Do you think conservatives have the right not to be forced to bake cakes for queers?
If so, then how can you say it’s not OK for this business owner to deny service to someone she disagrees with?
We shouldn’t be like liberals, ya know?
The bakers did not refuse service. It was the creative design they refused. Sarah was actually asked to leave and not receive service. Get it?
She didn’t do more than sit and order food. She didn’t ask for anything special, she didn’t announce who her employer was. This is wrong. They need to be called on it. And the owner needs to pay through lost business, booted from business promotion board, etc. Heck, this county voted 62% for Trump. Bet they won’t appreciate being put on the map for an idiot business owner and community leader that is so bigoted and rude.
Lets just have civil war II and get it over with. We have all the guns anyway.
She had the right and we have the right to respond. She admitted herself they stayed in business 10 years by NOT doing this.
The bakers did not refuse service. It was the creative design they refused. Sarah was actually asked to leave and not receive service. Get it?
I somehow don’t think this one will “whine” (sic) it’s way to the supremes. Just a SWAG though.
I think the point is that, I prefer to do business with people I respect. It is OK for the Red Hen to deny service to Sarah Sanders. It is also OK for me to avoid patronizing them because of that decision. I do not respect how they run their business.
In the same vein, I believe people should be allowed to burn the American flag. I want to know who my enemies are.
i think there is a big difference between a religious conviction and being asked to do something that supports something that religion says is wrong and denying someone service because of where they work or their political opinions.
The SC ruling was only about religious beliefs
The baker did not refuse to bake cakes “for queers” (your words, not mine). The baker had both gay and straight customers. He objected on religious grounds to making a wedding cake for a same sex couple. The US Supreme Court concluded that Colorado was hostile to the baker’s religious beliefs in fining him for the refusal. The same people who thought the baker had to make the cake, regardless of his religious beliefs, are now saying that simply because Wilkinson hates the President it is okay for her to refuse service to a customer who works for him. Does that mean stores must post signs limiting services to only those who espouse a particular political philosophy? Does that mean a customer who gets seated and then has a political conversation while dining can be expelled if the waiter doesn’t like what he or she hears while delivering the food? I hope that is not where we are headed as a country.
The difference in the two situations is that Sarah left the restaurant in quiet dignity and with respect. The homosexuals pursued ruinous, hostile legal action against the baker and consider themselves revolutionaries instead of the petty, mean individuals they are. BTW, it was a blessing that Sarah left as opposed to having been served adulterated food that could cause illness within her family. I don’t know if you’re aware of how disgusting and vindictive some of those people can be. She came out of that situation smelling like a rose. Just my 2 cents.