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.
People paid for the concerts..............they paid for a service..........listening to the bands..............they refused that service because of the personal beliefs...............Did any bands perform a concert but refuse entry to Christians? Maybe they told straight people that they were not permitted to attend? Yes?
The baker refused service.......no payment had ever been made..........because of their personal beliefs........
You can't have your fucking cake and eat it too........
People should sue the band's asses to prove a point.
Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert
So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting
No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.
NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?
The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.
If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.
And can I reopen when you leave?
Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.
You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?
No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.
So gays and blacks can go to the concert? How can that be when he cancelled it?
Well, uh, no. You see, the thing is, you guys want no law to apply to you but you want laws to apply to people who might use violence to retaliate against you bigots.
So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting
No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.
NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?
The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.
If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.
And can I reopen when you leave?
Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.
You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?
No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.
So gays and blacks can go to the concert? How can that be when he cancelled it?
He cancelled a show not all shows. Nobody said to any of those concert goers "hey, you can go to some other concert". Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert because they are gay, black, Jewish, or from NC.
And I also know you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse. But hey, being a RWNJ seems to suit you, you should stick with the schtick...I'm sure it gets you lots of "likes" here.
No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.
The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.
Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.
You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?
No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.
So gays and blacks can go to the concert? How can that be when he cancelled it?
He cancelled a show not all shows. Nobody said to any of those concert goers "hey, you can go to some other concert". Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert because they are gay, black, Jewish, or from NC.
And I also know you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse. But hey, being a RWNJ seems to suit you, you should stick with the schtick...I'm sure it gets you lots of "likes" here.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?
No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.
So gays and blacks can go to the concert? How can that be when he cancelled it?
He cancelled a show not all shows. Nobody said to any of those concert goers "hey, you can go to some other concert". Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert because they are gay, black, Jewish, or from NC.
And I also know you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse. But hey, being a RWNJ seems to suit you, you should stick with the schtick...I'm sure it gets you lots of "likes" here.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert
So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting
No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.
NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?
The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.
If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.
And can I reopen when you leave?
Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.
You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?
No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.
No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.
So gays and blacks can go to the concert? How can that be when he cancelled it?
He cancelled a show not all shows. Nobody said to any of those concert goers "hey, you can go to some other concert". Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert because they are gay, black, Jewish, or from NC.
And I also know you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse. But hey, being a RWNJ seems to suit you, you should stick with the schtick...I'm sure it gets you lots of "likes" here.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert
So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting
No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.
NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?
The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.
If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.
And can I reopen when you leave?
Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.
You just said it was OK to discriminate against multiple groups, now your standard changes again. Blacks and gays discriminated against by Springstein need to sue for millions, class action. The guy hates blacks, fags, women, Hispanics, Muslims, the elderly, youth. He's apparently only OK with white, middle age men. Don't you want to send a message to someone like that, someone who peddles hate?
No group is being discriminated against. No one is prevented from attending a Springsteen concert.
The entire state of North Carolina is being discriminated against, you fucking idiot.
So gays and blacks can go to the concert? How can that be when he cancelled it?
He cancelled a show not all shows. Nobody said to any of those concert goers "hey, you can go to some other concert". Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert because they are gay, black, Jewish, or from NC.
And I also know you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse. But hey, being a RWNJ seems to suit you, you should stick with the schtick...I'm sure it gets you lots of "likes" here.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.
It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.
This should have ended the thread."Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"
The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’
Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.
That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.
Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.
Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.
And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling
This should have ended the thread."Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"
The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’
Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.
That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.
Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.
Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.
And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
He cancelled a show not all shows. Nobody said to any of those concert goers "hey, you can go to some other concert". Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert because they are gay, black, Jewish, or from NC.
And I also know you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse. But hey, being a RWNJ seems to suit you, you should stick with the schtick...I'm sure it gets you lots of "likes" here.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.
It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.
The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?
That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.
And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent
This should have ended the thread."Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"
The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’
Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.
That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.
Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.
Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.
And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
This should have ended the thread."Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy"
The ignorance and stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising, given the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right.
The thread premise fails as a false comparison fallacy – where two different things, completely unrelated to each other, are subject to ‘comparison.’
Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty or personal beliefs.
That a business owner might be subject to punitive measures for violating a just as proper public accommodations law is not ‘forcing’ the business owner to do anything, as he’s subject to other similar just and proper regulatory measures.
Private citizens such as rock stars are not subject to public accommodations laws.
Consequently, there is no ‘hypocrisy’ on the part of liberals, just the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.
And that this must be explained to conservatives yet again is both sad and telling
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.
It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.
The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?
That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.
And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent
That's the entire point. The PA laws are NOT consistent. They allow certain discrimination, meaning of course that some get more protection than others, and they are wholly unenforcable.
Let's take a person like SeaWytch, for example. Does ANYONE doubt that she would sue and claim she was discriminate against solely based on being gay regardless of any real reason if she was refused service by a company? Of course she would sue, and we all know that the onus would THEN be on the business to prove that they discriminated for another reason, a legal reason. In other words, that company would be guilty until they prove they were innocent. In effect, you can't refuse service to a gay person for ANY reason for a rightful fear of losing your business.
He cancelled a show not all shows. Nobody said to any of those concert goers "hey, you can go to some other concert". Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert because they are gay, black, Jewish, or from NC.
And I also know you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse. But hey, being a RWNJ seems to suit you, you should stick with the schtick...I'm sure it gets you lots of "likes" here.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.
It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.
The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?
That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.
And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.
It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.
The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?
That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.
And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent
That's the entire point. The PA laws are NOT consistent. They allow certain discrimination, meaning of course that some get more protection than others, and they are wholly unenforcable.
Let's take a person like SeaWytch, for example. Does ANYONE doubt that she would sue and claim she was discriminate against solely based on being gay regardless of any real reason if she was refused service by a company? Of course she would sue, and we all know that the onus would THEN be on the business to prove that they discriminated for another reason, a legal reason. In other words, that company would be guilty until they prove they were innocent. In effect, you can't refuse service to a gay person for ANY reason for a rightful fear of losing your business.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those peoplhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/refusal-over-personal-beliefs.492057/page-36#post-14129374e can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.
It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.
The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?
That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.
And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent
You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.
Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.
Exactly, he cancelled one show, just like the baker refused to bake one cake. He cancelled a show with blacks and gays in it, he should be fined $100,000 per customer, he discriminated against, just like the baker
Not exactly. In fact, nothing like. He cancelled a show which would be like a baker closing his shop altogether. A baker can do that you know, close his shop rather than serve people he doesn't want to. And Springsteen did not cancel his concert because there were people he did not wish to perform for. He will perform for any of those people anytime...just not in NC (or MS I would imagine)
He cancelled one show, which would be like a baker not baking one cake. He didn't cancel even that tour, just the one show. He needs to be sent a message that only wanting to serve straight, middle aged white men is not OK. That's the world you want us to live in. It needs to be evenly applied. $100K per black, woman, gay, Hispanic, Muslim and everyone else he discriminated against.
It's your standard, not mine. I don't think we are slaves to government like you and I don't want to be one like you. I just object to it being unevenly applied. Bruce should pay millions for this
I know you understand this better than you're letting on. He did not refuse to perform for anyone because they were _______. Any one of those people can attend HIS concert...not some other person's concert, HIS concert.
It's not "my standard" because you are not representing the standard properly. You're being intentionally obtuse because you think you're proving a point, but you aren't since the two things are completely unrelated. I expect that kind of argument from Templar or Rotty, but it's disappointing coming from you.
The baker didn't refuse to bake the cake for the fags, he just had a bad feeling about them as people. So he's OK now, right? No fine?
That is a serious response. The baker would never get away with it because they were gay whether that was actually the reason or not. That is the militant state of our political correct war on liberty.
And as I said, I totally don't have a problem with Bruce personally, but I don't think bakers should be forced to bake anyone a cake. You do, you need to be consistent
You really are like all the RWNJs...you suck at analogies.
Springsteen is not refusing to perform for anyone, he's simply refusing to perform in a certain location. It has nothing to do with the people which is where any and all of your comparisons fail.
