Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe Canucks aren't on the gay train.
..Like Trudeau.
This is in Canada so I don’t know what the law is.
You are quite the simpleton. Plenty of others will happily engage you in that line. Those democrats sucked. Obviously.Except i have been arguing it was not cool. So...wipe that tear away...Ok, but we allow them this discrimination...why? Because it is religious? Discrimination like this should not be legal.Well, then find someone else to film your wedding. And be sure to lodge your comments, opinions, and reviews on whatever website they frequent for their business. Let the public know their leanings. That's not cancel culture. The market can decide.
My personal opinion is why waste time getting offended and trying to make a point when it's easier to just go for the jugular...their wallets.
So, cool to hang a "No Blacks!" sign?Good for them. Nobody should be force to do business or associate with someone against their wishes.
It was always cool when Democrats did it.
If it was not cool, then why Democrats were doing it?
No should can look that up. There are extensive writings on this, going back to slavery.Please show us where Democrats used religion as a justification for segregation.
Look at state supreme court rulings on segregation, like in pennsylvania. Look at why Burnett won the governorship of mississippi in 1960. It was at the heart of arguments on the senate floor in debate of the civil rights act.
What you want is special treatment for religion under a discrimination law. In other words, you want a law respecting religion.
One should be able to determine who one does business with. I just wish they would post it in the window or on their website so as to not waste people's time and I can avoid doing business with them also.
One of my biggest complaints about these business owners is that they hide their views and then spring them on would-be clients instead of being honest in their advertising. Two cases that I actually checked on were that crazy baker in Colorado and a wedding venue. They never said a word on their websites that they would refuse business. Instead, the message to the public was "come to my business." I do, however, support public-accommodation laws that are generally applicable to all business owners.
I also have a question as to whether these business owners would be in favor of all business owners having the right to refuse service on other grounds, such as religion. Would an LGBT business owner have the right to refuse service to someone who is a member of an anti-gay religion? Everyone should have the same rights.
The thing is these people don't want to deny point of sale transactions, or non-customized items, they just don't want to perform one contracted transaction, and even if "sprung" on people, it's not like finding another baker/photographer/florist is that hard.
Would you want to force an hard core Atheist photographer to work at a Christian Fundamentalist wedding?
Yes. Public-accommodation laws serve an important public interest. Allowing refusals of service is a recipe for complete chaos. The photographer is there to provide a service on a for-pay basis. S/he is not a part of the proceedings any more than a waiter at the reception is.
The thing is, you are trying to shift the burden onto an innocent would-be customer when it is the business owner who must shoulder the burden that he or she created for themselves. The business owner advertised that his/her goods or services were available and people came in response to the advertisement. They shouldn't have to be humiliated and then forced to drive around looking for something else. You seem to be expecting that would-be customers must have a crystal ball or something.
The false-advertising issue is separate. Even if we allowed discrimination to override our public-accommodation laws, this issue would remain.
As much I remember, the federal public accommodation laws say you may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin". No mention of sexual orientation.
One should be able to determine who one does business with. I just wish they would post it in the window or on their website so as to not waste people's time and I can avoid doing business with them also.
One of my biggest complaints about these business owners is that they hide their views and then spring them on would-be clients instead of being honest in their advertising. Two cases that I actually checked on were that crazy baker in Colorado and a wedding venue. They never said a word on their websites that they would refuse business. Instead, the message to the public was "come to my business." I do, however, support public-accommodation laws that are generally applicable to all business owners.
I also have a question as to whether these business owners would be in favor of all business owners having the right to refuse service on other grounds, such as religion. Would an LGBT business owner have the right to refuse service to someone who is a member of an anti-gay religion? Everyone should have the same rights.
The thing is these people don't want to deny point of sale transactions, or non-customized items, they just don't want to perform one contracted transaction, and even if "sprung" on people, it's not like finding another baker/photographer/florist is that hard.
Would you want to force an hard core Atheist photographer to work at a Christian Fundamentalist wedding?There are a couple of businesses in my town that fly the homo pride rainbow flag in front of their store.Would an LGBT business owner have the right to refuse service to someone who is a member of an anti-gay religion? Everyone should have the same rights.
I view it as a public service for people who want to avoid entering a store that caters to mentally deranged fudge packers. ...
You definitely don't want to eat at any food place run by faggots, given the list of epidemic diseases they lead the country in spreading.
