Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

Possi ly but we can at least say we attempted to bake them a cake that did not violate our faith beliefs. The fact they didnt like it is not our problem, we didnt force them to buy it or demand they must use us as their baker.

I wonder if the court would be so heavy handed with customers if as soon as they walked in the door the business owner demanded that they must buy whatever the business owner wanted to sell to them, regardless of whether they wanted to enter into the contract.


28 posted on 08/14/2015 12:02:50 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Secret Agent Man
Possi ly but we can at least say we attempted to bake them a cake that did not violate our faith beliefs. The fact they didnt like it is not our problem, we didnt force them to buy it or demand they must use us as their baker.

Your solution attempts to side step the issue rather than confronting it. In an effort to side step, you merely undermine the rights which need to be defended.

The right to associate with whomever you please, and the right to disassociate with whomever you please.

My position is simple. If someone doesn't want to bake you a cake, then that ought to be their choice. They do not have to tell you the reason why, they do not have to explain themselves, they have a free will right to engage in business with someone or not as they themselves choose, and it is contrary to the principle of freedom to force them to do otherwise.

This "Freedom" thing, encompasses the right to say "no."

58 posted on 08/14/2015 12:17:52 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson