Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 197

Thread: Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109

    Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights?

    I've been rolling this through my head now for a few weeks. As a business owner I feel we have a right to set our own rules for our private enterprises. But the courts have ruled otherwise.

    I view our issue of being one about rights, not guns. I place it on equal footing with speech, press, religion, etc.

    So think about this. A pastry business was approached to make a cake for a gay wedding. They refused on religious grounds. They were sued. The court fined them and told them they HAD TO honor all requests.

    Having a gay wedding is not a Constitutional right, nor is being gay a protect class when it comes to discrimination. So ask yourself this. If someone walked into that cake shop and said, "Hold on, let me pray to Allah about which cake to get", and then said a quick quiet prayer, could they have been thrown out for praying? Could there have been a sign outside that said 'No praying allowed'? How about, "No politics spoken in our store"? You get my point. What if they kicked anyone out wearing a turbine or burka?

    Would those be legitimate cases of discrimination and would they be discriminating if they refused to serve them or allow them in for that matter? If it is discrimination then why aren't WE being discriminated against or violated when we're not allowed in certain businesses?

    I'm just trying to attack this from the PC crowd's perspective, but only sort of. I guess anyone can trespass anyone for any reason, but if that's true then why couldn't the cake makers trespass the gay wedding folks?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    You cannot trespass people for any reason. I kid tossed his frisbee onto your property? He can get it back. One example.

    But I agree, businesses open to the public should not be able to keep people who OC out.

  3. #3
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    If you invite the public into your business you should not be able to require them to leave their rights at the door. Unfortunately private property rights trump your rights and the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as living breathing individuals. That is one of the most abhorrent decisions that the boys and girls in black have ever come up with.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You cannot trespass people for any reason. I kid tossed his frisbee onto your property? He can get it back. One example....
    Not only do I call for a cite, but surely that will depend on the specific state's laws, and I seriously doubt it is the case in some states, if not many. I also assume it will depend on whether or not there are fences, signs, or other notices given.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Not only do I call for a cite, but surely that will depend on the specific state's laws, and I seriously doubt it is the case in some states, if not many. I also assume it will depend on whether or not there are fences, signs, or other notices given.
    A cite? For what? I doubt any case was brought to trial for a kid to grab his frisbee .. so what are you asking me to cite? Signs are of limited value. Fences? You never hopped over a fence as a kid? A notice of trespass? beats me...I would not shoot a kid getting his frisbee back myself.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Turbod'1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Not only do I call for a cite, but surely that will depend on the specific state's laws, and I seriously doubt it is the case in some states, if not many. I also assume it will depend on whether or not there are fences, signs, or other notices given.
    This.


    As to the issue Ron brought up, I too have been thinking similar thoughts about this.

    Case in point, If I owned a business and smoked, I would more than likely welcome smokers. People that don't like smoke can go elsewhere if they so desire. However, outside of Nevada and their Casino lobby, it's pretty much forbidden EVEN IN YOUR OWN SHOP. So, how does the government get to regulate everyone into complying with this? One could look at this a a 'pursuit of happiness' issue. By the same token, smoking isn't a Right but the RTBA IS and yet Federal 'property' is, ironically, one of the most notorious violators of the 2A [remember, they work for The People]. It makes my head spin. Or it could just be the beer.

    In the greater scheme of things, WHY CAN'T you discriminate against anything you want? In a way, it's the purest form of Freedom one can have. Being forced to accept [or be ostracized] what you don't care for is a wicked kind of Control if you really think about it.

    So yeah, if you can, as a business, hang a "No firearms" sign (violating an actual Constitutional RIGHT) then why can't you also choose to pay people what you think the job is worth, let people smoke, ban gays, require nudity, insist that all patrons do "the robot" on entry or anything else you want, for that matter?

    Sounds like anarchy, right? Meh. I think if people were free to do as they please it would work itself out.

    Frankly, I think people in general are more moderate than we give them credit for and it would take an 'egregious' act for a business to say "No". In that case, fine, then go elsewhere...

    FYI, I am not a business owner.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Turbod'1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    A cite? For what? I doubt any case was brought to trial for a kid to grab his frisbee .. so what are you asking me to cite? Signs are of limited value. Fences? You never hopped over a fence as a kid? A notice of trespass? beats me...I would not shoot a kid getting his frisbee back myself.
    The weird thing is, I seem to recall a case where a grumpy old coot shot into the ground or something because kids were constantly cutting through his fenced lawn but I can't Google-fu it...

