LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[Blaster]

So, what was your position on the baker that did not want to make a cake for the same sex wedding?

The same position that I have here. Nobody should be forced to violate their personal beliefs.

 

[playtime]

if a biz'nez serves the public - then they serve ALL the public.

& if she feels icky about homogays, based on her religion - all she had to do was say she had her limit of active clients. she is NOT part of the clergy & she is NOT being asked to officiate the wedding.

 

[Papageorgio]

if a biz'nez serves the public - then they serve ALL the public.

& if she feels icky about homogays, based on her religion - all she had to do was say she had her limit of active clients. she is NOT part of the clergy & she is NOT being asked to officiate the wedding.

It’s the other way around, did you read the OP? The restaurant denied service to a Group that is against abortions, do you still serve them?

 

[rightwinger]

if a biz'nez serves the public - then they serve ALL the public.

& if she feels icky about homogays, based on her religion - all she had to do was say she had her limit of active clients. she is NOT part of the clergy & she is NOT being asked to officiate the wedding.

She thinks posting romantic pictures of same sex couples is yucky……so it violates her artistic freedom

The TRUMPCourt is finding all kinds of loopholes to discriminate against gays

 

[playtime]

I noticed the OP hasn't responded...

crickets of course.

suzy Q is too busy guzzling down her favorite drink.

 

[playtime]

It’s the other way around, did you read the OP? The restaurant denied service to a Group that is against abortions, do you still serve them?

they booked already & deserve compensation for a contract that was broken. were they were denied because of the employees' discrimination against them, or ALL christians?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The same position that I have here. Nobody should be forced to violate their personal beliefs.

The difference is the baker owned the business, in this case it's an employee or employees refusing to accommodate.

A distinct difference.

It actually seems like "we'll get you my pretties" after the LGBT opened the can of worms

 

[Blaster]

The difference is the baker owned the business, in this case it's an employee or employees refusing to accommodate.

A distinct difference.

No difference to me.

 

[martybegan]

if a biz'nez serves the public - then they serve ALL the public.

& if she feels icky about homogays, based on her religion - all she had to do was say she had her limit of active clients. she is NOT part of the clergy & she is NOT being asked to officiate the wedding.

Please show me where free exercise under the 1st amendment is limited to the Clergy.

 

[martybegan]

No difference to me.

Big difference.

Also the fact they pulled this shit 1.5 hours before the event makes it actionable as breach of contract even removing the accommodation stuff.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The difference is the baker owned the business, in this case it's an employee or employees refusing to accommodate.

A distinct difference.

It actually seems like "we'll get you my pretties" after the LGBT opened the can of worms

They are and have always been about emotions at the revenge level. What do you expect from the cult that cannot win without cheating?


.

 

[The Duke]

Let's see how long this place lasts with a crappy attitude like that.

 

[DGS49]

If you are providing a produce or service that CANNOT BE OBTAINED ANYWHERE ELSE, then there is an argument to be made that the sellers cannot discriminate on the basis of certain factors. Otherwise, there is a principle that sits somewhere in the emanations and penumbras of the Ninth Amendment, and it is the called the "right of contract." It says that two (or more) parties can contract for any purpose or objective other than committing a crime, and the Sovereign has nothing to say about it. If I want to avoid serving Leftists, or Democrats, or public school teachers, there ain't a damn thing Government has to say about it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No difference to me.

Then you've obviously never owned a business

I think it's funny the left suddenly thinks a business doesn't have to accommodate....sorta like the Twitter crap

It's hypocrisy

 

[SassyIrishLass]

They are and have always been about emotions at the revenge level. What do you expect from the cult that cannot win without cheating?


.

Just a bunch of hypocrites

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

if a biz'nez serves the public - then they serve ALL the public.

& if she feels icky about homogays, based on her religion - all she had to do was say she had her limit of active clients. she is NOT part of the clergy & she is NOT being asked to officiate the wedding.

Apparently, you've never seen that sign that says "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service.............."

I don't turn the leftists away or my business would go broke. They're 99% of my revenue. I just give the few sane conservatives a 75% GOOD GUY DISCOUNT.


.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This restaurant will be out of business shortly. I hope it was worth it,

 

[Zincwarrior]

No difference to me.

I don't believe it matters to The Law either.

 

[playtime]

Please show me where free exercise under the 1st amendment is limited to the Clergy.

please show me where the right to discriminate, as a business serving the public, falls under the 1st amendment.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is the baker owned the business, in this case it's an employee or employees refusing to accommodate.

A distinct difference.

It actually seems like "we'll get you my pretties" after the LGBT opened the can of worms

Also, unless the servers were made to wear crosses, or take part in any actual discussion or presentation, their job wasn't impacted by WHO they were serving, thus the whole argument used when it comes to the bakers/website people/photographers, i.e. being compelled to send a message they disagree with doesn't apply here.