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.
I don't think you understand how entertaining your comment is. The left hates what the baker did, but cheers what the Red Hen did. Duh.
Here's a tip. The baker didn't kick anyone out of his store. He didn't ask the gay guys to leave. He had served them in the past. It isn't about "baking a cake". It's about decorating one with images the baker found offensive. That's his right. The supreme Court agrees, even the liberal judges.
I wouldn't waste my keystrokes. These people ^ know this. It is just their job to take play devil's advocate.
Keep beating that dead horse. Maybe you'll get it killed by and by.
Some people either ignore the differences in these stories to try to make an invalid point, or they aren't smart enough to see the obvious differences. Sad, but a good portion of the public is uniformed, and rely on others to generate their talking points for them.
I don't like what they did. Not a fan of Sarah Huckapoo or Trump, but it sets a bad precedence. We can only eat at places that like our politics. That is crazy people. It's just buying into the political madness of the times.
Nope, he just prevents the from ever entering. Many are exclusive private clubs, that are far out of reach of the average (and above average) US Citizen.
There it is. The ever-present envy....never too far below the surface, it boils.
But then she made one on her official WH twitter account.
Only after Ms Thang's lowlife employee posted a picture of the whiteboard with the 86 and other info about Sarah and her party.
Lowlife was proud of themselves and wanted to show the world and get pats on the back. We know what they say about pride goeth before the fall.
The law prohibits discrimination against specific categories of people. It prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex.
The law is inconsistent. It prohibits denial of service based on one group of subjective personal criteria, and allows it for another group of personal, subjective criteria. I understand that and have made a point of acknowledging that the law itself is inconsistent.
That said, following an inconsistent law does not make the law or following it logically consistent. You cannot get to logical consistency from a starting point of inconsistency. The laws that govern all kinds of stuff are wildly inconsistent, particularly in the area of association and "positive rights" where people are forced to do things for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Certain people should not be allowed in businesses.
And here begins logical inconsistency. Subjective criteria is used to force businesses to associate with some but not with others. It is institutionalized inconsistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The point is that the law which was created by our elective representatives prohibits discrimination against broad groups of people, yet allows it in individual cases. That is the balance the law has chosen to strike in terms of both protecting minority groups, yet allowing businesses to exclude people for legitimate reasons.
I get it, the law is inconsistent. I haven't claimed otherwise, but thanks for backing me up.
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.