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    A cite? For what? I doubt any case was brought to trial for a kid to grab his frisbee .. so what are you asking me to cite? Signs are of limited value. Fences? You never hopped over a fence as a kid? A notice of trespass? beats me...I would not shoot a kid getting his frisbee back myself.
    You are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because your example of a kid and a frisbee isn't going to lead to a findable court case doesn't mean your assertion is correct that it will always be legal for such things to occur.

    Yes, I hopped neighbors fences all the time to recover balls, and they hopped ours to do the same. We also all already knew that it would be okay. I would never have done it to a neighbor that I knew or even felt wouldn't be okay with it.

    My state would not allow deadly force to prevent such an act unauthorized, also. BUT, some states might! And just because my state doesn't authorize deadly force against it does not mean the act is legal.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Legally armed citizens are not a protected class, and civil rights do not yet include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Discrimination against disfavored minorities is allowed and even encouraged.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Personally I think a business should be free to deny service to anyone they want... however in this current world of civil rights trumping private business rights (the example of the wedding cake shop being forced to make homosexual cakes even though it violated his religion comes to mind) it should be all or nothing. Either they can do what they want or they can't.

    cite for gay cake story as I'm sure someone will ask for it
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-order...ry?id=21136505
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    If you invite the public into your business you should not be able to require them to leave their rights at the door. Unfortunately private property rights trump your rights and the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as living breathing individuals. That is one of the most abhorrent decisions that the boys and girls in black have ever come up with.

    TBG
    Coming in is not the issue, being allowed to stay is.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Personally I think a business should be free to deny service to anyone they want... however in this current world of civil rights trumping private business rights (the example of the wedding cake shop being forced to make homosexual cakes even though it violated his religion comes to mind) it should be all or nothing. Either they can do what they want or they can't.

    cite for gay cake story as I'm sure someone will ask for it
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-order...ry?id=21136505
    The cite for the story is a little misleading if you only watch the video because the video is an ABC news enactment which simulates what happened in the actual case and doesn't actually reference the case that brought on the 'What Would You Do?' episode. But the text below the story actually gives the facts.

    Here is the text:
    A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

    Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year.

    In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

    "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

    Mullins and Craig married in Massachussets and had originally gone to Masterpiece in July 2012 because they wanted to a cake for their wedding reception in Colorado. When Phillips refused, the pair went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) on their behalf.

    According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.

    Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

    The judge's decision states in its Finding of Facts that Phillips believes creating same-sex wedding cakes would be "displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible."

    In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, a CCRC investigation also showed evidence that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women.

    "Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration," Mullins said in statement. "No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are. We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today's decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado."

    Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for."

    "He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system."

    Phillips can appeal the judge's order, which is expected to be certified by the Civil Rights Commission next week. Martin said they are currently considering their next move.

    ABC News Radio and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    I'm not citing this to bash sexual preferences. What if someone had come in dressed in white supremacist Nazi gear and wanted a cake with swastikas for their event? What if people came in on behalf of the KKK and wanted a hangman's noose on the cake? What if someone came in wanting to celebrate Columbine with figures on the top commemorating the two shooters in the event?

    Could the baker have refused them without being sued? Apparently so, because Colorado may not have a law specifically protecting their choices or preferences.

    I agree with statements above that businesses should be able to call their own shots about how they choose to run their businesses. I've owned several businesses and at one point wanted to favor a certain type of employee for my company image but was told I'd be discriminating if I did so. What if some rowdy biker dude went into Hooters to apply to be a server? Could he sue if he wasn't given the job, assuming his qualifications as a server were otherwise excellent?

    This may be a test case that is due for filing. However even though the courts have established that our RTBA is an individual right, it's not yet been enjoined legally to the same status of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Supporters of the RTBA are awaiting for the courts to enjoin this so a new legal status can be attained.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because your example of a kid and a frisbee isn't going to lead to a findable court case doesn't mean your assertion is correct that it will always be legal for such things to occur.

    Yes, I hopped neighbors fences all the time to recover balls, and they hopped ours to do the same. We also all already knew that it would be okay. I would never have done it to a neighbor that I knew or even felt wouldn't be okay with it.

    My state would not allow deadly force to prevent such an act unauthorized, also. BUT, some states might! And just because my state doesn't authorize deadly force against it does not mean the act is legal.
    I agree, hopped many fences myself but was also aware that I was trespassing while doing it. But my original statement about 'you can trespass anyone you want' was not meant to be all-encompassing, it was a general statement as it relates to businesses. But if I were a business kicking people out I'd want to have pretty good legal standing as to why I was doing it. I'd likely get sued if I was trespassing someone because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs, for example, though there are plenty of men only or women only businesses out there who seem to be free to have those restrictions. But the WSOP women's poker championship has a twist in that a few men entered the tourney so they addressed it by charging men $10k to enter the tourney while giving women a 90% discount which allows them to play for $1k.

  14. #14
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron_O View Post
    The cite for the story is a little misleading if you only watch the video because the video is an ABC news enactment which simulates what happened in the actual case and doesn't actually reference the case that brought on the 'What Would You Do?' episode. But the text below the story actually gives the facts.

    Here is the text:

    I'm not citing this to bash sexual preferences. What if someone had come in dressed in white supremacist Nazi gear and wanted a cake with swastikas for their event? What if people came in on behalf of the KKK and wanted a hangman's noose on the cake? What if someone came in wanting to celebrate Columbine with figures on the top commemorating the two shooters in the event?

    Could the baker have refused them without being sued? Apparently so, because Colorado may not have a law specifically protecting their choices or preferences.

    I agree with statements above that businesses should be able to call their own shots about how they choose to run their businesses. I've owned several businesses and at one point wanted to favor a certain type of employee for my company image but was told I'd be discriminating if I did so. What if some rowdy biker dude went into Hooters to apply to be a server? Could he sue if he wasn't given the job, assuming his qualifications as a server were otherwise excellent?

    This may be a test case that is due for filing. However even though the courts have established that our RTBA is an individual right, it's not yet been enjoined legally to the same status of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Supporters of the RTBA are awaiting for the courts to enjoin this so a new legal status can be attained.
    Sorry you were mislead by the video. Personally I never watch news videos unless it is actual footage of the event in question I strictly read the text. So I don't know if it's misleading or not.
    Basically I agree with you and every post here to one degree or another. I prefer to have businesses free to do as they wish. But as a far less appealing "fix" to the current status of things you could further restrict businesses by forcing them to do business with everyone. Refusing service to legally armed citizens would not be allowed.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Beware the narrative fallacy, a.k.a. just-so-stories, it is the witch-doctor's tool.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109

    I want to hit the 'Like' button for other posts!

    I realize that this is created with standard forum software, but does anyone else wish they could hit the 'Like' button in support of a particular post? It would be sweet--

  17. #17
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Personally I think a business should be free to deny service to anyone they want... however in this current world of civil rights trumping private business rights (the example of the wedding cake shop being forced to make homosexual cakes even though it violated his religion comes to mind) it should be all or nothing. Either they can do what they want or they can't.

    cite for gay cake story as I'm sure someone will ask for it
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-order...ry?id=21136505
    on the one hand i'll agree on the other certainly not. It's tough. Do I recognise private property rights? Sure. I think the owner can do what they like. On the other hand what if that owner decided to ban black people? Thats very very wrong. Now the owner of a property who refuses to serve gay people is a bit different. That comes under freedom of religion. Those people would believe gay is a choice and even some would say it's not even possible as God didnt create them to be so. Now whether they are right or wrong isnt the point, the point is it's a belief and that has to be respected. I'd also question why someone who considers themselves to be gay would even go there. Gun rights, I think we have private property spot on. Are they allowed to ban carry? Yes, they are but the result of that should be a boycott of the establishment and I think most of us are good about that. Public buildings on the other hand are another matter and there are no rights to ban carry regardless of state statutes in violation. Thats an infringement and therefore void.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  18. #18
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    on the one hand i'll agree on the other certainly not. It's tough. Do I recognise private property rights? Sure. I think the owner can do what they like. On the other hand what if that owner decided to ban black people? Thats very very wrong. Now the owner of a property who refuses to serve gay people is a bit different. That comes under freedom of religion. Those people would believe gay is a choice and even some would say it's not even possible as God didnt create them to be so. Now whether they are right or wrong isnt the point, the point is it's a belief and that has to be respected. I'd also question why someone who considers themselves to be gay would even go there. Gun rights, I think we have private property spot on. Are they allowed to ban carry? Yes, they are but the result of that should be a boycott of the establishment and I think most of us are good about that. Public buildings on the other hand are another matter and there are no rights to ban carry regardless of state statutes in violation. Thats an infringement and therefore void.
    This is the justification of force, based on personal preferences and beliefs, that I so strongly disagree with as a Libertarian. It's okay to refuse gays because it's freedom of religion? But not blacks cause that's "very very wrong"? There is a religious belief, I actually know a person who believes it, that black skin and the idea of black slaves came came about by the story in the Bible of Ham checking out Noah's junk when he was naked and hammered. Seems silly but "the point is it's a belief and that has to be respected"?

    Anyway I don't believe it so I would not support a racist business. But IMO it's not justified for government to use force to make businesses trade with anyone black white or gay.
    But if you are going to start forcing businesses to trade with anyone they should be forced to trade with EVERYONE. If you have to sell your cake to gays then you should have to served OCers and every single other person that wishes to use your services.
    Last edited by twoskinsonemanns; 09-19-2014 at 12:54 PM.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    I think that I am reading the development of an argument for literal wage-slaves of the state. If you want to be a baker of cakes then you will sell product at the direction of the state.

    I am not a shopkeeper. If I was and the state determined my customers then I'd quit, in the limit self-immolate.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I think that I am reading the development of an argument for literal wage-slaves of the state. If you want to be a baker of cakes then you will sell product at the direction of the state.

    I am not a shopkeeper. If I was and the state determined my customers then I'd quit, in the limit self-immolate.
    As a business owner, while living in the Left State (Kalifornia), I reached a point where I DID quit, of sorts. I simply refused to hire employees any longer and instead worked only for myself or with family and partners. I refused to subject myself to the myriad of laws and regulations that having employees subjected you to.

    If I were this store owner, the baker, I'd undoubtedly want to stop if I felt that strongly about who I served. There are also stories of private property owners who open their ranches up for select weddings and events but who would NOT cater to a gay wedding. They have been subjected to litigation as well and that begs the question, what if a church refused to marry a gay couple? Can they be compelled by the courts to do so? The Hobby Lobby case is an interesting one in that it upholds the rights of the owners to reject a medical plan that supported certain types of 'abortion-esque' contraceptive methods.

    But these things are not rights under the Constitution. Freedom of religion is. It seems to me that a business should have a right to inject their religious beliefs in the ways they conduct business.

    But that begs the question. Could a restaurant run by a religious group or person(s) restrict it's clients to ONLY persons of the same religion? Probably not. So if they can't discriminate against other religions then how can they discriminate against legally armed customers?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron_O View Post
    [ ... ] a restaurant run by a religious group or person(s) restrict it's clients to ONLY persons of the same religion? Probably not. So if they can't discriminate against other religions then how can they discriminate against legally armed customers?
    Again, legally armed citizens are not a protected class and gun carry is not YET a civil right.

    Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88352, 78 Stat. 241)
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    probably help to define definitions

    trespass happens when a person has no apparent business on the property. such as loitering. but if a person has legitimate business on property. then they can not be trespassed. such as in NC if you shoot a deer on one property and it runs to another property then you can pursue it. as in you can also go up to someones door and knock, but you must have legitimate reason to be there. but also the property owner must be the one to charge someone with trespass, or their agent.

    private property is property that is privately owned, such as a resident. but when you open your doors to the public, such as a licensed business, you are subject to the laws of the land.

    carrying a firearm is a civil right, but one someone can legally discriminate against, because it is the law of the land
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron_O View Post
    ... I simply refused to hire employees any longer and instead worked only for myself or with family and partners. I refused to subject myself to the myriad of laws and regulations that having employees subjected you to...
    I understand that NV is one of the easiest places to run a business. I run two, and I still won't hire employees because I don't want to learn how to do the paperwork.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  24. #24
    Regular Member Ron_O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    109

    Government to Farmers: Host Same-Sex Wedding or Pay a $13,000 Fine

    Here's a link to the story regarding threats of $13k fines because someone didn't want to host gay weddings.

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/19/go...ource=facebook
    Last edited by Ron_O; 09-19-2014 at 09:30 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Not that I agree with the judge, but the gay couple entered the business for the stated purpose of the business. To sell pastry.

    A hospital is open to the public for the purpose of medical care. They can and probably do perform abortions in certain cases. A pro life person cannot come onto hospital property to protest, even though the hospital is open to the public.

    Another way to put it is a gay couple cannot enter a gun store and demand a wedding cake, or demand a pastry store sell them a gun.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 09-19-2014 at 09:37 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •