jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,665
- 29,315
why cause you say so? nope. they have the same freedoms as everyone else. and you are therefore discriminating against their rights.If you sell weddings, you have to sell to all legal couples.
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.
why cause you say so? nope. they have the same freedoms as everyone else. and you are therefore discriminating against their rights.If you sell weddings, you have to sell to all legal couples.
oh the wittle PC cop is offended. fk political correctness and you.I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.
SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.
No, we'll just be reminded of the danger of putting RW bigots on the Court.
discriminating is all there is in the world and you're doing it right now. but you're too stupid to know it.What century are we in that conservatives still believe that discriminating is a civil right?
why cause you say so? nope. they have the same freedoms as everyone else. and you are therefore discriminating against their rights.If you sell weddings, you have to sell to all legal couples.
Of course it beongs to the people. The ones that voted for the ordinance violated by the farmer.Did you notice the government assholes think Lansing property is their personal property when it in fact belongs to the people. Very typical of government fiefdoms.
How did he violate the ordinance?
I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.so someone can't refuse business to a white nationist or kkk or white supremacist? Trump Supporter? DOH!
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.
SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.
No, we'll just be reminded of the danger of putting RW bigots on the Court.
so what does that have to do with selling vegetables at a flee/ farmers market? I bet he sold to geys.Of course it beongs to the people. The ones that voted for the ordinance violated by the farmer.Did you notice the government assholes think Lansing property is their personal property when it in fact belongs to the people. Very typical of government fiefdoms.
How did he violate the ordinance?
The opinion piece left that out.
He ran an events business at his orchard for weddings. For profit. Guess who he wouldn't let get married at his banquet facility.
Most of the stories are leaving that out. Talk about "media bias"...
So you think the SC is infallible?yes it does.yes.That law violates the First Amendment.
Public accommodation laws violate the first amendment?
They don't. Sorry, not even the 1964 civil rights act violates the first amendment.
Oh, sorry, which court came to that conclusion?
to force someone to go against their religious rights is discrimination fk head.why cause you say so? nope. they have the same freedoms as everyone else. and you are therefore discriminating against their rights.If you sell weddings, you have to sell to all legal couples.
There is no right to discriminate in the operation of a business open to the public.
YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU!
Jacques: Farmer gets boot for expressing his beliefs
I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.Neither one of those groups is included in what SCOTUS has designated as a "protected class". Businesses have a wide range of reasons for refusing service. SCOTUS has ruled that discrimination and refusal to serve protected classes are not included in that range.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.
SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.
No, we'll just be reminded of the danger of putting RW bigots on the Court.
Your problem is you fail to recognize I don't give two shits what you spew.
well you could ignore him. but you're too stupid to know that eh? LOL dude you're a fking kick.I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.
SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.
No, we'll just be reminded of the danger of putting RW bigots on the Court.
Your problem is you fail to recognize I don't give two shits what you spew.
Then put me on ignore so I don't have endure your mentally retarded comments.
It's really nobody else's business who sells to who, who buys from who... why the fuck do you want to give a shit about such meaningless things? Unless of course you're a control freak?The Right's obsession with protecting an imaginary right to bigotry is one of the best indicators of what the Right really is.
I am in favor of what you are arguing for, the right of a business person to refuse service to customers for many reasons. The line gets drawn when the Supreme Court rules that certain persons or classes of persons need protection against bigoted discrimination.so you're ok with discrimination, how fascist of you.
A group of people can be refused service at a bar if they are wearing gang colors and patches. They are not a protected class and are not being discriminated against because of their religion, race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veterans status or sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is under challenge.
SCOTUS is set to hear the Colorado baker's case....it's going to be hilarious when you loon's heads explode if they side with religious freedom.
No, we'll just be reminded of the danger of putting RW bigots on the Court.
Your problem is you fail to recognize I don't give two shits what you spew.
Then put me on ignore so I don't have endure your mentally retarded comments.
well not yet, but it will be.the one coming down for the baker, here:I think the baker's suit in the SCOTUS will settle this even faster.For the last time (probably not) it's not about personal opinions, he stated his farm was not open for gays to get married at. At that point it's no longer opinion and it's actual discrimination. Whether the city ordinance covers this or not is why it's going to court.
And what Supreme Court precedent leads you to believe they will rule the way you want?
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple
"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether a Denver baker acted lawfully in refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, setting up a major test next term weighing religious freedom against discrimination based on sexual orientation."
That isn't SCOTUS precedent. This is
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.
your morals are not necessarily mine. I can't stand the way you wish to shit on everyone's right to things.The Right's obsession with protecting an imaginary right to bigotry is one of the best indicators of what the Right really is.
the baker will win.well not yet, but it will be.the one coming down for the baker, here:I think the baker's suit in the SCOTUS will settle this even faster.
And what Supreme Court precedent leads you to believe they will rule the way you want?
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple
"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether a Denver baker acted lawfully in refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, setting up a major test next term weighing religious freedom against discrimination based on sexual orientation."
That isn't SCOTUS precedent. This is
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.
Why would you expect a different precedent being set?