Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 129,786
- 24,881
- 2,180
You remain stupid. Network solutions did not discriminate. The baker did.I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company. They decided to discontinue the site. No 1st Amendment violation there.
Everybody understands that. But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc.. Yes or no? If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well...regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary.
The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants. You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)
In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what? Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience? But, he has to pay. He cannot "discriminate." However, the private company that owned the StormFront site can "discriminate." You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.
Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?
Don't be a dumb ass. You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:
The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate. The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.
The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.) That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.
Stormfront entered an agreement when they contracted Network Solutions to be their webhost. Stormfront violated that agreement and was rightfully booted. That's not discrimination.
The gay person who wanted a cake baked by a baker who bakes cakes, never entered any such agreement. Unlike Stormfront, they were denied service for no reason other than whom they choose to legally marry. That is discrimination.
Counselor, you presume that a group violated the terms of the contract. If you don't like what someone else says, you attribute it to hate propaganda. It sounds like you're the one trying to compensate for some kind of shortcoming.
You talk a lot of skeet on this board. If you spewed that disrespect to a man's face, he would bend you over his knee and take a leather strap to your hind quarters. And if I knew your mother, I'd ask her permission to introduce you to it.
Another tough boy...