Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You liberals crack me up. Funny, you DON'T think the restaurant would have a right to dictate policy and refuse to make wedding cakes for a gay couple. Ah, the hypocrisy......
If you don't know the difference there would be no point in trying to explain it to you
After reading all the updates in addition to the article, the article left out TONS of info. The article even had an update that they had info incorrect about the guy with the gun.
If a restaurant has a no gun policy, then that's the policy. Suck it up buttercup. Waffle House has had several incidents in different states with nutjobs fighting and shooting up the place.
No good can come from a guy with a guy at 2 am who was in a fight 2 days before at the place and was escorted away by police.....He was given a choice. Remove the gun or don't. So what was the problem?
Funny how that works isn't it? You can't deny a gay person but you can deny someone exercising a right specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
When was the last time a wedding cake was used to murder or cause physical harm to someone? Shoving wedding cake up your new spouse's nose doesn't count.
When was the last time a wedding cake was used to murder or cause physical harm to someone? Shoving wedding cake up your new spouse's nose doesn't count.
You liberals crack me up. Funny, you DON'T think the restaurant would have a right to dictate policy and refuse to make wedding cakes for a gay couple. Ah, the hypocrisy......
LOL, I can live thru a cake fight, not so sure about a gun fight.
ringwise, I was scrolling through and getting ready to post the same thing! The lack of logic astounds me.
Because it's not about any policy, it's about this one guy who had to be physically restrained and removed from the restaurant by cops the week before...the lack of logic, as well as listening skills, astounds me.
It's either private property or not. They can either deny a constitutional right or not. Explain to me why they have the "right" to deny this constitutional right to bear arms, yet MUST serve someone even though it goes against the company's constitutional right to practice their religion freely.
1. It is PRIVATE PROPERTY and a safety isue.
2. It is a matter of DISCRIMINATION. "Gun carriers" are not a protected class nor should they be. If you need a constitutional right to understand the concept of not discriminating, see "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."
I agree gun owners are a protected class under the 2nd amendment. A no guns sign is no different from "no colored" or no cakes for gays.
If you are in business you are in business to serve EVERYONE.
BS.
Why not just make Gingers a protected class too?
Or smokers?
Or ugly people?
Or A-holes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*
