Why would anyone who has any particular conviction, be that faith, political, moral etc. would want to expose themselves to situations where their conviction can be challenged? It does not take an inordinate level of intellect to extrapolate that by working in retail, for example, one will need to serve a great variety or people. Of course, the higher the level of skill and knowledge required the easier that conclusion should be reached. Is it not only rational for someone who uncontrollably fears HIV to not become and EMT? Why is it that some expect the environment around them to accommodate them, instead of themselves either accommodating to the environment they choose or avoid it all together?
Yes, that would seem reasonable, at least on the surface and I quite sure that in a large metropolitan area probably that is what would happen, especially if the caterer managed to convey their objection in a civil and respectful way. But unfortunately it is not always that simple or easy. There are small towns where there is not abundance of caterers from which one can select. Then of course there is an underlying principle. Today the caterer, tomorrow the pharmacist, then the ambulance arriving to the scene of an accident, then the doctor. Can you see where this could end?I happen to have a Gay son and, though it doesn't matter in this case, am in favor of Gay marriage. But if there was a wedding and someone felt uncomfortable doing the catering I would find another caterer.
Actually all reasonable and rational people feel that way. Your need to label those who do not share your position only demonstrates that you are not one of those and still do not see the bigger issue due to your personal convictions.The Leftists seem to believe that this is a victory for a freer and more open society
We do that almost every day in our lives. If we cannot exercise our personal discretion then we lose a basic freedom.
I'm in the tourism industry and have refused service perhaps five times over 25 years to people because of their attitudes. They could have sued me and may have succeeded, but I felt they were being rude either to me or staff and told them they were not welcome. I used my discretion and each time I was correct and was more than willing to face the financial loss.It does not take an inordinate level of intellect to extrapolate that by working in retail, for example, one will need to serve a great variety or people. Of course, the higher the level of skill and knowledge required the easier that conclusion should be reached. Is it not only rational for someone who uncontrollably fears HIV to not become and EMT? Why is it that some expect the environment around them to accommodate them, instead of themselves either accommodating to the environment they choose or avoid it all together?
It is a small town where there are few gays getting married or asking Memories pizza to cater. It was a hypothetical question.Yes, that would seem reasonable, at least on the surface and I quite sure that in a large metropolitan area probably that is what would happen, especially if the caterer managed to convey their objection in a civil and respectful way. But unfortunately it is not always that simple or easy. There are small towns where there is not abundance of caterers from which one can select. Then of course there is an underlying principle. Today the caterer, tomorrow the pharmacist, then the ambulance arriving to the scene of an accident, then the doctor. Can you see where this could end?
I would pleased to cater a Gay wedding were I in the business but may have refused some other type of function where I felt me or my employees felt uncomfortable. It's discretion.
Yes, we all have our convictions, though some are proving flexible and temporary, and others can ignore them if not respect them.Actually all reasonable and rational people feel that way. Your need to label those who do not share your position only demonstrates that you are not one of those and still do not see the bigger issue due to your personal convictions.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.