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.
No, it is you that are insisting what you wish they were.
So, I'm lying when I quote the Supreme Court and when I report on cases in which bakers have been found in violation of the law when they refuse to sell wedding cakes to gay couples?
Fine, take the word pork out of the question and then answer it without semantic deflection.
If the Muslim restaurant offers catering then yes, if they do not offer catering then no.
Just like the bakery offers wedding cakes, the florist offers flowers, etc. Then they should provide those goods/services to anyone that has money to pay.
I think the crowdfunding response is awesome, and a perfect "my free market support can beat up your free market boycott" example of how well free markets can sort this stuff out.
Who knew that small town pizzerias would become the Antietams and Bull Runs of the next Civil War?
It's one thing to debate what should be. We can argue all day how the 1st Amendment should be interpreted and put into practical effect, and we can argue all day about if we should have anti-discrimination laws and what they should and should not do.
But was is, is. It's just plain ridiculous to argue against reality. I'm simply stating what the 1st Amendent IS - according to the Supreme Court. I'm simply stating what anti-discrimination laws ARE - according to the legislatures that have passed them and the courts that have enforced them.
You and informedconsent keep trying to insist that what you wish the 1st Amendment and anti-discrimination laws were is in fact what they are and in fact do. That's crazy.
This is where you and others are getting it wrong. No one is saying a business owner can discriminate based on sexual orientation. Gays can buy all the cake, flowers, photography services, etc., they want without being subjected to discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
However, it IS a business owner's First Amendment right to refuse to serve a participatory role (provide goods and/or services) in a same-sex wedding ceremony if the business owner's religion prohibits same-sex marriage.
What a great business model. Pure genius. Nothing but tax-free profit without having to do a damn thing.
See - you left out the important part of my post - this is about people speaking their mind through monetary support. I know it does not give you the warm fuzzies that many people think like they do.
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.
