Freedom of Religion? Christian Artists Face Jail Time For Not Making Same-Sex Wedding Invitations

[martybegan]

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

The f
Fifth?

And no one is forcing anyone to serve anyone. If those people don't want to comply with public accommodation laws they are not forced to open a business that serves the public

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

 

[martybegan]

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

The f
Fifth?

And no one is forcing anyone to serve anyone. If those people don't want to comply with public accommodation laws they are not forced to open a business that serves the public

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Ad absurdum was my point. Skull said you don't have to follow government's rules because you can chose to not go into business. That is ad absurdum. I was making exactly that point. I said that to him, not you, you may note. I never saw you make that argument.

Nowhere did I use a slippery slope argument, you made that up.

In your case, I'm tired of you ignoring my arguments completely and just begging the question

I am not ignoring your arguments, I am pointing out that your proposed solutions would basically lead to anarchy.

 

[martybegan]

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

So when you get a license to drive, you become a civil servant? When you get a business license, you become a civil servant. You get a liquor license and you become a public servant.

That is stretching the issue to force religious compliance and I believe that infringes on religious freedom.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.

And again, the law isn't supposed to be used for you to get your jollies fucking over people you don't like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

Sure it is in many cases.

You believe that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I disagree with you,

POLITICALLY.

But the law is on my side, so yes, you can be punished if you act on your political disagreement with me.

 

[martybegan]

What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint.

The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished.

They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters.
.

yep, it's not about the cake, its about fucking over the people they don't like.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

punish
really?

It's punishing business owners to have them treat everyone equally?

Don't think for a minute if some chrisitan walked into a business run by a gay person and was denied service because he was a christian that the gay store owner would not be hauled into court faster than Jeebus turned water into wine

 

[martybegan]

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

Sure it is in many cases.

You believe that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I disagree with you,

POLITICALLY.

But the law is on my side, so yes, you can be punished if you act on your political disagreement with me.

ah appeal to authority.

I believe certain businesses can use their 1st amendment rights to decline to provide certain services. You keep glossing over that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

So when you get a license to drive, you become a civil servant? When you get a business license, you become a civil servant. You get a liquor license and you become a public servant.

That is stretching the issue to force religious compliance and I believe that infringes on religious freedom.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.

And again, the law isn't supposed to be used for you to get your jollies fucking over people you don't like.

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Ad absurdum was my point. Skull said you don't have to follow government's rules because you can chose to not go into business. That is ad absurdum. I was making exactly that point. I said that to him, not you, you may note. I never saw you make that argument.

Nowhere did I use a slippery slope argument, you made that up.

In your case, I'm tired of you ignoring my arguments completely and just begging the question

I am not ignoring your arguments, I am pointing out that your proposed solutions would basically lead to anarchy.

Government not forcing citizens to do business with each other would lead to anarchy? Wow, what a leap. How did you accomplish that feat?

 

[martybegan]

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

punish
really?

It's punishing business owners to have them treat everyone equally?

Don't think for a minute if some chrisitan walked into a business run by a gay person and was denied service because he was a christian that the gay store owner would not be hauled into court faster than Jeebus turned water into wine

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[martybegan]

So when you get a license to drive, you become a civil servant? When you get a business license, you become a civil servant. You get a liquor license and you become a public servant.

That is stretching the issue to force religious compliance and I believe that infringes on religious freedom.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.

And again, the law isn't supposed to be used for you to get your jollies fucking over people you don't like.

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.

Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.

 

[martybegan]

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Ad absurdum was my point. Skull said you don't have to follow government's rules because you can chose to not go into business. That is ad absurdum. I was making exactly that point. I said that to him, not you, you may note. I never saw you make that argument.

Nowhere did I use a slippery slope argument, you made that up.

In your case, I'm tired of you ignoring my arguments completely and just begging the question

I am not ignoring your arguments, I am pointing out that your proposed solutions would basically lead to anarchy.

Government not forcing citizens to do business with each other would lead to anarchy? Wow, what a leap. How did you accomplish that feat?

Imagine a row of stores selling sandwiches each with its own rules on who can enter and buy one.

That's anarchy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

Sure it is in many cases.

You believe that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I disagree with you,

POLITICALLY.

But the law is on my side, so yes, you can be punished if you act on your political disagreement with me.

ah appeal to authority.

I believe certain businesses can use their 1st amendment rights to decline to provide certain services. You keep glossing over that.

You apparently don't know what an appeal to authority fallacy is.

I cited a particular case of fact, not opinion. You tried to argue that laws can't be political. That's absurd.

 

[kaz]

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

punish
really?

It's punishing business owners to have them treat everyone equally?

Don't think for a minute if some chrisitan walked into a business run by a gay person and was denied service because he was a christian that the gay store owner would not be hauled into court faster than Jeebus turned water into wine

Equal protection is not a power of government, it is a limit on government

 

[martybegan]

Well considering they don't get
First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

Sure it is in many cases.

You believe that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I disagree with you,

POLITICALLY.

But the law is on my side, so yes, you can be punished if you act on your political disagreement with me.

ah appeal to authority.

I believe certain businesses can use their 1st amendment rights to decline to provide certain services. You keep glossing over that.

You apparently don't know what an appeal to authority fallacy is.

I cited a particular case of fact, not opinion. You tried to argue that laws can't be political. That's absurd.

No, you say the "law is the law", and ignore that we are arguing over the application of the law, and it's relation to constitutional protections.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.

And again, the law isn't supposed to be used for you to get your jollies fucking over people you don't like.

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.

Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.

So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?

 

[martybegan]

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.

And again, the law isn't supposed to be used for you to get your jollies fucking over people you don't like.

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.

Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.

So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?

Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

punish
really?

It's punishing business owners to have them treat everyone equally?

Don't think for a minute if some chrisitan walked into a business run by a gay person and was denied service because he was a christian that the gay store owner would not be hauled into court faster than Jeebus turned water into wine

Equal protection is not a power of government, it is a limit on government

100% wrong. Equal protection gives the government the power to enforce laws that provide equal protection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.

And again, the law isn't supposed to be used for you to get your jollies fucking over people you don't like.

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.

Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.

So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?

Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)

No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.

There's a big difference.

 

[kaz]

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Ad absurdum was my point. Skull said you don't have to follow government's rules because you can chose to not go into business. That is ad absurdum. I was making exactly that point. I said that to him, not you, you may note. I never saw you make that argument.

Nowhere did I use a slippery slope argument, you made that up.

In your case, I'm tired of you ignoring my arguments completely and just begging the question

I am not ignoring your arguments, I am pointing out that your proposed solutions would basically lead to anarchy.

Government not forcing citizens to do business with each other would lead to anarchy? Wow, what a leap. How did you accomplish that feat?

Imagine a row of stores selling sandwiches each with its own rules on who can enter and buy one.

That's anarchy.

Why? You go down a row now and look at the displays to assess ingredients, prices, quality, the menu ...

And talk about argument ad absurdum. There are like three businesses in the country that don't want to do business with anyone who will buy. That's why liberals have to work so hard to find them and then they can't seem to find anything except people who don't want to participate in gay weddings.

As I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, even in the South in the 50s government had to pass laws restricting business with blacks because business owners wanted the money. And again, the Montgomery system, quasi government, opposed the rules forcing their best customers to the back and to stand. They knew where their bread was buttered. Yet you refer to an absurd scenario where every shop has different rules?

Again as you also ignored, the threat of granting that power is doing far more damage to our liberty than the rare cases someone wants to discriminate. The frivolous lawsuits alone are so financially destructive