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'm not clicking on that video link, but the guy who for some reason has an animal skull on his desk has fantastic hair. I'd believe anything he'd have to say.
No baker refused business from a gay couple. They were perfectly willing to do business with them. They just didn't want to participate in a gay wedding.
The charter boat operator was stereotyping. His experience was that liberals were more likely to be jerks. While true, that stereotype doesn't apply to everyone.
The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs.
Nice try at revisionist history.
Let's fast forward a year. What we are talking about now will look like:
"The case dealt with Discover Card, a credit card company in Somewhere, USA which refused to provide services to a fundraiser based on the owner's religious beliefs."
Like I said, you can't have it both ways. You can't dictate which instances businesses can decline their services and which times they can be forced to do so. Many celebrated Masterpiece Cakeshop's win in the Supreme Court. Honestly, I love hearing stories about people with MAGA hats and shirts being denied service. Usually when this happens, it has more to do with their actions than with their political leanings. But sometimes, it might just be because businesses can't be forced to provide services to customers that they don't want to deal with. And they can just claim it is "religious" in nature.
Let's fast forward a year. What we are talking about now will look like:
"The case dealt with Discover Card, a credit card company in Somewhere, USA which refused to provide services to a fundraiser based on the owner's religious beliefs."
Like I said, you can't have it both ways. You can't dictate which instances businesses can decline their services and which times they can be forced to do so. Many celebrated Masterpiece Cakeshop's win in the Supreme Court. Honestly, I love hearing stories about people with MAGA hats and shirts being denied service. Usually when this happens, it has more to do with their actions than with their political leanings. But sometimes, it might just be because businesses can't be forced to provide services to customers that they don't want to deal with. And they can just claim it is "religious" in nature.
You should take the time to understand that incident and set yourself straight. The cakeshop did not refuse to sell their goods to any customer, they refused to make a piece of art that went against their beliefs (and by the way, the plaintiffs in that case were discrimination shopping, they tried several cakeshops first who gladly agreed to make the gay themed cake until they found this one who declined which they could sue as was their goal). The couple was free to buy anything they wanted in that store, including a ready cake that they could just put their own topper on.
You cannot compel someone to make something that is against their religious beliefs
This credit card situation is completely different and unrelated. Discover is not the merchant or the customer, they are the road and toll booth operator. They work for both the customer and merchant and they are saying, sorry I don't care if you're paying the toll, you can't go down this road if have this person in your car, even if BOTH YOU and YOUR DESTINATION agree that you should be meeting.
You should take the time to understand that incident and set yourself straight. The cakeshop did not refuse to sell their goods to any customer, they refused to make a piece of art that went against their beliefs (and by the way, the plaintiffs in that case were discrimination shopping, they tried several cakeshops first who gladly agreed to make the gay themed cake until they found this one who declined which they could sue as was their goal). The couple was free to buy anything they wanted in that store, including a ready cake that they could just put their own topper on.
You cannot compel someone to make something that is against their religious beliefs
This credit card situation is completely different and unrelated. Discover is not the merchant or the customer, they are the road and toll booth operator. They work for both the customer and merchant and they are saying, sorry I don't care if you're paying the toll, you can't go down this road if have this person in your car, even if BOTH YOU and YOUR DESTINATION agree that you should be meeting.
This is so unbelievably egrigious!
Nope. You can't dictate who businesses have to do business with. Discover wants no part in transferring money from donors to the fundraiser. That is a service they provide. And they do not have to provide it. Period.
What you are saying is that the gay couple had no case against the cakeshop because they did offer service just not the service that the couple wanted (a custom made cake). Discover will offer their services to transfer your money. Just not to a fundraiser for Kyle Rittenhouse. Same deal. Oh, that isn't the service you want? Too bad for you.
No matter how you spin it, if you are ok with the cakeshop, you should be on-board with Discover.
Nope. Sorry - like I said. You can't dictate who businesses have to do business with. Discover wants no part in transferring money from donors to the fundraiser. That is a service they provide. And they do not have to provide it. Period.
What you are saying is that the gay couple had no case against the cakeshop because they did offer service just not the service that the couple wanted (a custom made cake). Discover will offer their services to transfer your money. Just not to a fundraiser for Kyle Rittenhouse. Same deal. Oh, that isn't the service you want? Too bad for you.
No matter how you spin it, if you are ok with the cakeshop, you should be on-board with Discover.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that you're wrong, so that's that.
This is a kid who killed two terrorists, in self defense, who were terrorizing Kenosha over the shooting of someone who just committed rape and threatened the cops with a knife.
The Evil in this general scenario has never been clearer.
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.
