Posted on 08/23/2013 8:20:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You “don’t oppose gay marriage” and the story “seems” wrong. But you’re “conservative, right?
Do you carry a pic of Chris Christy in your wallet by any chance?
It’s people like you that enable this bovine excrement.
“Find another photographer”?
Its all set up. The fag lobby goes around the country purposely picking these fights. Of course they could another photog!
My question is what will be the result when the gay lobby demands access to your children to be exploited for sexual purposes and that is their ultimate goal and is in the works with the continued defining deviancy down animals. You then being a parent or grandparent deny them access based on religious views or just plain common decency and common sense. Will the courts demand we comply and hand over our children to be abused in the name of civil rights?
Isn’t it interesting that the State used to MANDATE racial discrimination, and now the State PROHIBITS discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs? Funny how the State never settles on a middle position—freedom.
The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court thinks it’s okay for the government to force you to buy something you don’t want.
Why shouldn’t the courts think it’s okay to force you to sell something you don’t want to sell too?
RE: The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court thinks it’s okay for the government to force you to buy something you don’t want.
Actually his reasoning is the government can TAX you for not buying something they want you to buy.
If he were to apply this logic consistently, he can also say the government can TAX a business for refusing service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation.
See... when you start a ball rolling, it’s difficult to stop it.
I get that. It’s not the penalty that is the issue here, it’s the concept. Punishment for not purchasing something the government says you have to have.
You’re quite right, though. Once the government goes all in, they are all the way in, and those who object on religious or any other grounds are all the way out.
A very popular bar at one of the beaches in Delaware had gone no-smoking long before they put in the smoking ban. The owner fought that ban as hard as the owners who wanted to keep allowing smoking because such a ban would destroy the niche he had made for himself. His booming business went down the tubes. It was a shame. On the other hand, another owner claimed he knew his customers would prefer smoke free, but he was afraid he would lose too much business if he went that way when others didn't have to. I rubbed my hands in glee when he went out of business.
You rubbed your hands in glee over a business owner who made a purposeful, and rational, choice that turned out to be wrong?
You obviously have never been in business for yourself.
You totally misunderstood my comment. I supported the man who was non smoking in his fight against the ban. It was the guy who wouldn't go smokefree until everyone else was forced to do so that I was happy to see hurt.
You obviously have never been in business for yourself.
Ive been self-employed for nearly 30 years.
Any other mistakes you care to make about my post?
That's the mistake I was pointing out.
The taking of private property by the government without compensation issue has been around a long time. I son't need to cover that ground again.
The fact that you enjoyed seeing someone else hurt over the unconstitutional seizing of this restaurateur owner's property tells me what kind of person you are.
If you find the original story, they found another photographer. Then they filed a discrimination complaint.
The fact you still insist on misunderstanding my point tells me what kind of person you are.
HE is the one that insisted the government do it - he wanted the unconstitutional seizing of the restaurant property of other owners because he was too afraid to try going smoke free on his own because he was afraid he would lose business to the ones who chose to still welcome smokers.
That you are defending someone for pushing the use of government force against other business owners to force them to do something he was afraid to do makes absolutely no sense to me.
You also missed another point. The (Democrat controlled) government passed laws that said restaurants had to be segregated.
We need to reclaim our freedom of association in this country and our freedom to not associate if we choose.
EXACTLY!
I did misunderstand you.
I didn’t realize that restaurant owner was the one who was able to force the government to seize his property, along with everyone else’s.
That absurd notion (the basis of which is key to your scenario) changes everything, and has me cheering for his demise too.
I was under the misimpression that the restaurant owner simply didn’t have the risk taking personality (or maybe bank account?) to venture out there on his own.
Having been in the position of not having the capital to take certain risks myself, even when I thought they were good risks, I hope you’ll understand me when I say that that’s where I started from first. My error.
VIVA EMANATE DOMAIN!
No problem.
The guy that took the chance on a non smoking bar was doing well and didn’t want to see others forced to go non smoking. The guy who didn’t want to take such a chance, but personally wanted to go non smoking, decided it was best to support the government forcing everyone to do it.
I supported the first guy and was sorry to hear his business was hurt. It was the owners who pushed for and supported the ban who I felt no such regret - and I hope I helped with the demise of some of them, because the minute I knew they were supporters of it - their establishments went off my radar and I have never set foot in any of their establishments again (those that still exist, that is.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.