View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:30 AM
AZRWinger AZRWinger is offline
Conservative Sage
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,515
Thanks: 9,544
Thanked 10,093 Times in 6,151 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Seems you miss the point, the refusals are all based on the intended use.
This is a right as well.

It's not because they were Asians but the known use... and as i said it should NOT be illegal to refuse the sale. and I think PETA and other animal rights groups would agree.
And in my view you can refuse a legal items to minors IF you have a good "principled" reason. THIS has been upheld in court on occasion as well. NOT just because they are minors though.
and if it's legal ... in your view... to discriminate on to the Rope Sale based on intent then it should be for others as well.

REPEATEDLY it's be shown that the bakers and florist DO , in act, serve homosexuals with ALL other request. Birthdays, etc.. But this ONE activity/event is refused. So it's NOT "ALL Asians" or "ASSUMED eating" but KNOWN activity that violates their beliefs.

Bakers have refused to make Cakes with religious verses and cakes that celebrate Trump because personal beliefs are violated… WITHOUT LAW SUIT, why? Because of a CLEAR right of refusal to do so on the grounds STRONG personal convictions.

3 things the homosexual lobby do wrong here.
1. they want to assume the motives of Bakers, florist etc. are simply universal discrimination against a class, when demonstrably it's NOT the case.
2. they want to deny the civil rights of another protected class to practice their faith and OPT OUT of participation in activities on the job that violate their faith/beliefs.
3. they want to FORCE participation or Close the Biz/End careers of those that won't ACT as if they agree with homosexual marriage.

If "the law" supports the homosexual lobby on those issues it's wrong.
As it is/has been in other areas.
Glad I read to the end of the thread, your comment is the point I was about to raise.

Advocates of using government to bludgeon small businesses into going along with homosexual marriage not just as a legal institution by judicial decree but something beyond question or objection. None of the vendors sensationalized as discriminating against homosexuals for refusing to provide goods or services to same sex marriages when they they provide services to customers without regard to sexual orientation just not for weddings. For example, the elderly florist in Colorado who refused to do wedding arrangements recognized one of the couple as a frequent customer. But smearing anyone who declines to endorse same sex marriage as a homophobic bigot deserving to have their business destroyed is a necessity for identity politics.

Advocates of harsh punishment for vendors of wedding services when they decline to participate in homosexual marriage fail to recognize the portrait of impotent victims they paint of homosexuals. In the Democrat created Jim Crow South discrimination was required by law. There are no laws requiring similar discrimination against homosexual weddings and plenty of welcoming vendors for wedding services. Instead of encouraging empowerment by selective purchasing the hapless victim requiring jackbooted assault by government to protect them.
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post: