What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Nosmo King]

Here's how I would want to be able to do things if I ran a bakery/store!

Any customer should be able to come in an buy items off the shelf. It is none of my business if the customer is gay, a pervert, republican or democrat.

If I cater events, I should have the option to accept or deny each job for any reason I see fit. I do not even have to explain why to the person trying to contract my services. As such, if gay marriage is against my religion, I should be able to turn down a job that would involve me catering a gay wedding. I would also turn down any job that involves catering to the KKK.

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

 

[BobPlumb]

Here's how I would want to be able to do things if I ran a bakery/store!

Any customer should be able to come in an buy items off the shelf. It is none of my business if the customer is gay, a pervert, republican or democrat.

If I cater events, I should have the option to accept or deny each job for any reason I see fit. I do not even have to explain why to the person trying to contract my services. As such, if gay marriage is against my religion, I should be able to turn down a job that would involve me catering a gay wedding. I would also turn down any job that involves catering to the KKK.

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

And you completely distorted what I wrote. What you wrote about my post is a damn lie and deserves no further discussion.

 

[PostmodernProph]

vitriol implies "they" hated her for no legitimate reason.

agreed......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sure if she wanted to lose money and customers because of an antiquated belief...
judging by the outcome god was none to impressed by that show of devotion...

Now we are back to you imposing your views on others.

For the record, at the time the cake was ordered same sex marriage was illegal in Oregon, yet they wanted a wedding cake. If we apply your reasoning consistently, bakers can refuse to make a wedding cake if the couple is not getting married, unless they also happen to be gay. Yet you also want me to believe you don't want special treatment for gays.

another false assumption ..I'm making an observation on the perceived notion that god would some how bless/ favor the baker for not participation in a "sinful" act
when the actual evidence shows otherwise...
it would seem from a christian pov that god either punished the baker for not treating other as they would be treated or did nothing to influence either party.(or you could use the christian classic get out of jail free card "god works in mysterious ways!)
as to same sex marriage being illegal is irrelevant ,many gay couples have gotten married in states where it was /is illegal.
any business can refuse service to anyone at anytime.
whether it's legal or moral or smart is another story...

You are declaring you know more about God than anyone else? How did you come to gain this special knowledge? Did you receive a visit from Jim Jones?

My position is that no one has a right to tell other people what to believe. Your position is that you know what is best for everyone.

Guess which one sounds like tyranny?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

she needs to make enough cakes to make a profit.. if she had the means, inclination and wherewithal to bake every cake then why not...
you could try basing you comments on reality.

I did....the point was, she didn't need to bake gaycakes to survive in business...it wasn't the refusal to bake gaycake, (or the punishment of God) that ended her business....it was the vitriol of the gay community that did that......

I doubt that, it was the outrage of the more enlightened community members that did.
vitriol implies "they" hated her for no legitimate reason.
the baker was the one who started the hate ball rolling .
imo they both share equal blame for the vitriol.
not for the consequences...

She closed her business because of the death threats and the attacks against her family. If you consider that the work of enlightened people I can understand why you have no problem with tyranny.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's how I would want to be able to do things if I ran a bakery/store!

Any customer should be able to come in an buy items off the shelf. It is none of my business if the customer is gay, a pervert, republican or democrat.

If I cater events, I should have the option to accept or deny each job for any reason I see fit. I do not even have to explain why to the person trying to contract my services. As such, if gay marriage is against my religion, I should be able to turn down a job that would involve me catering a gay wedding. I would also turn down any job that involves catering to the KKK.

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

Funny how you keep making things up.

 

[daws101]

Now we are back to you imposing your views on others.

For the record, at the time the cake was ordered same sex marriage was illegal in Oregon, yet they wanted a wedding cake. If we apply your reasoning consistently, bakers can refuse to make a wedding cake if the couple is not getting married, unless they also happen to be gay. Yet you also want me to believe you don't want special treatment for gays.

another false assumption ..I'm making an observation on the perceived notion that god would some how bless/ favor the baker for not participation in a "sinful" act
when the actual evidence shows otherwise...
it would seem from a christian pov that god either punished the baker for not treating other as they would be treated or did nothing to influence either party.(or you could use the christian classic get out of jail free card "god works in mysterious ways!)
as to same sex marriage being illegal is irrelevant ,many gay couples have gotten married in states where it was /is illegal.
any business can refuse service to anyone at anytime.
whether it's legal or moral or smart is another story...

You are declaring you know more about God than anyone else? How did you come to gain this special knowledge? Did you receive a visit from Jim Jones?

My position is that no one has a right to tell other people what to believe. Your position is that you know what is best for everyone.

Guess which one sounds like tyranny?

as always you'd be wrong..

 

[daws101]

I did....the point was, she didn't need to bake gaycakes to survive in business...it wasn't the refusal to bake gaycake, (or the punishment of God) that ended her business....it was the vitriol of the gay community that did that......

I doubt that, it was the outrage of the more enlightened community members that did.
vitriol implies "they" hated her for no legitimate reason.
the baker was the one who started the hate ball rolling .
imo they both share equal blame for the vitriol.
not for the consequences...

She closed her business because of the death threats and the attacks against her family. If you consider that the work of enlightened people I can understand why you have no problem with tyranny.

this coming from the poster child for tyranny or transsexualism, can't tell which...

 

[Chuckt]

Here's how I would want to be able to do things if I ran a bakery/store!

Any customer should be able to come in an buy items off the shelf. It is none of my business if the customer is gay, a pervert, republican or democrat.

If I cater events, I should have the option to accept or deny each job for any reason I see fit. I do not even have to explain why to the person trying to contract my services. As such, if gay marriage is against my religion, I should be able to turn down a job that would involve me catering a gay wedding. I would also turn down any job that involves catering to the KKK.

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

Nosmo,

Are you going to take me to court if I put you on ignore?

 

[daws101]

Here's how I would want to be able to do things if I ran a bakery/store!

Any customer should be able to come in an buy items off the shelf. It is none of my business if the customer is gay, a pervert, republican or democrat.

If I cater events, I should have the option to accept or deny each job for any reason I see fit. I do not even have to explain why to the person trying to contract my services. As such, if gay marriage is against my religion, I should be able to turn down a job that would involve me catering a gay wedding. I would also turn down any job that involves catering to the KKK.

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

Nosmo,

Are you going to take me to court if I put you on ignore?

a party would be more appropriate

 

[Chuckt]

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

I guess what you are saying is that if we're not slaves to making the gaycake then we're racists even though gay people aren't black.

 

[Nosmo King]

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

I guess what you are saying is that if we're not slaves to making the gaycake then we're racists even though gay people aren't black.

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Potential customers may also want to contract me to make/decorate cakes to their specifications. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake look like a penis. I should be able to say no if asked to make a cake with the depiction of a burning cross. I should also be able to say no if the cake is to be decorated some way that promotes homosexuality. I should be able to accept or decline special orders at my discretion.

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

This is the same rationale you are using. It was wrong fifty years ago, and it remains wrong today.

If your religious fervor prevents you from serving homosexuals , I suggest (in order to prevent any homosexuals from straying into your establishment accidentally) you post a large sign in your window stating clearly that "Due to my devotion to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His commandment that 'he without sin shall cast the first stone', we reserve the right to refuse service to homosexuals".

I guess what you are saying is that if we're not slaves to making the gaycake then we're racists even though gay people aren't black.

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

 

[Nosmo King]

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

I guess what you are saying is that if we're not slaves to making the gaycake then we're racists even though gay people aren't black.

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

When the government mandates how a Mom and Pop gas tation precisely how to store their inventory of gasoline, are Mom and Pop 'enslaved'? When he government mandates how much of that gasoline a Chevy Malibu burns in one mile's travel, is GM 'enslaved'?

When the government mandated all segregated public drinking fountains be removed, were cities and towns all through the south 'enslved'? When the government mandated service could not be refused on race, was that 'enslvement' too?

What 'freedoms' are being repressed? The 'freedom' to hate, not on a personal, one to one basis, but on the basis of fear? That's one hell of a 'freedom' to go to bat for! Is it the 'right' to dismiss e pluribus unum that has Social Conservatives banking fires on the breast works?

You chide me as intolerant. But by perverting scripture to continue to be intolerant is so obvious, it makes your chiding impossibly incredulous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

When the government mandates how a Mom and Pop gas tation precisely how to store their inventory of gasoline, are Mom and Pop 'enslaved'? When he government mandates how much of that gasoline a Chevy Malibu burns in one mile's travel, is GM 'enslaved'?

When the government mandated all segregated public drinking fountains be removed, were cities and towns all through the south 'enslved'? When the government mandated service could not be refused on race, was that 'enslvement' too?

What 'freedoms' are being repressed? The 'freedom' to hate, not on a personal, one to one basis, but on the basis of fear? That's one hell of a 'freedom' to go to bat for! Is it the 'right' to dismiss e pluribus unum that has Social Conservatives banking fires on the breast works?

