RIP Gordon
http://www.dtman.com/forum3/
I think that's a different bakery than the SCOTUS case.GORDON wrote: Did that bakery go out of business?
Yes?
Then I guess it doesn't much matter, when the mob wants blood.
Aaron and Melissa Klein abruptly announced the closure of their Gresham, Ore., bakery three and a half years after they ignited a firestorm by proudly refusing service to a same-sex couple.
I know what your views are, and that you're not one who has blindly pledged allegiance to a letter.
This is a strawman. You assigned me a position that I didn't take. In this case equating fault on one thing to fault on all things. Seems textbook, yeah?Really? "It's the right's fault" is the answer? Let me do a follow up: Is anything not their fault?
Actually, it was claimed that the $130k fine was what put the Oregon store out of business. The up side is that the state business entity wrote their rules so widely that a 20 year old individual is now suing Walmart and Dick's for not selling him a long rifle. And he has a case.Troy wrote: I think so.
But for the one that closed - what are we mad about exactly? What'd the "mob" do?
"small business closes" is not exactly a conspiracy level event. "small business that refuses customers and gets bad pr" is even less so.
I can align myself to the idea of business making refusal decisions based on their beliefs. But are we supposed to what, subsidize these poor business decisions?
Interesting. So not the "mob" but the government. I wonder how the SCOUTS ruling will effect the fine? Seems the cases are similar enough enough to rule it unlawful.Vince wrote:Actually, it was claimed that the $130k fine was what put the Oregon store out of business. The up side is that the state business entity wrote their rules so widely that a 20 year old individual is now suing Walmart and Dick's for not selling him a long rifle. And he has a case.Troy wrote: I think so.
But for the one that closed - what are we mad about exactly? What'd the "mob" do?
"small business closes" is not exactly a conspiracy level event. "small business that refuses customers and gets bad pr" is even less so.
I can align myself to the idea of business making refusal decisions based on their beliefs. But are we supposed to what, subsidize these poor business decisions?
Not sure. Oregon might have been more even handed in their application. One of the things that hurt Colorado was that the same state entity that was ruling against the bakers was ruling in favor of the bakers that refused to decorate cakes with the passages from Leviticus in relation to homosexual activity. That goes back to the narrowness of the ruling. SCOTUS pretty much told them "You don't have to like them or even rule with them, but you can't pretend the first amendment doesn't mention religion". Not sure if it played into the ruling or not, but at the time of the incident that started the whole Masterpiece thing, gay marriage wasn't legal in CO anyway.Troy wrote: Interesting. So not the "mob" but the government. I wonder how the SCOUTS ruling will effect the fine? Seems the cases are similar enough enough to rule it unlawful.
No because it wasn't my intent. People should stop looking for strawmen and starting looking into intent. The world would be a better place.
I think the most important part of that one was the court saying that you can't make arguments against policy based on tweets if the tweets aren't in the policy. That will impact a lot of these nuisance lawsuits.TheCatt wrote: Latest travel ban upheld by Supreme Court
“In a democracy, of course, you always get a choice:
Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue? It's entirely up to you.
Do you want to be patronized or condescended to by liars or by crooks? You get to choose.
Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by con men or by charlatans?
In short, do you want your influence to be zero or nil?
And when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all?
It's your choice. Do you want some more choice?
Take it or leave it. Now there's a real choice.”
It didn't help that the restaurant across the street where Sanders' party ended up confirmed that the group followed her from the Red Hen to their restaurant and continued to harass her. So this well beyond their "right to refuse service".Leisher wrote: Restaurant owner who tossed Sanders "steps down" from city business post.
I'm guessing they allowed her to resign, but she was clearly forced out. I imagine a lot of the city's other businesses are facing blow back from pro-Trump businesses and people.
Here's the Fox clip. The guy from The Right Scoop queued it up to near the spot where the restaurant owner confirms Mike Huckabee's account, but they kind of missed the mark. Back it up further than his queue.