[Political Junkie Too]

“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same sex couples the same product or service.”

I would think that they aren't "customers" until contracts are signed and money changes hands.

Aren't these discrimination laws meant to keep businesses from charging a different price for minorities, or giving lesser quality products for the same price, not say who is or isn't a "customer?"

By their reasoning, can I make a home movie and then go to my local theater and demand that they show it, because I'm a "customer" and they show other people's movies so the have to show mine, too?

Is that how it works now?

-PJ

[longtermmemmory]

so if a fetishist has an animal sex orientation, the florist has to supply that “wedding”?

This is not about race, or an immutable trait. This is about a recreational sex fetish.

[FourtySeven]

Indeed.

Whatever happened to all those signs we used to see in Mom & Pop stores? “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?” Has that gone by the wayside now?

Or will my local 7-11 now ( or soon ) be forced to serve shirtless, shoeless “customers”?

Because you’re exactly right: until money changes hands and/or contracts are signed, there’s no “ customer/ vendor” relationship.

I suppose this crowd will tell us: No WAY will any store be forced to serve people without shoes or shirts. Yeahhh, riiiight, where have we heard that kind of “ assurance” before?

Besides, what ever happened to the good ole fashioned American right to simply not patronize a business? Isn’t it good enough that you have the right to NOT shop somewhere, you have to force others to not patronize the same location?

Yeahhh, the left is all about “ tolerance”. Here’s an idea: why don’t the homosexuals go to another flower shop ? I doubt there is a shortage of flower shops that sympathize with them.