If he had refused to do it, wouldn’t that have been rather hypocritical of the “gay community”?
Yes - how intolerant it would have been for him to discriminate against an opposing opinion.
Nope, a lose-lose situation, according to him, he just wanted to reason and encourage Ted Cruz over to the lefty persuasion, but apparently, just inviting some right-wing guy over to your place to try and talk your side is an awful sin to these immature, whining, deviants.
I’m just wondering if a refusal to host the event would have made the owners liable under anti-discrimination laws in New Jersey. Or does their law contain the gay-friendly “hateful/hurtful speech” escape clause that permits the state to say no discrimination when services are refused because the message criticizes the favored class or the speaker, even when not addressing gay issues, is hostile to the gay community?
The “gay community” can be a real pain in the rear. Seriously, gays are allowed to be “single issue” oriented so regardless of what else a candidate believes they cannot vote for anyone who believes in the sanctity of holy matrimony. They just cannot understand why after years of brainwashing by the media and Hollywood there are so many who still believe that homosexuality is a perversion and not normal. These are the same people who rant that Darwin is correct but do not understand that natural selection does not support homosexuality.