What about for public accommodation to ALL groups, including ones that DON'T "face large scale discrimination?" Why would someone scream "what about pedophiles" and why would that makes them "bigoted?" Who the hell is suggesting this?
Are you sure that you've got the right thread? I did quote you in the Jones thread too, so I'm sure that you just got mixed up!
you are right, my apologies. as for the baker, he should just bake the cake, that is a business, not a place of worship. now anyone can refuse service.
And they still won't reach the issue, and the commission will STILL only get a slap on the wrist. And he'll have wasted much treasure. < Which is the point of this tactic, which is called "lawfare". The intent is to sue them in to the poor house.
Im looking forward to suing the NOW to help me get Roe overturned.... Liberals just never seem to understand that what is good for them can also come back to bite them. If I can force someone to do my bidding, by law, then clearly, I can use a court to force an organization, like the NOW to start running anti abortion adds...
Which ruling? SCOTUS? Perhaps you don't understand the ruling then. The case was about protecting someone from having to adopt the speech of others if it was religiously offensive to them. Those, seemingly like you, who believe that government can, and should become the mechanism to force others toward your goals, seem to then ignore that this isn't just about cakes. It's about compelled speech. Or at least a religious exception to it. The state of CO seems willing to force it's will to require folks to use speech. I'm suggesting that should this become a standard, I would be able to then require liberal orgs to do the same thing, vis a vis, speech that I found appropriate to require them to use or otherwise produce.
There's no reason why the case couldn't have been based on freedom of association, other than the fact that The Constitution doesn't explicitly protect it. A secular baker may have had no other defence.
This seems difficult for you. No, actually, he is not. He is restricting his business to activities he believes align with his religious beliefs. He isn't preaching, he's simply asking not to be compelled to have to express things that he doesn't support. I have asked if I should be able to demand that the NOW org or things like the NAACP could then be bent to my will over their moral objection to produce speech they wouldn't morally support or advocate. So far, not one of you folks on the left have tried to take this on. It's hard. I'd point out that if you believe that you can use government to require folks to engage in speech that you 've adopted what most of the rest of us would believe is an entirely autocratic tyranny. And yet, here you are complaining that what? Government can't be used to compel folks and their speech? It's laughable. But please, continue advocating this. That wave needs it for sure dude....
Fascists don't care. They want him shut down because he doesn't share their beliefs. And yes they are beliefs.
To the bolded: I have to disagree. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a big proponent of blazing up with Chong(yes, that Chong, who was ripped(haha) himself back in the day BTW) then going to the gym back in the 70’s. There’s also tons of pro atheletes that do the same thing.
Which is why the useless federal government MUST step in and STOP these fascist states from acting like this!
