The principle was established in the 60’s when courts ordered restaurant owners to serve blacks.
The vital difference being that it's not abnormal,or immoral,to be black whereas....
Not a comparable thing at all.
Despite the fact that restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And still do.
Everything now is coming down to our lives decided by some PC judiciary. More signs of 3rd world-— where you have to know/bribe the judge for justice.
This should be appealed. Noone HAS to serve, in the business they own, just anyone. This is like saying a private business is a public toilet facility— must serve, as public accomodation. It’s a photography business. They could have taken their business elsewhere- instead, let’s hassle with a lawsuit to make our point. But— they are still queers.
I can not tell if someone is a homosexual unless they tell me. (I can guess but not know for sure)
Being black is obvious, there is a huge difference.
Yep, we’ve not had the right to freedom of association for over a half century.