THIS CAN GET TOUCHY. If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims “his religion” forbids him from serving blacks, I don’t think he’ll have much of a case.
When last I checked, homosexuality was a choice, not a race!
A business should be free to serve whomever they wish. Consumers should be free to patronize whomever they wish. If a bakery refuses to sell for a “same sex union,” I'll choose to do business with them. If a restaurant refuses to serve a black person, I'll do business elsewhere.
Why should anyone fear freedom?
In court then he would have to produce the evidence that his religion did indeed specify such -- but such is not the case we are talking about on this thread: what we have here is very obviously some people trying to control another's freedom of conscience.
Why? The old Son of Cain argument could still hold sway with some. What compelling reason of the state is there to trample over someone's rights? Because that was what was supposed to be required in these inane laws - it must have a compelling reason: a compelling reason isn't having to frequent another business, or even frequenting a business which is a bit of a drive. In the context of this thread, EVERY cake business would have to start refusing to make cakes for the ceremony that gays like to pretend is marriage, and no business pops up to take advantage of the huge (HAHAHAH) hole in the marketplace.
This isn't the case here, or the case in many laws now imposed by states and the federal government. None can handle the slightest bit of examination when it comes to examining the reason behind the law.
THIS CAN GET TOUCHY. If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims “his religion” forbids him from serving blacks, I don’t think he’ll have much of a case.
US civil rights code would override a state constitution, but that is not the case here. YET (Barack has promised to do something about it as soon as he can)