LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[Polishprince]

couldn't a business just say no and leave it at that? do they owe an explanation?

I guess, although this business said "yes" initially. So good business practice is to explain to your customer why you want to cancel the contract.

Further, explaining why saves the business the hassle of having to cancel or refuse other business, by letting them know that Normative People aren't welcome.

 

[DudleySmith]

Someone has gay fantasies on the mind.

Someone is a huge fan of mentally ill deviants grooming children, which is why they run around parroting ****** psychobabble projections like you do.

 

[DudleySmith]

There's a finer point to be made here.
A business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. Sorta. Discrimination laws - right?
The case with the baker, etc, involves the fundamental right to, and the fundamental right to not, express a message.
The case with the restaurant does not.

And so you can still make the case the restaurant can refuse to serve anyone, its not the same argument as made with reference refusing to bake the cake.

Religious freedom is protected by the Bill Of Rights. Being a ****** isn't.

 

[insolent imp]

I guess, although this business said "yes" initially. So good business practice is to explain to your customer why you want to cancel the contract.

Further, explaining why saves the business the hassle of having to cancel or refuse other business, by letting them know that Normative People aren't welcome.

if you agree to perform a service and back out then that is breach of contract. But a simple no ends the drama instantly.

 

[insolent imp]

Religious freedom is protected by the Bill Of Rights. Being a ****** isn't.

isn't it more of an establishment clause?

 

[Mac-7]

if you agree to perform a service and back out then that is breach of contract. But a simple no ends the drama instantly.

Better yet refund double the Christians money and deduct it from the employees pay

 

[M14 Shooter]

Religious freedom is protected by the Bill Of Rights. Being a ****** isn't.

To be sure, if a Christian-run restaurant refused to serve Muslims, the reaction from the left would be far different than if a Muslim restaraunt refused to serve Jews.

 

[insolent imp]

Better yet refund double the Christians money and deduct it from the employees pay

Even better for business is don't be a dick and wind up on the news.

 

[DudleySmith]

isn't it more of an establishment clause?

Being a ******? No. Being a Christian? Yes, it is a right protected from any interference. There is no law these faggots can hide behind for discriminating against Christians. No sexual fetishes or other mental illnesses are guaranteed legal protections in the Bill Of Rights..

 

[SweetSue92]

LOL. The white grievance is precious. Likening themselves to blacks in the 1960's who were refused service at white restaurants. Well...there's no threat of bodily harm or injury to these "Christians"...like there was to blacks back then.
So the owner had to make a decision because the backlash to letting these "Christians" dine there would have probably been bigger than just denying them the reservation.

Oh wait--you love it when service is refused now? Cool, then the Christian baker was right. We knew this

 

[Vastator]

Huh, if two straight guys married, they wouldn’t have to have sex. Hell, they could still date women.

I don’t see the downside in many applications.

They would have to consecrate the marriage. In other words… ****. That would make them faggots.

 

[insolent imp]

Being a ******? No. Being a Christian? Yes, it is a right protected from any interference.

sort of but not really.

 

[DudleySmith]

sort of but not really.

So name a law that allows discrimination against Christians.

 

[DudleySmith]

Even better for business is don't be a dick and wind up on the news.

Mentally ill attention whores can't do that.

 

[SweetSue92]

There's a finer point to be made here.
A business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. Sorta. Discrimination laws - right?
The case with the baker, etc, involves the fundamental right to, and the fundamental right to not, express a message.
The case with the restaurant does not.

And so you can still make the case the restaurant can refuse to serve anyone, its not the same argument as made with reference refusing to bake the cake.

I'll go even finer with you.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop etc was about the event/message, not about the PERSON. In every case the owner was not saying "we don't serve gays" but rather "we won't serve events that violate our conscience".

In that way, the restaurant was correct. This was a private party for a Christian ministry. So both are equivalent.

HOWEVER

If that restaurant wants to go farther and say "we won't serve CHRISTIANS" even if they're just dining as everyone else does, seated at a table--there's the problem. Same as if the baker said I won't sell a gay person any cake, for retirement, birthdays, or what not.

The problem here is that Leftists were eager to tell the baker to "BAKE THE CAKE" but are delighted at the Christian group being shut down.

Hypocrites.

 

[insolent imp]

So name a law that allows discrimination against Christians.

nowhere in the constitution does the word Christian appear. it's the word religion which applies more broadly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They would have to consecrate the marriage. In other words… ****. That would make them faggots.

If they say they did, but did not, how would you know?

 

[DudleySmith]

nowhere in the constitution does the word Christian appear. it's the word religion which applies more broadly.

They didn't need to, since they were all referring to Christians; many of the colonies were founded by Christian dissenters. There weren't enough others around to bother worrying about. And even fewer sniveling atheists, which is why the poorly educated try and pass off Jefferson and and a couple of others as the only Founders they ever mention. And even then, they're wrong about Jefferson and have to lie; he was a Christian, and said so. Modern deviants have to make up lies in order to validate their nonsense.

 

[insolent imp]

They didn't need to, since they were all referring to Christians; many of the colonies were founded by Christian dissenters. There weren't enough others around to bother worrying about. And even fewer sniveling atheists, which is why the poorly educated try and pass of Jefferson and and a couple of others as the only Founders they ever mention. And even then, they're wrong about Jefferson and have to lie; he was a Christian, and said so.

the establishment clause was put in because the founding fathers saw what influence the church of England had and didn't want us to end up just like back home.

 

[DudleySmith]

the establishment clause was put in because the founding fathers saw what influence the church of England had and didn't want us to end up just like back home.

True, but not the only reason.