quote:

Originally posted by XinTX:
Wasn't it some time ago that a Wal Mart (IIRC) bakery refused to make a "Blue Lives Matter" cake for a local PD? They didn't run off to sue the far deeper pockets of Wal Mart (if that's who it was). They just found someone to do it for them and the public opinion took its role in dealing with the store. Which is how it should be.

The difference is that these guys have an agenda to force on everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by gpbst3:

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

You have a business to sell stuff, someone wants to by your stuff. Sell them your stuff.

As a business owner, I disagree. I often "fire" customers who I can tell from the beginning are a pain in the ass.

I'm busy enough as it is. I'll sell to those I want to, and not sell to those who I don't wish to for whatever reason real or imagined.

Exactly, sometimes it’s easier to fire customers than to have to deal with them.

Problem customers who are hard to deal with are one thing. No one seems to know what kind of cake these two wanted. We dont know they were problem customers.

If a gay couple came in and prepaid cash for you to move a safe would you say no, just because you can?

You may be missing the point. AIR, the bakery owners/operators did not refuse to sell them a cake. They refused to make them a cake with "gay" relationship on top. 2 men, or 2 women, do not recall.

The bakery refused to make THAT cake, based on their personal religious beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Amen, it's a two way street. A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just like a consumer can refuse to patronize any business for any reason.

I recall seeing signs long ago, posted in businesses, that said, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"

What happened to that concept?

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

I can't help but further confuse the issue than to ask how 'equal under the law' means some can be refused service while others can demand service just because they proclaim their right to be treated equally yet sue when they are refused such service. It's a logical paradox.

Equal protection under the law, like the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, etc. Protects you from the government, not from other other citizens.

Your neighbor can institute a no guns allowed policy in his business or home. He can restrict your right to talk shit about liberals on his private property, and he can refuse to provide service to you because your too ugly if he so desires.

Equal protection under the law prevents the government from treating some people better than others. It doesn't give the government the authority to force citizens to treat each other fairly or equally.


But, that's the way the Constitution used to be interpreted, not so much anymore. It is after all, a living document!

The modern trend of reinterpreting to constitution to allow the government to force some citizens, to treat certain groups better than others is dangerous and a grossly perverted, deliberate, misinterpretation of the founders intent.

It's what we get for letting lawyers take control of or government.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Amen, it's a two way street. A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just like a consumer can refuse to patronize any business for any reason.

I recall seeing signs long ago, posted in businesses, that said, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"

What happened to that concept?

Federal laws were passed to prohibit people from refusing to serve people because they were black, or female, for example.