You chide me as intolerant. But by perverting scripture to continue to be intolerant is so obvious, it makes your chiding impossibly incredulous.

Do you understand the difference between regulating gas stations and telling people they have to go to weddings?

 

[Esmeralda]

As I have said before. . As long as I can be refused service for exercising my 2 nd amendment rights because the owner is scared of or hates guns, then anyone can be refused service for any reason. You can't say they can abridge my rights but not someone else's rights.

Molon Labe

You are ignorning the question. Your second amendment claim has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As I have said before. . As long as I can be refused service for exercising my 2 nd amendment rights because the owner is scared of or hates guns, then anyone can be refused service for any reason. You can't say they can abridge my rights but not someone else's rights.

Molon Labe

And you were wrong before and you continue to be wrong.

You’re comparing two completely different things, and your argument fails accordingly. Second Amendment rights don’t apply to private businesses, only the government, a private business or individual can’t ‘violate’ your Second Amendment rights.

Refusing service to someone with a firearm is no different than refusing service to someone with an offensive image on a shirt, where private citizens, businesses, or organizations aren’t subject to First or Second Amendment restrictions; again, First or Second Amendment restrictions apply only public sector governmental entities, not the private sector.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where government is authorized by the Constitution to regulate markets and ensure their integrity, where to deny service to someone because of his race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation can be disruptive to both the local market and all interrelated markets.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would allow anyone to choose items from the shelves of my store, but I won't serve any damn ******* at my lunch counter-
F.W. Woolworth

I guess what you are saying is that if we're not slaves to making the gaycake then we're racists even though gay people aren't black.

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional, and in no way manifest ‘intolerance.’ And one may not use religious dogma as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

As already correctly noted, the intolerance manifests when theists seek to hide their hate and desire to discriminate behind the façade of ‘religious liberty,’ when in fact that ‘liberty’ is being used only to make a given class of persons unequal to everyone else.

 

[Chuckt]

No one is "enslaved" once they perform the exact same services for the exact same fees as they charge anyone else. And when you make the outrageous claim of enslavemnet, you are really doing two things. First, you are stooping to hyperbole which is the last refuge for a weak argument. And more ominously, you are diluting slavery. Ignoring the terrors, the immorality and the dehumanizing acts that are slavery.

And for those reasons, your argument bears no moral weight. The facts of the issue are you simply want legal cover to practice discrimination. This argument seeks to hide behind the law and use the religion based on 'do unto others' to treat law abiding citizens as second class citizens. You seek to deny freedom while claiming to preserve it.

This argument bears the same watermark as Taliban extremists. This argument wants to use a perversion of scripture in order to impose a legal mechanism through which others must be refused equal treatment.

Odd how it's always the fundamentalist and extremist sects of religions who seek to misuse a message of love and inclusiveness to impose hatred, fear and suspicion.

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional, and in no way manifest ‘intolerance.’ And one may not use religious dogma as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

As already correctly noted, the intolerance manifests when theists seek to hide their hate and desire to discriminate behind the façade of ‘religious liberty,’ when in fact that ‘liberty’ is being used only to make a given class of persons unequal to everyone else.

Newsflash. Same sex are not opposite sex. They don't bring to the marriage what normal married people are because they don't have the same equipment. How is that equal? Having to listen two one person of the same sex trying to overemphasize what they are not is confusion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As long as they are doing it at their own choice, you are 100% correct. When the government passes a law mandating it, they are slaves.

Odd how it is always the people that preach tolerance that are the least tolerant.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are both appropriate and Constitutional, and in no way manifest ‘intolerance.’ And one may not use religious dogma as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

As already correctly noted, the intolerance manifests when theists seek to hide their hate and desire to discriminate behind the façade of ‘religious liberty,’ when in fact that ‘liberty’ is being used only to make a given class of persons unequal to everyone else.

Newsflash. Same sex are not opposite sex. They don't bring to the marriage what normal married people are because they don't have the same equipment. How is that equal? Having to listen two one person of the same sex trying to overemphasize what they are not is confusion.

It’s from this sort of hate, ignorance, and stupidity the Constitution is designed to protect citizens’ civil liberties.

And of course you’re entitled to be hateful and ignorant, and to express legally relevant nonsense about ‘normal people’ and ‘equipment,’ but you're not entitled to seek to codify that hate and ignorance, nor does your hate and ignorance justify ignoring or violating just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws.