Red Hen closed until July 5

[frigidweirdo]

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

It is as yet unproven whether or not a person is born gay. Either way, I get your point; whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against. BUT - there is also the point that as a business owner why should my rights to freedom of religion or expression be compromised? And should the gov't be the arbitrator in deciding who wins and who loses? Should we allow the business owner to discriminate as he/she chooses and in so doing suffer the economic/business consequences of that decision, like the owner of the Red Hen restaurant is in the process of doing now? It ain't that cut and dried it seems to me.

Oh, now it needs to be proven.

Look, you people get pissy when Christians don't get what they want. We KNOW people aren't born Christians. And yet you demand they get their "religious rights" and yet it has to be PROVEN that gay people are born gay before they can be treated fairly and equally.

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Reading comprehension just isn't your strong point, is it? Did I not just say "whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against."?

I did not demand that anyone's right to freedom of religion has to take precedence, nor did I say it has to be proven that a person was born gay to be treated fairly and equally, and you're telling me I'm the one who's getting pissy? BTW, I'm not a Christian.

Do you know how retarded YOU sound?

Start with an attack. I turned off after the first sentence. Oh well.

You're pretty good at dishing it out, but not so good at taking it, huh? Textbook definition of a snowflake.

What do I dish out, exactly?

 

[task0778]

It is as yet unproven whether or not a person is born gay. Either way, I get your point; whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against. BUT - there is also the point that as a business owner why should my rights to freedom of religion or expression be compromised? And should the gov't be the arbitrator in deciding who wins and who loses? Should we allow the business owner to discriminate as he/she chooses and in so doing suffer the economic/business consequences of that decision, like the owner of the Red Hen restaurant is in the process of doing now? It ain't that cut and dried it seems to me.

Oh, now it needs to be proven.

Look, you people get pissy when Christians don't get what they want. We KNOW people aren't born Christians. And yet you demand they get their "religious rights" and yet it has to be PROVEN that gay people are born gay before they can be treated fairly and equally.

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Reading comprehension just isn't your strong point, is it? Did I not just say "whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against."?

I did not demand that anyone's right to freedom of religion has to take precedence, nor did I say it has to be proven that a person was born gay to be treated fairly and equally, and you're telling me I'm the one who's getting pissy? BTW, I'm not a Christian.

Do you know how retarded YOU sound?

Start with an attack. I turned off after the first sentence. Oh well.

You're pretty good at dishing it out, but not so good at taking it, huh? Textbook definition of a snowflake.

What do I dish out, exactly?

Pissy? Retarded?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, now it needs to be proven.

Look, you people get pissy when Christians don't get what they want. We KNOW people aren't born Christians. And yet you demand they get their "religious rights" and yet it has to be PROVEN that gay people are born gay before they can be treated fairly and equally.

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Reading comprehension just isn't your strong point, is it? Did I not just say "whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against."?

I did not demand that anyone's right to freedom of religion has to take precedence, nor did I say it has to be proven that a person was born gay to be treated fairly and equally, and you're telling me I'm the one who's getting pissy? BTW, I'm not a Christian.

Do you know how retarded YOU sound?

Start with an attack. I turned off after the first sentence. Oh well.

You're pretty good at dishing it out, but not so good at taking it, huh? Textbook definition of a snowflake.

What do I dish out, exactly?

Pissy? Retarded?

So I said "pissy" and somehow... of forget it. Just go away, this is a waste of time.

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh, was I incorrect in perceiving that you think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business establishment? Because reading what you wrote certainly leads to that conclusion. Perhaps you would like to restate what you said? Just in case you forgot, the statement on question is about bakers kicking out gay people.

So this is all about how you perceive things then? Maybe if you read what I wrote properly, you wouldn't have such issues.

How the fuck you come to the conclusion that I think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business?

That's be like walking into a shoe store and demanding to buy a hot dog. WTF are you doing when you read what I write?

You said gays were kicked out. They were not, they were refused a particular product. Obviously, you equated that refusal with kicking them out, or you would not have said that. Or maybe you were just making stuff up.

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

It is as yet unproven whether or not a person is born gay. Either way, I get your point; whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against. BUT - there is also the point that as a business owner why should my rights to freedom of religion or expression be compromised? And should the gov't be the arbitrator in deciding who wins and who loses? Should we allow the business owner to discriminate as he/she chooses and in so doing suffer the economic/business consequences of that decision, like the owner of the Red Hen restaurant is in the process of doing now? It ain't that cut and dried it seems to me.

Oh, now it needs to be proven.

Look, you people get pissy when Christians don't get what they want. We KNOW people aren't born Christians. And yet you demand they get their "religious rights" and yet it has to be PROVEN that gay people are born gay before they can be treated fairly and equally.

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Freedom to practice religion in this country is a First Amendment right.

 

[Political Junky]

So this is all about how you perceive things then? Maybe if you read what I wrote properly, you wouldn't have such issues.

How the fuck you come to the conclusion that I think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business?

That's be like walking into a shoe store and demanding to buy a hot dog. WTF are you doing when you read what I write?

You said gays were kicked out. They were not, they were refused a particular product. Obviously, you equated that refusal with kicking them out, or you would not have said that. Or maybe you were just making stuff up.

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

It is as yet unproven whether or not a person is born gay. Either way, I get your point; whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against. BUT - there is also the point that as a business owner why should my rights to freedom of religion or expression be compromised? And should the gov't be the arbitrator in deciding who wins and who loses? Should we allow the business owner to discriminate as he/she chooses and in so doing suffer the economic/business consequences of that decision, like the owner of the Red Hen restaurant is in the process of doing now? It ain't that cut and dried it seems to me.

Oh, now it needs to be proven.

Look, you people get pissy when Christians don't get what they want. We KNOW people aren't born Christians. And yet you demand they get their "religious rights" and yet it has to be PROVEN that gay people are born gay before they can be treated fairly and equally.

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Freedom to practice religion in this country is a First Amendment right.

Yes, any religion.

 

[Papageorgio]

You said gays were kicked out. They were not, they were refused a particular product. Obviously, you equated that refusal with kicking them out, or you would not have said that. Or maybe you were just making stuff up.

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

It is as yet unproven whether or not a person is born gay. Either way, I get your point; whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against. BUT - there is also the point that as a business owner why should my rights to freedom of religion or expression be compromised? And should the gov't be the arbitrator in deciding who wins and who loses? Should we allow the business owner to discriminate as he/she chooses and in so doing suffer the economic/business consequences of that decision, like the owner of the Red Hen restaurant is in the process of doing now? It ain't that cut and dried it seems to me.

Oh, now it needs to be proven.

Look, you people get pissy when Christians don't get what they want. We KNOW people aren't born Christians. And yet you demand they get their "religious rights" and yet it has to be PROVEN that gay people are born gay before they can be treated fairly and equally.

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Freedom to practice religion in this country is a First Amendment right.

Yes, any religion.

I didn’t specify did I? By not specifying I was meaning all religions. Not sure why that is tough to understand for you.

 

[Leo123]

Red Hen underestimated public reaction to expelling Sanders. Simple as that. Lots of TDSers live in a bubble where their hatred of Trump is supported. They shun opposite points of view and are told not to believe anything but the MSM. Sad really.

 

[Rambunctious]

hope they clean up the bird shit covered awnings....and wash the street and windows....

 

[hadit]

I think I've figured out your problem. You think refusing to make 1 specific product equates to "kicking out". It doesn't.

You can thank me later.

No doubt you "think you've figured" it all out. Though "believe" would have been a better verb, because "believe" means you pulled it right out of your ass and pretend it's true when you have no idea.

Oh, was I incorrect in perceiving that you think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business establishment? Because reading what you wrote certainly leads to that conclusion. Perhaps you would like to restate what you said? Just in case you forgot, the statement on question is about bakers kicking out gay people.

So this is all about how you perceive things then? Maybe if you read what I wrote properly, you wouldn't have such issues.

How the fuck you come to the conclusion that I think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business?

That's be like walking into a shoe store and demanding to buy a hot dog. WTF are you doing when you read what I write?

You said gays were kicked out. They were not, they were refused a particular product. Obviously, you equated that refusal with kicking them out, or you would not have said that. Or maybe you were just making stuff up.

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

Words mean things. You said something, I pointed it out, you got mad that I pointed it out, then turned around and confirmed that I was correct. Now you're trying to change the subject.

I've stated several times that PA laws should apply to everyone or no one.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[frigidweirdo]

No doubt you "think you've figured" it all out. Though "believe" would have been a better verb, because "believe" means you pulled it right out of your ass and pretend it's true when you have no idea.

Oh, was I incorrect in perceiving that you think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business establishment? Because reading what you wrote certainly leads to that conclusion. Perhaps you would like to restate what you said? Just in case you forgot, the statement on question is about bakers kicking out gay people.

So this is all about how you perceive things then? Maybe if you read what I wrote properly, you wouldn't have such issues.

How the fuck you come to the conclusion that I think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business?

That's be like walking into a shoe store and demanding to buy a hot dog. WTF are you doing when you read what I write?

You said gays were kicked out. They were not, they were refused a particular product. Obviously, you equated that refusal with kicking them out, or you would not have said that. Or maybe you were just making stuff up.

