MSNBC was asking rhetorically, to a defender of religious liberty, if a Muslim merchant could refuse service to a woman who was not covering her head. I don’t recall the answer, probably a “Pence-ive” evasion. I would say yes. All over the place, you see signs denying service to those not dressed appropriately (No shirt, no shoes, no service, or even requiring formal dress)
A merchant should also have the right to restrict service based on behavior or the intended use of the product, like poison for suicide, or decorations for a Nazi event.
RE: MSNBC was asking rhetorically, to a defender of religious liberty, if a Muslim merchant could refuse service to a woman who was not covering her head
Why can’t the answer be ‘yes’?
He’s not the only merchant the woman can deal with.
EDIT TO ADD:
The defender of religious liberty can cite himself as an example.
I’d say, if I went to a CPAC convention and during the break, went to a bar owned by a liberal who upon hearing I am a CPAC supporter, refuses to serve me, I’d take my business someplace else. I don’t have to like the jerk, neither do I need to patronize his business.
But Why should I use the power of government to sue him out of business? As a defender of liberty, I don’t want to create more unemployment like liberals do.
For instance, no business is punished for turning down weird sex groups or so-called hate groups. But those groups are all legal. By lib reasoning, all businesses should be forced to work for the weird sex groups or the "hate" groups. No exceptions allowed.
I've read comments on various forums by homosexuals saying they're not a hate group. But the facts are they're considered a hate group by many people. They, libs, want it both ways...and I don't mean in just a sexual way.