Currently, the most spreaders of epidemic diseases in the U.S. seem to be right-wing assholes and their ignorant religious cults that have to assemble to do that wave-their-hands-at-God thing that they somehow can't do online.
Bullshit. Any references for that you cum-bucket?
How does that compare to a Muslim man with four wives? Or say, Jacob (a.k.a. Israel) in the Hebrew Bible, married to Laban's daughters Leah and Rachael, each of whom had her own female maidservant, so that was four women total, too.Why don't the two bull dykes just find a homo owned company that caters to lezbo pretend marriages? ...
'The homeless' are being blamed for all these ills because they lack the financial means to support more than four street women at a time on their block.Now the media rush to blame 'The Homeless' in California for the hepatitis outbreaks there
Good for you. We got your baby tantrum out of the way quickly, so that's good.You are quite the simpleton. Plenty of others will happily engage you in that line. Those democrats sucked. Obviously.Except i have been arguing it was not cool. So...wipe that tear away...Ok, but we allow them this discrimination...why? Because it is religious? Discrimination like this should not be legal.Well, then find someone else to film your wedding. And be sure to lodge your comments, opinions, and reviews on whatever website they frequent for their business. Let the public know their leanings. That's not cancel culture. The market can decide.
My personal opinion is why waste time getting offended and trying to make a point when it's easier to just go for the jugular...their wallets.
So, cool to hang a "No Blacks!" sign?Good for them. Nobody should be force to do business or associate with someone against their wishes.
It was always cool when Democrats did it.
If it was not cool, then why Democrats were doing it?
Those only?
As much I am concerned, all Democrats sucks. It's simple as that.
Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos
Right, but the supreme court affirmed the ability of the States to pass such laws. Eventually it will be federal law. Just need a few more bigots to die off, first.You're right, no mention of sexual orientation but there are seven protected classes
Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos
Neato! But you are a brain damaged, sociopathic idiot, so nobody is paying any mind to that insane opinionNobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos
Nobody is forcing demented faggots to run around annoying business people with their sick fetishes, either.
Neato! But you are a brain damaged, sociopathic idiot, so nobody is paying any mind to that insane opinionNobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos
Nobody is forcing demented faggots to run around annoying business people with their sick fetishes, either.
I don't have to work for anybody I don't want to.So, any job not performed in the public storefront? In other words... most "jobs"? Every single internet service? Every ... landscaper? Every housepainter? Roofer? Housebuilder?That was a restaurant open to the public. Services like videographer are personal services. Personal services should always be discretionary.
Hmm, no, sorry. That's not going to work.
Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos
I have had two businesses as a career. I had a law office and a dog grooming salon. Whoever walked through that door got whatever service that business offered. Black, green, gay, it didn't matter. I did a divorce between a man and his blow up doll. Gay pet owners have Fluffy's standing spa day every week. When it came to painting, that was a personal service, it was not available to the public. When two lesbians wanted me to paint their portrait I told them to fuck off. They sued and the judge agreed with me. Personal services should never be forced. This includes hair stylist, masseuse, counselor, landscaper, house painter and every form of artistic expression.I don't have to work for anybody I don't want to.So, any job not performed in the public storefront? In other words... most "jobs"? Every single internet service? Every ... landscaper? Every housepainter? Roofer? Housebuilder?That was a restaurant open to the public. Services like videographer are personal services. Personal services should always be discretionary.
Hmm, no, sorry. That's not going to work.
OK, how about you name Democrats that doesn't suck?Good for you. We got your baby tantrum out of the way quickly, so that's good.Those only?You are quite the simpleton. Plenty of others will happily engage you in that line. Those democrats sucked. Obviously.Except i have been arguing it was not cool. So...wipe that tear away...Ok, but we allow them this discrimination...why? Because it is religious? Discrimination like this should not be legal.Well, then find someone else to film your wedding. And be sure to lodge your comments, opinions, and reviews on whatever website they frequent for their business. Let the public know their leanings. That's not cancel culture. The market can decide.
My personal opinion is why waste time getting offended and trying to make a point when it's easier to just go for the jugular...their wallets.
So, cool to hang a "No Blacks!" sign?Good for them. Nobody should be force to do business or associate with someone against their wishes.
It was always cool when Democrats did it.
If it was not cool, then why Democrats were doing it?
As much I am concerned, all Democrats sucks. It's simple as that.
