1.) Rules? It's the law that matters. You claim that the baker's actions were "criminal" and that he had engaged in "illegal discrimination".
2.)So the question is, what exactly constitutes illegal discrimination?
3.)Let's take the Colorado case that will be heard by SCOTUS later this year. Colorado law states that in places of public accommodation, "denial of service" based on a persons "Sexual Orientation" is prohibited.
Here are 3 facts about the case:
A) Over the more than 40 years Jack Phillips had been a baker prior to refusing to bake the same sex wedding cake, he was never found to have, or had ever been accused of, refusing service to homosexual customers.
B) Jack Phillips told the couple he would not bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriages because it violated his religious beliefs.
C) Jack Phillips said to the men that he would gladly sell them any other baked goods his shop offered, including making a birthday cake for them.
4.)Those 3 factual statements clearly show that Jack Phillips didn't refuse to serve gay men, he refused to serve a specific event that violated his religious beliefs. The law prohibits businesses from discriminating against people based on who or what they are, but not from discriminating against certain ceremonies or events that they find to be religiously or morally objectionable.
5.) Jack Phillips offering to make the couple a birthday cake, but not a cake for a same sex wedding, proves that his "denial of service" wasn't discrimination based on the men's sexual orientation, but an objection to the event they wanted him to create it for.
6.) You can spin it however you like
7.) but the government legally forcing a business owner violate their conscience and religious beliefs in order to conduct business, is not in line with the principals of freedom the country was founded upon. The left claim to be the tolerant ones in our society who embrace and celebrate diversity... unless of course you're talking about tolerance of religious beliefs or diversity of thought, then tolerance and diversity goes out the window, as your posts on this subject have demonstrated.
.
1.) it ALL matters no matter your feelings
2.) theres no question the people involved were found to be in violation, again your feelings simply dont matter to the facts
3.) more meaningless feelings of yours
all three are meanignless would you like me to prove it? suuuuuuure no problem.
A.)what about he hired women, gays or blacks for 40 years but NEVER made them a supervisor because they were woman, gay or black would that magically make it NOT make it discrimination? yes or no
your point A fails and it would factually be discrimination
B.) whoopty doo If he said he wouldn't hire women, gays or blacks because of his religious beliefs does it matter? nope
your point B fails and it is is still factually discrimination
C.) still meaningless, what if he gave the women, gays or blacks any other job he had but they cant be bosses because they are women, gays or black
point C fails because why? you guessed it still factually discrimination
4.) Factually 100% wrong as i just proved above,it shows he is STILL factually discriminating and your lies dont change that
5.) already proven wrong see #4 you are again PROVING you are severely uneducated about this specific topic or dishonest, pick one.
6.) no spin at all, all the points your made were just embarrassingly and factually destroyed
7.) good thing the government isnt doing that and you still havent provided any examples of such of the government doing that or views. Im a christian myself and the law totally protects me and theres no violation of rights or religion here. Try again.
SO here we are in the same place, facts winning and yo not able to refute them or provide any facts to support the lies you posted so ill ask you again.
Please post one fact that makes your lies true. Post a person being forced to open a public access business, then forced to break the law . . .go ahead . . we are waiting, thanks!
)
