Whatever you want to believe, dear.That sounded like a rather nervous ROFL. I think you know that inaction in the face of manifest injustice IS complicity and that you are, therefore, complicit.
Hurting someone's feelings isn't causing harm or damage.If we were merely discussing the exchange of opinions between people then you might have a point. We are, however, discussing actions of one party against the interests of another. That's something beyond disagreement. The actions of the owners caused harm and damaged, to put it in US constitutional terms, the gay couple's "liberty and pursuit of happiness".
What commitment? I don't commit anything to the government. I break the laws I disagree with if I want to. And try to change them. Should people be able to do what they want? Pretty much. As long as they're not causing physical harm to one another, stealing other's property, etc.Then what commitment do you have to abide by the laws of the land? Should everyone be free to behave in whatever manner their own conscience (or lack of such) sees fit? What role do you see the law playing in your society?
Hurting someone's feelings doesn't count as 'harm'.
I said that's how I see it. And it is.I think that is a narrow and insincere definition of justice. As with terms such as conservative, religion, law and liberal, justice may be written with a big or a small j and claiming otherwise is avoiding the matter.
Holy ****, seriously? I was using the word YOU used as an example of how ****ing stupid it was. You wanted to use "unfair" or "unjust" so I applied it the same way you did but with MY argument.Do you think I am not reading your posts? You said, (Post 305) "I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve." If you are now claiming that you meant to say "not RIGHT" then please define the difference between "unfair" (Post 305) and "not RIGHT" (Post 309).
Yes, they do. They lose the right to remove anyone they want from their property for any reason they want.They don't lose any property rights (however you might define those) by so doing, they just accept new social responsibilities by doing so.
And I disagree that they should lose rights when they open a business. I disagree with forcing a person to serve someone they don't want to serve. No one has a right to be served by someone else.The owners had every 'right' to discriminate against gays by not inviting them into their private home. By opening a business they converted their 'private' home into a 'public' business and had to accept the change in status and responsibilities that such a decision brought.