Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[Syriusly]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

I think advocating revoking public accommodation laws based upon that logic is consistent.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Why would you be hiring a pedophile to watch your kids? Or for that matter a murderer or a convicted conman?

You are right that we do discriminate against people all of the time. In 1964 Congress passed a law making it illegal for certain kinds of business's to discriminate in providing service because of a customers race, creed, gender or national origin.

Was that law wrong?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.
.

Thank you for the reply.

With that provision in mind- why not just do away with public accommodation laws entirely?

Good idea.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.
.

Thank you for the reply.

With that provision in mind- why not just do away with public accommodation laws entirely?

Good idea.

My new favorite Catholic, the one who promotes lying. This, Chief Sellout, is why we fix things with laws. Fixing the morals of the people though other means, not an option.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.
.

Thank you for the reply.

With that provision in mind- why not just do away with public accommodation laws entirely?

Good idea.

My new favorite Catholic, the one who promotes lying. This, Chief Sellout, is why we fix things with laws. Fixing the morals of the people though other means, not an option.

Still praying for you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.
.

Thank you for the reply.

With that provision in mind- why not just do away with public accommodation laws entirely?

Good idea.

My new favorite Catholic, the one who promotes lying. This, Chief Sellout, is why we fix things with laws. Fixing the morals of the people though other means, not an option.

Still praying for you.

Don't bother. God doesn't hear the prayers of liars.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.
.

Thank you for the reply.

With that provision in mind- why not just do away with public accommodation laws entirely?

Good idea.

My new favorite Catholic, the one who promotes lying. This, Chief Sellout, is why we fix things with laws. Fixing the morals of the people though other means, not an option.

Still praying for you.

Don't bother. God doesn't hear the prayers of liars.

Well you're in my prayers. But because you don't discuss issues and just antagonize I need to put you on ignore to reserve my screen space for those who want discussion. I wish you the best.

 

[Syriusly]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Why would you be hiring a pedophile to watch your kids? Or for that matter a murderer or a convicted conman?

You are right that we do discriminate against people all of the time. In 1964 Congress passed a law making it illegal for certain kinds of business's to discriminate in providing service because of a customers race, creed, gender or national origin.

Was that law wrong?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection..

Sorry- you are putting words in my mouth again.

On a national level, lifestyle choice was always one of the criteria- though of course just like homosexuality it was not because of the persons choice of lifestyle.

Even though Christianity is a lifestyle choice- Christians are protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Why would that 'lifestyle choice' be protected? It isn't. Like homosexuality, Christianity is not protected because it is a lifestyle choice, it is protected because of a pattern of historical discrimination against classes of people based upon their religion.

States took the concept of protecting historically discriminated classes and added additional protections- for veterans, for handicapped, for sexual preference.

If you object to State's public accommodation laws, you have the same route to object to them as gay couples who object to State's ban's on same gender marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Why would you be hiring a pedophile to watch your kids? Or for that matter a murderer or a convicted conman?

You are right that we do discriminate against people all of the time. In 1964 Congress passed a law making it illegal for certain kinds of business's to discriminate in providing service because of a customers race, creed, gender or national origin.

Was that law wrong?

Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia,

Whether it be drugs, Christianity or pedophilia.

 

[Redfish]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

 

[PratchettFan]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

 

[Katzndogz]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

He has it backwards.

 

[Redfish]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

 

[Redfish]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

 

[bodecea]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Why would you be hiring a pedophile to watch your kids? Or for that matter a murderer or a convicted conman?

You are right that we do discriminate against people all of the time. In 1964 Congress passed a law making it illegal for certain kinds of business's to discriminate in providing service because of a customers race, creed, gender or national origin.

Was that law wrong?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

 

[PratchettFan]

Artistic freedom is absolute. No one has a civil right to the artistic creations of another.

A bakery has the obligation to sell its baked goods to anyone who walks through the door.

A florist has the obligation to sell flowers to anyone who walks through the door. In all cases this is exactly what happened. No one was denied service. What they were denied was the talent of the decorator and floral designer and they were never entitled to that.

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

 

[Redfish]

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door". Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor? Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers? Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names? AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

I don't know where you are but where I am someone who comes in smelling like a sewer tracking shit on the floor is a customer and if they have money to pay they will be served. Cursing and threatening others is disorderly behavior as if physically touching and insulting the owner. A muslim grocery doesn't sell kosher to anyone not just jews. But since you brought it up a halal grocery store is obligated to sell halal to an infidel if they have the money to pay and can't say we don't sell our halal food to infidels.

When a homosexual goes into a bakery and those brownies look yummy, that homosexual is going to walk out of that bakery with a box of brownies and no one ever said they didn't. No homosexual has complained that they stopped at the flower shop and didn't get sold a dozen roses for a same sex honey.

What they want is a newly created civil right to the talent of an unwilling artist. In these cases the artists are religious.

Once artistic freedom becomes a political permission our general hold on freedom is non existent. The illusion that we are a free country is shattered.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

 

[bodecea]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Why would you be hiring a pedophile to watch your kids? Or for that matter a murderer or a convicted conman?

You are right that we do discriminate against people all of the time. In 1964 Congress passed a law making it illegal for certain kinds of business's to discriminate in providing service because of a customers race, creed, gender or national origin.

Was that law wrong?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So...sexual orientation = pedophile with you?

 

[dblack]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Exactly. You can't apply discrimination protection to everyone. Which is why it can't be considered a universal right. It's a privilege extend by government to select people in select circumstances. That's not what equal protection is about.