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

To: traderrob6
I'm not really interested in any "dissimilarity".

My point stands that they are both "Right to refuse service" cases.

I recognize this is a double edged sword, but for now I'm happy waiving it under the noses of the liberals to ask whether they condemn this anti-Christian action.

49 posted on 12/05/2022 9:52:14 AM PST by G Larry ( "woke" means 'stupid enough to fall for the promotion of every human weakness into a virtue')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: G Larry

They are “Right to refuse service cases” only in a rudimentary sense and hence would likely be decided differently because they ARE NOT analogous.

In the Colorado case the Supreme Court found that while the baker did need to serve gay couples, they were not obligated to express pro-gay messages.

This situation however is strictly a refusal of service that would be routinely provided to anyone that did not profess religious beliefs differing from the provider.

If the restaurant would have been tasked with providing a desert that espoused a pro-life position and they refused, the circumstance would be equivalent.

https://huckleberry.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service/


55 posted on 12/05/2022 10:42:42 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | 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