Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Don't pull that crap on me. It took amending the Constitution for those changes to take force, but this revisionist idea of civil rights has been forced on us overnight by the courts without our getting any say in the matter at all. The VConsitutiton is NOT pliable, it's to be changed carefully and LEGALLY.This is how Communism works, but it wasn't supposed to be how America works. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How could you miss all the pissed off Hoosiers whose demonstrations and complaining moved their government to adjust the previously implemented religious freedom law?Have you been under a rock the past couple weeks?

Too bad the test was flubbed.
\
But I was talking about the basis for Christian refusal, which is what I thought you wree talking about.However I would bet the Muslim would do the same because he clearly objected to the idea of gay weddings as such.

You are most certainly correct. I forgot who I was talking to. Forgive me for bringing reality into the discussion.

Well you're right about that. Reality these days is to cram the PC agenda down our throats. There is no such thing as American freedom any more, except for select PC darlings.

I assume you're talking from a jail cell, right? Oh, of course not. You're a woman. One of them protected classes. One of them PC darlings. One of them classes that now is entitled the same rights, respect and dignity from society as us white men ... and blacks, and gays, and Moslems, and Atheists.Disgusting, isn't it.Should have kept you in the kitchen, naked.Mmmm, yeah, naked.

Abolishing slavery, as an example, required a change to the Constitution because slavery was written into the Constitution.Affording equal marriage rights to all requires no change to the Constitution, merely its enforcement.

But there was not evidence that they were discriminating against a protected class. They just didn't want to make a particular cake with a particular message. I don't think so. He was willing to make them a cake that says "Ben loves Stephen forever", but he did want not to put a picture of the two men on it or show them holding hands.He wasn't discriminating, he just had certain styles of cakes that he didn't want to make.He was willing to make a cake for a gay wedding. He just didn't want to put certain things on that cake. That's not discrimination.

It would work out just fine. But for some reason the christians just can't keep their mouths shut.As I said earlier:

quote:

---

"I don't want to", "I don't feel up to it", "I don't have the time", "I just ran out of flour".

​

There's countless ways to refuse service to people.

​

The problem come into play when you clarify your refusal by basing it against a protected class.

​

"I don't want to, because you're black."

​

These Christians who don't want to provide a service to gays can easily not do it and get away with it, but instead the are loudly proclaiming that its the gayness that's the reason they don't want to.

​

It can't just be the performing of the service that they object to, because they could easily get a way with that. That they're making this out to be some sort of stand against something shows that there's a lot more to it than the performing of the service.

---

We'll have to wait for the lawsuits to start rolling in to see whether your interpretation is correct or not.But I have a feeling the courts won't be so easily bamboozled by your 'technicalities'.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

What evidence of discrimination did you see?

You have no idea what Communism is do you?

I don't believe that to be correct statement of the law. When the EOC investigates businesses, they simply send in applicants and see who can or cannot be hired or who can or cannot obtain a rental contract. And of course racist renters don't tell black people that they are refusing to rent to black people. Instead, BS reasons are given for why Blacks don't get the apartment.Instead of waiting for overt racist statements, an inference is drawn from repeated behavior of denying black people jobs and apartments. Similarly, I don't believe that a cake baker can simply claim not to want to make a cake to all gay people who ask and so avoid the repercussions for discriminating. He is right except that the law places limits on your ability to choose your customers. There can be gray areas, which was the original point of my barbershop example. If you ever doubt that people (of any race) can be incompetent at cutting kinky hair or straight hair, get a hair cut at the local barber college. I respectfully disagree. It is of course, less likely that people will bother to sue you if there is a ready alternative. But a repeated pattern of not making gay cakes will reveal a pretext covering discrimination. That is how the law works.

You don't know what Political Correctness is. Just as Theodoric doesn't know what Communism is.

I was thinking along the lines of a singular case.Short of announcing that you won't serve protected class X, its too hard to prove discrimination when you just say that you don't feel like doing the work.But yeah, patterns of denial could be used to infer discrimination.