- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1.)It's analogous because he said that skinheads have to be served by a black man in a restaurant.
2.)And let's say for the sake of argument that they said they were skinheads. It doesn't have anything to do with the debate.
3.)I'll ask you the question. The argument keeps coming up that public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who wants to be served.
4.) Do you believe everyone who walks into your business or asks you to engage in commerce with them must be served by you? General question.
1.) they dont HAVE to be served by law but they could be, in that case its VERY circumstantial but its still not analogous to gender, race etc
2.) I agree your example doesnt have anythign to do with the debate
3.) I havent seen that argument one time the way you word, could you link all these cases it was stated that way? also that is not what public accommodation means so if anybody said that they were simply mistaken
4.) of course not and neither does the law or rights