Neither do I. Like I said, I believe Colorado is in the wrong here. But I was responding to Martini’s further position that a private business should be allowed to do *anything* they want, and I just don’t agree.

There is a clear difference between catering to a certain demographic and banning anyone from buying there. For example, there’s nothing wrong with having an Afro-centric hair products store. But there is something wrong with them saying “no whites allowed.” I might never have a reason to shop there but I can’t be barred from doing so if I so please. Nor can I compel them to start selling Tea Tree Eucalyptus Shampoo by Paul Mitchell.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Tchefuncte Tiger

Bat'n Rudge

Member since Oct 2004

57169 posts

Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:41 am to RedRifle

quote:
At some level, Colorado itself gets it. Three times the state has declined to force pro-gay bakers to provide a Christian patron with a cake they could not in conscience create given their own convictions on sexuality and marriage. Colorado was right to recognize their First Amendment right against compelled speech. It’s wrong to deny Jack Phillips that same right.

So Colorado said its okay for a gay baker to refuse to bake a Christian-themed cake, but it's not okay for a Christian baker to bake a gay-themed cake. Wow.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by TH03

Mogadishu

Member since Dec 2008

171036 posts

Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:42 am to Cold Drink

quote:
There is a clear difference between catering to a certain demographic and banning anyone from buying there. For example, there’s nothing wrong with having an Afro-centric hair products store. But there is something wrong with them saying “no whites allowed.” I might never have a reason to shop there but I can’t be barred from doing so if I so please. Nor can I compel them to start selling Tea Tree Eucalyptus Shampoo by Paul Mitchell.

100% agree

Page 1 2 3