Refusal over personal beliefs

[NYcarbineer]

This is the new America. There are no personal beliefs...there is no individual freedom....no individual judgment, nor individual choice.

We are now the leftist social hive...the village...the collective....the Borg....

Bigotry, acted upon, is not a choice compliant with the new America.

In the collective it is not a question of bigotry, it is a question of the correct bigotry. Everyone is a bigot in the collective.

Blue cheese or thousand island?

 

[boedicca]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

This really isn't a fair to the bakers. The bakers didn't then bake cakes for Muslim regimes that behead gays.

 

[NYcarbineer]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

This really isn't a fair to the bakers. The bakers didn't then bake cakes for Muslim regimes that behead gays.

Muslim bakers are not exempt from anti-discrimination laws, nor is any other Muslim business.

 

[boedicca]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

This really isn't a fair to the bakers. The bakers didn't then bake cakes for Muslim regimes that behead gays.

Muslim bakers are not exempt from anti-discrimination laws, nor is any other Muslim business.

I see the point flew over your wee head. The "artists" and businesses boycotting NC continue to do business with Islamic regimes that execute gays.

 

[Seawytch]

Sexual orientation is protected in about 20 states and a number of localities. You do not have the right to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation in those places just like I don't have the right to discriminate against Christians in any of the states.

You do not have a right to refuse service to just anyone for any reason, as I pointed out quite clearly.

You pointed out that you are a brain dead propagandist. I said it wasn't constitutionally protected and you just backed it up. Again. You're just a lying asshole on the internet, nothing more.

I didn't say anything about the Constitution. PA laws HAVE been found to be Constitutional many, many times.

 

[bodecea]

"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

I've yet to see a RWr on this board come up with a valid analogy......for anything. And I've been here a while.

 

[bodecea]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

This really isn't a fair to the bakers. The bakers didn't then bake cakes for Muslim regimes that behead gays.

Muslim bakers are not exempt from anti-discrimination laws, nor is any other Muslim business.

I see the point flew over your wee head. The "artists" and businesses boycotting NC continue to do business with Islamic regimes that execute gays.

Such as?

 

[bodecea]

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

LOL

No shirts No Service sign at door, and you walk in practically naked and see where it gets you.

No Guns allowed in store..............Now you would be cheering that one saying how great it is.

You are a HYPOCRITE.....plain and simple.........either the dangs rules apply uniform or you can pound sand.

"No shirt No service" doesn't single out a group covered by PA laws...it covers everyone...and it's a Health law. Again....still not seeing a decent analogy by RWrs.

As for guns....I personally have no problem with it.....but it is a safety issue and everyone is held to that rule....not just women....not just blacks...not just christers...not just gays.

See?

 

[Seawytch]

"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

Of course they are the same. Springsteen provides a service. OMG, there were going to be black people in the audience. Bruce is being a flaming racist and clearly violating PA laws that you can't discriminate against blacks.

That argument makes more sense than the shit you people manufacture. You can't even be consistent, you contradict yourselves constantly

Springsteen did not refuse to play a concert for a single group of people because they belong to that group of people.

There is no comparison between a performer cancelling a concert and the application of lawfully passed public accommodation ordinances. Apples and Kumquats.

 

[bodecea]

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

Since when is a cake baker part of a wedding?

 

[bodecea]

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

But they are willing to part of a non-gay wedding which by definition makes them discriminators against gays.

No, because normal weddings are not against their religious or moral beliefs. SS weddings are.

When is a cake baker part of a wedding....ever?

 

[eagle1462010]

Which ones...................your yelling to ban everything with a Rebel Flag in the past.....................while you say YOU WILL BAKE THAT CAKE...............

Rebel flags aren't protected by PA laws. So, for example you can't force a flag maker to make a rebel flag. However, if a flag maker makes a rebel flag then he has to sell them to everyone covered by PA laws. Usually race, religion and sexual orientation.

You are annoyingly ignorant.

We entered the SPIN ZONE...........

Splitting hairs there skippy....................................You will deny the Christians their right to refuse to serve something against their beliefs but GO YES BAN A DANG FLAG...........................

You are a HYPOCRITE...............nothing more nothing less...............

Baking a cake is not against a bakers religion. However, you can't force a baker to make a cake with a huge dick on it if it's no on the menu either.

Replace dick with rebel flag in the above sentence, you'll figure it out...or not.

