Holder's DoJ will probably threaten the bank that takes their money like they did to banks who hold accounts for legal and licensed gun shops.
When they want to kill those that do not think like them, yes. Wake the hell up already. It's a (*)(*)(*)(*)in' pizza joint. You lefties are acting like it's the end of the damn world. Get your damn pizza somewhere else. Geez.
You know, when you get right down to it this is a Constitutional question - does the proprietor's First Amendment right to practice their religion trump the patron's Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from discrimination? If we were talking about individuals, I'd say yes, the First Amendment prevails.... but I don't think that argument applies to the operation of a business - once the discrimination occurs in a business environment, then the Fourteenth Amendment prevails. If the owners of Memories Pizza want to discriminate based on their religious views, then they ought to do so as individuals and not as business owners.
It must be some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) good pizza if the lefty wing nuts are so willing to throw this big a hissy fit over it.
Bull. Unless it is a critical services business, first responders and such, any proprietor should have the right to refuse service to anyone. But they also assume possible consequences for their actions also. By that I mean boycotts and public pressure, not death threats.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as upheld by the Supreme Court, would tend to disagree with you on that one. Once you agree to open a business, you implicitly agree to sublimate your own personal beliefs to your obligation to serve your patrons. What if Memories Pizza found out that their best delivery driver was gay? Would that give them the right to fire him?
Chic -filet and the Indiana Pizza shop should have taught the Gays that their agenda is really not what most embrase. Hey Gays! most of society really is not on board with your agenda as you think! Try to not be such bigots with your way of thinking!!!!!!
Obviously the pizza joint won. There are states that can fire you for being gay........... http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...ork-is-it-legal-to-fire-someone-for-being-gay
Any and all laws passed are applicable to the context that law applies to. That's not the point of the question. The question is, are any and all laws a govt chooses to pass actually proper? Take any law you disagree with (are they any you would oppose and repeal?).. does their mere existence make them proper? If not, what would?
The 14th amendment is a restriction on state powers, not the actions of private individuals. I also don't think that everything asserted to be the free exercise of religion necessarily is, nor do I think that the right to a free exercise of religion is superior to all other rights. I think this is the real issue - whether people can just claim a religious exemption any time they don't feel like complying with the law. People should have the right to their religious beliefs, to worship according to those beliefs, and to order their personal lives around those beliefs. But once you start engaging with the general public, you aren't entitled to extend your religious beliefs onto them or your dealings with them. The fact that someone is a private individual does not mean everything they do in their life is a private matter, fully under their control. A stable society depends on people being able to cooperate with each other despite differences that are irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Does that make it right, though? Is it fair that someone who is perfectly good at their job, is a hard worker and does whatever is required of them to lose their job for something that has no bearing on their work - just because the person they work for objects to their sexual orientation? Is that really the kind of society you want to live in?
There is no such thing as a social contract implied or otherwise. People go into business to make a living and by definition they do so by trading with select individuals never " the public ". Since everyone has the right to discriminate against any business for any reason it is abominable to deny that same right to a business owner. The principle of equality under the law demands that their rights be protected as much as anyone else.
Is what right? That a business should have it's own criteria as to who they serve, hire and fire? Yes! Now if you want to debate the merits or lack thereof insofar as at-will workers, that is another discussion.
Maybe you could do the same. I was willing to give you a chance after our first encounter, but now I see you've decided to drink the kool-aid of the side that prefers trumpeting buzzwords like "gay agenda", so we're done. Have a nice life.
Obviously there are improper laws and laws people would disagree with... in a civil society, they can be challenged in the courts and let the legal process have the final say. If you disagree strongly enough with judicial sumpremacy, well, I guess the only other alternative is open rebellion and acceptance of the consequences that that entails.
Ok, so the next question: Why is a business entity classified as a public access entity instead of merely private property? The govt had to make it a policy to do so. These things don't come down from heaven as a categorical imperative (unless you accept that Kantian silliness).
You just proved he was right. The left has their buzzwords which they bestow upon anyone who disagrees with them, such as racist, homophobe, islamophobe, bigot, etc. So why is it you're so upset when buzzwords describe your agenda?
I disagree - your business license is your social contract to operate in a free society and it demands that you sublimate your individual beliefs to serve the interests of your patrons. The people who frequent your establishment are individuals and are not required to sublimate their beliefs - they can decide to give you their business or not.
