The CNN host asked him to describe an example where religious people had suffered persecution as a result of being prevented from discriminating against gays and lesbians.
It certainly is a protection of religious freedom, when depraved news anchors like Cooper, offend the very religious sensibilities of people like Cooper. I mean, the very fact is religious people do suffer persecution to a degree, being castigated and worse for their beliefs from the left, and people like Cooper. But, he didn't even have to rely on just such an argument. Certainly others more adept, skillful at political rhetoric than Mr. Melvin here, would have have deployed some political rope-a-dope that would not have given Cooper such an overwhelming cheap victory.
Another very poorly phrased comment was Melvin's insistence that he didn't know anybody in Arizona who would discriminate against a "fellow human being." Saying it's not a matter of discriminating against another human being is a tough one to call, for Mr. Melvin.
Does this mean that a public photographer can’t refuse to take a picture of whatever he is asked to take by the LBGT community?
Supposing a single mother or a divorced woman wanted service- should someone have the right to refuse?
To refute the statement rebutting him, that Christians generally certainly do not discriminate against such persons. Cooper continued. He then threw in the statement at least twice, that Jesus was against divorce. Thus trying to tie in those that followed Jesus, could then withhold service.
Hypothetical questions could be used against Cooper. He could have been asked that if he needed a blood transfusion, would he willingly accept blood from a homosexual donor?
No doubt Cooper would dismiss such a question because the situation had not occurred.
I would say that anderson’s well worn and high mileage arse was kicked well and not the State Senator’s.
Anderson Goofer, the sub-human who brought you the Sandy Hook Hoax! You can rely on his judgment in all matters!
Actually, Cooper’s point is valid in that this seems to be another example of government passing a law for the sake of passing a law to solve a problem that really doesn’t exist. This is like passing a law to ban so-called “assault” rifles when the statistics show that “assault” rifles are the weapon of choice in less than 300 homicides a year nation-wide, which is significantly less than the number of homicides attributable to hands, feet, and hammers, or the number of deaths from drowning in backyard swimming pools. Legislative bodies should not be in the business of passing laws to solve hypothetical problems that my never become real problems.
No matter how they try to describe it, it still comes down to forcing someone else to do a job that they do not want to do, or be severely punished.
Now a total stranger off of the street can walk into your business and enslave you, and you can't do a thing about it.
-PJ