They refused to serve it to the wedding...............Had it been just bake a wedding cake they probably would have done it anyway.........Mr. Dumbass........

Check this out Mr. Hypocrite..

Did he sue?

Will you answer................you are hard up to attack Christians for refusing to do the same thing and refuse to engage with Muslims..............They get a pass in your opinion because of what.........they are Muslim...........are they your pets......or do you stand firm with your convictions across the board..........

Sure doesn't seem like it to me.............

 

[boedicca]

View attachment 72578

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

This really isn't a fair to the bakers. The bakers didn't then bake cakes for Muslim regimes that behead gays.

Muslim bakers are not exempt from anti-discrimination laws, nor is any other Muslim business.

I see the point flew over your wee head. The "artists" and businesses boycotting NC continue to do business with Islamic regimes that execute gays.

Such as?

Paypal.

 

[kaz]

"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

Of course they are the same. Springsteen provides a service. OMG, there were going to be black people in the audience. Bruce is being a flaming racist and clearly violating PA laws that you can't discriminate against blacks.

That argument makes more sense than the shit you people manufacture. You can't even be consistent, you contradict yourselves constantly

Springsteen did not refuse to play a concert for a single group of people because they belong to that group of people.

There is no comparison between a performer cancelling a concert and the application of lawfully passed public accommodation ordinances. Apples and Kumquats.

Blacks bought tickets from him, then he cancelled. It's racist as shit and a clear violation of PA laws

 

[Iceweasel]

Sexual orientation is protected in about 20 states and a number of localities. You do not have the right to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation in those places just like I don't have the right to discriminate against Christians in any of the states.

You do not have a right to refuse service to just anyone for any reason, as I pointed out quite clearly.

You pointed out that you are a brain dead propagandist. I said it wasn't constitutionally protected and you just backed it up. Again. You're just a lying asshole on the internet, nothing more.

I didn't say anything about the Constitution. PA laws HAVE been found to be Constitutional many, many times.

LOL, you're a retard! Try reading the posts again!

 

[Iceweasel]

"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

Of course they are the same. Springsteen provides a service. OMG, there were going to be black people in the audience. Bruce is being a flaming racist and clearly violating PA laws that you can't discriminate against blacks.

That argument makes more sense than the shit you people manufacture. You can't even be consistent, you contradict yourselves constantly

Springsteen did not refuse to play a concert for a single group of people because they belong to that group of people.

There is no comparison between a performer cancelling a concert and the application of lawfully passed public accommodation ordinances. Apples and Kumquats.

Wait. You're saying the boycott against laws passed that you don't like is OK but the law is the law and all must oblige? LOL.

 

[Clementine]

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

They all offer services. No one needs cake or photos any more than they need to be entertained.

It's all people charging for whatever talent they have.

The music industry is a business that provides something for money.

How are they unlike plumbers or electricians who travel around to offer their talent?

How on earth is it fair that some people can pick and choose who to deal with and others cannot?

 

[kaz]

"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

Of course they are the same. Springsteen provides a service. OMG, there were going to be black people in the audience. Bruce is being a flaming racist and clearly violating PA laws that you can't discriminate against blacks.

That argument makes more sense than the shit you people manufacture. You can't even be consistent, you contradict yourselves constantly

Springsteen did not refuse to play a concert for a single group of people because they belong to that group of people.

There is no comparison between a performer cancelling a concert and the application of lawfully passed public accommodation ordinances. Apples and Kumquats.

Wait. You're saying the boycott against laws passed that you don't like is OK but the law is the law and all must oblige? LOL.

Exactly, wytch is arguing PA laws are theirs, so they don't have to follow them

 

[Timmy]

Musicians can't refuse paying customers for illegal reasons .

You can't have a concert and refuse to let Christians attend . That would be illegal because you opened up that concert to the public .

 

[Seawytch]

"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

Of course they are the same. Springsteen provides a service. OMG, there were going to be black people in the audience. Bruce is being a flaming racist and clearly violating PA laws that you can't discriminate against blacks.

That argument makes more sense than the shit you people manufacture. You can't even be consistent, you contradict yourselves constantly

Springsteen did not refuse to play a concert for a single group of people because they belong to that group of people.

There is no comparison between a performer cancelling a concert and the application of lawfully passed public accommodation ordinances. Apples and Kumquats.

Blacks bought tickets from him, then he cancelled. It's racist as shit and a clear violation of PA laws

I know you're not that stupid...but do keep playing the part in public.