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

Words mean things. You said something, I pointed it out, you got mad that I pointed it out, then turned around and confirmed that I was correct. Now you're trying to change the subject.

I've stated several times that PA laws should apply to everyone or no one.

There are people who will discuss things properly and there are people who seem to think that "winning" is the only aim, and they'll pound pointless shit into the ground in order to win.

You bore me. I don't come on here to be a child again.

 

[iceberg]

It is as yet unproven whether or not a person is born gay. Either way, I get your point; whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against. BUT - there is also the point that as a business owner why should my rights to freedom of religion or expression be compromised? And should the gov't be the arbitrator in deciding who wins and who loses? Should we allow the business owner to discriminate as he/she chooses and in so doing suffer the economic/business consequences of that decision, like the owner of the Red Hen restaurant is in the process of doing now? It ain't that cut and dried it seems to me.

Oh, now it needs to be proven.

Look, you people get pissy when Christians don't get what they want. We KNOW people aren't born Christians. And yet you demand they get their "religious rights" and yet it has to be PROVEN that gay people are born gay before they can be treated fairly and equally.

Do you know how retarded that sounds?

Reading comprehension just isn't your strong point, is it? Did I not just say "whether or not it is by genetics or by choice doesn't matter to me, no one ought to be discriminated against."?

I did not demand that anyone's right to freedom of religion has to take precedence, nor did I say it has to be proven that a person was born gay to be treated fairly and equally, and you're telling me I'm the one who's getting pissy? BTW, I'm not a Christian.

Do you know how retarded YOU sound?

Start with an attack. I turned off after the first sentence. Oh well.

You're pretty good at dishing it out, but not so good at taking it, huh? Textbook definition of a snowflake.

What do I dish out, exactly?

anger by the ton usually.

 

[Pilot1]

The far left activist, radical feminist owner hopes that everything will blow over by July 5th. I believe they are on the road to permanent closure, even with a sympathetic, albeit warped local populous.

 

[hadit]

Oh, was I incorrect in perceiving that you think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business establishment? Because reading what you wrote certainly leads to that conclusion. Perhaps you would like to restate what you said? Just in case you forgot, the statement on question is about bakers kicking out gay people.

So this is all about how you perceive things then? Maybe if you read what I wrote properly, you wouldn't have such issues.

How the fuck you come to the conclusion that I think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business?

That's be like walking into a shoe store and demanding to buy a hot dog. WTF are you doing when you read what I write?

You said gays were kicked out. They were not, they were refused a particular product. Obviously, you equated that refusal with kicking them out, or you would not have said that. Or maybe you were just making stuff up.

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

Words mean things. You said something, I pointed it out, you got mad that I pointed it out, then turned around and confirmed that I was correct. Now you're trying to change the subject.

I've stated several times that PA laws should apply to everyone or no one.

There are people who will discuss things properly and there are people who seem to think that "winning" is the only aim, and they'll pound pointless shit into the ground in order to win.

You bore me. I don't come on here to be a child again.

It was just interesting to see you within moments contradict yourself.

 

[iceberg]

So this is all about how you perceive things then? Maybe if you read what I wrote properly, you wouldn't have such issues.

How the fuck you come to the conclusion that I think refusing to make a specific product equates to kicking someone out of a business?

That's be like walking into a shoe store and demanding to buy a hot dog. WTF are you doing when you read what I write?

You said gays were kicked out. They were not, they were refused a particular product. Obviously, you equated that refusal with kicking them out, or you would not have said that. Or maybe you were just making stuff up.

Semantics.

How would you like to be refused specific products because of the way you were born?

Words mean things. You said something, I pointed it out, you got mad that I pointed it out, then turned around and confirmed that I was correct. Now you're trying to change the subject.

I've stated several times that PA laws should apply to everyone or no one.

There are people who will discuss things properly and there are people who seem to think that "winning" is the only aim, and they'll pound pointless shit into the ground in order to win.

You bore me. I don't come on here to be a child again.

It was just interesting to see you within moments contradict yourself.

to be fair, he only does that when he posts.

 

[Cellblock2429]

skipping the 4th?

now we know why it's the RED hen...

Fox News on Twitter

/----/ And the Leftards put their intolerance on parade:
GOP Candidate Says Country Club Cancelled Her Event Because of Her Support for Trump
Michigan congressional candidate Lena Epstein says a country club cancelled her planned event because of her support of President Donald Trump.

Lena Epstein, who's running for the open seat in Michigan's 11th Congressional District, was supposed to hold a fundraising event at Franklin Hills Country Club in Franklin, Mich., Wednesday night.

Epstein says she got a call last week from a board member telling her that they voted to cancel her event because of her political beliefs.

On "Fox & Friends," Epstein revealed that one of her Democratic opponents in the race recently held an event at the country club.