot??
the person that politely says no thank you,,
or the one that sues you to force you to do something you dont want to do??

 

[Auld Phart]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

You mean like letting the President have an account on Twitter and Facebookburning?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why would people want to hire someone that does not want to work for them unless they are ust looking for a lawsuit.

Was there a sign on the door saying "We don't serve gay people" so the couple would know ahead of time. Maybe there should be.

Not if public accommodations laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[Dusty]

Synthaholic

Since it's a Washington Post article behind a pay wall I can't give you a direct link. Click the tweet, then click the article.

No. A person has the RIGHT to refuse Fags. Disgusting.

If you have a business license, you follow business, safety, and health laws......or get your license pulled.

So baking cakes for homos is a safety and health law

 

[Synthaholic]

View attachment 508392

Nice job keeping this thread clean of trolls and deflectors.

 

[Auld Phart]

View attachment 508392

Nice job keeping this thread clean of trolls and deflectors.

Not a deflection, syn.

Think about it.

 

[Synthaholic]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

You mean like letting the President have an account on Twitter and Facebookburning?

I don't think the SCOTUS decision affects people who go into florist shops and piss on the floor, curse at the florist, and smash merchandise.