Bullshit.
Really? Can't read your WaPo, but Blaster's link makes plain that their simply being "Conservative" was not the issue. They even offered to sit down with them and talk it all out so as to prevent such an occurrence again. What would be the right way to go about it?
Quit acting like a child.However, the restaurant added, “We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff feel uncomfortable and unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision.”
This was all before they had ever set foot in the door. As the business owner I would have found a gay waiter to wait on them and if they said one disparaging thing at all to my waiter, then took action.
Quit acting like a child.
So it would just be their word against the waiter's or would the waiter be wearing a wire?However, the restaurant added, “We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff feel uncomfortable and unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision.”
This was all before they had ever set foot in the door. As the business owner I would have found a gay waiter to wait on them and if they said one disparaging thing at all to my waiter, then took action.
So it would just be their word against the waiter's or would the waiter be wearing a wire?
No, it's whatever pleases you.Whatever pleases you.
it wasn't their policy but IMO the wrong way to go around it.
No, it's whatever pleases you.
That doesn't follow. The staff would not be made uncomfortable had they no prior knowledge of this bunch. Makes sense to presume they knew them from prior experience, local news coverage, or discussion with peers working elsewhere.Yes, I disagree with cancelling them without ever having met them.
That doesn't follow. The staff would not be made uncomfortable had they no prior knowledge of this bunch. Makes sense to presume they knew them from prior experience, local news coverage, or discussion with peers working elsewhere.
So, given they knew them, allowing them in could easily be inviting a lawsuit test case. Once in the door, they're more obliged to serve them.
Invite in a known "advocacy" (hate) group against the wishes of your staff because?They should serve them. If the patrons start trouble, there is no lawsuit to be had against the restaurant.
Invite in a known "advocacy" (hate) group against the wishes of your staff because?
Problem is then he would eat the entire cake and beg for more!I volunteer to fuck that cake and fill it with unvaxxed jizz.
Tommy can have the first bite.
And I'll do it for free.
And yet you are full of intolerance for religious beliefs you hackYou are mistaken. Religous intolerance is not acceptable from any quarter.
Bakers should bake. End of story.
--------------------------------------------------------I appreciate the mention!
Nobody was mistreated.A restaurant owner wouldn't have the right to address diners mistreating the help?
He should move to Mississippi.Colorado is a fucking shithole. He should move somewhere sane where the laws don’t bend over backwards to appease these lunatics.
Nobody was mistreated.
Colorado baker loses appeal over refusing cake to transgender customer
Baker says he refused trans customer because of his Christian faithwww.independent.co.uk
His defence is the ridiculous religous freedom one that he used to deny a gay couple a cake a few yesrs ago. What does the bible say about trannys ?
It seems that a common link in these bigot cases is well funded extremist laawyers. These bigots never refuse cakes for adulterers or criminals or people who eat shellfish.
They make me sick to my stomach.
