mdk
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2014
- 40,558
- 14,039
- 2,630
You deliberately misstate my position, which means, once again -- you are a liar.Your position makes no sense. I think you fail to understand what it would be like to be denied a stay at a hotel or a restaurant meal because of the color of your skin. If this is really your position, you aren't very smart.You say you would be ok with a return to the days when blacks were denied service at businesses. I'm sorry, but I call bullshit when you say that's your position. I think you're lying to back up the play of this gay coffee shop owner who denied service based on religion
In fact, I'm okay with being it anyone. It appears you're fine with the government forcing people to do business with one another so long as you like them. Which is as self-serving as it is inconsistent. My position on public accommodation laws have been the same for many years now.
Which goes back to my original response you in this thread: you're fine public accommodations laws so long as they don't protect queers. All the protections you enjoy are good, but the ones that protect them are bad. Good Christ, you're such a hack. lol
I have no problem with homosexuals as a protected class for accomodation laws.
However, if a customer asks a businessman to provide a product or service that violates his religious beliefs, he should not be mandated by law to do it.
You are probably too stupid to understand my position, because it requires a certain level of mental sophistication.
And yet you can't refuse service to someone on the grounds they violate your religious beliefs of the First Commandment. Why should a southern Baptist be forced by the government to do business with a Mormon, Muslim, or Catholic? They shouldn't.