I agree that a private business should have choice to discriminate against anyone they choose - even on racial lines - so long as they do not take any public dollars or benefit from tax dollars. That's not right that a group would have to pay to support federally funded services that areunavailable to them. Such a private business should pay for everything - including their sidewalks - and receive no tax breaks. They should take 0 from the public domain and pay a tax to make up for their use of roads and resources that aren't going to be made to discriminated classes of people.
After Celebrating the case about the Gay Cake . . . .. Where the Bakers don't have to sell Gay Folx Cake I don't understand how anyone would be upset about this . . . .. . Seems like the same thing Rocket River
Who is upset? Besides the retribution from the general public, which all businesses (should) take in account for before making any rash decision. And they are nowhere close to the same.
Sadly they aren't the same. The gay cake was about locking out an entire group of people based on who they are. This was about blocking out one person based on the choices they've made.
Yes, sadly they aren't the same. One only refused to bake a wedding cake due to religious beliefs yet offered to sell them anything else. The other outright refused service altogether. Completely different scenarios. That being said, I could not care less. I am not outraged by either scenario. Any person who owns a business should have the right to refuse service for any reason they deem worthy. The market will quickly correct the situation.
We all here know that not to be true Republican have been lying for many years now trump lies every time he opens his mouth.
Sarah Pants on Fire, could be in trouble with the law for her Tweet. https://www.yahoo.com/news/sarah-sa...-115036629.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_13
In one scenario, a couple was denied a persons creativity rights. The couple was not (or any of these protected class) denied service. They were welcome to purchase any of the products or choose a design the artist did not find offensive. In the other scenario, the group was denied all services. In the first scenario, the couple took the issue all the way to the supreme court for retribution. What kind of society do we live in where we feel the need we must force everyone into our beliefs? Intolerance at its best. Perhaps the baker should have required a non-refundable deposit and created the worst cake possible? In the other scenario, the group accepted they weren't wanted and went elsewhere.
She will not be in trouble. This is more nonsense where the left once again wants to seek retribution for their own idiocy.
She won't be in trouble because she works for Trump and has no accountability. Trump doesn't care about the rules. It's clearly a misuse of her official account. I think its amazing that conservatives have found a way to rationalize that the refusal of service in the baker situation was more acceptable than in the Sanders situation. The human mind is a tremendous thing.
The baker did not refuse all service, only one specific service that he felt violated his religious beliefs. He offered to sell them anything other than a gay wedding cake. Sanders was refused service altogether. There is a huge difference. It is amazing that liberals can rationalize that they are the same thing.
They were denied services. They were denied the services of a wedding cake. It doesn't somehow excuse it because the couple looking for a wedding cake would have been allowed to buy chocolate chip cookies.
Might be the same thing if the restaurant owner refused to sell Sanders one specific menu item rather than refusing to provide any service at all. Otherwise it is a complete false equivalency.
The main thing that is so polarizing this country is the need to label one another. You really think all liberals and conservatives are the same? I run a few coffee shops in Houston and as much as I despise Trump and anyone in his administration they would get the exact same level of customer service if they happened to walk into one of my shops. Why alienate half your customer base by choosing sides for a business? The main goal for any business should be to turn a profit and turning away people for their political beliefs is plain idiotic.
Yeah, that tweets reeks as phony. So the owner of this restaurant, on a busy friday night, leaves their own shop to go "protest" at a fellow restaurantuers establishment? Not to mention they are aiming this "protest" at someone's in-laws? While the person of their ire is not even there? Doubtful.
Like I said, I think people with differences should be able to eat where they want and we can discuss differences civilly. So whether Sanders who was denied service because of her personal choices isn't the same as denying a whole group of people services. It doesn't matter whether either group is denied one services or every service offered.
