If you say so. We’ve had the same law in Oregon and Washington state for years. I’m not sure why it’s ok to fire someone for any reason other than not showing up or not doing the job. You already can’t fire someone based on their gender. This is no different.
It doesn’t matter if you’ve had it for centuries, it’s still wrong.
It’s “ok” because it’s my business, not ours.
Didn’t really answer the question.
How about this one.
Is it a violation of someone’s rights to say that one has the right to not sell to a Christian?
And how far are you willing to let that go?
What if the whole town was a band of rabid atheists and ran out of town every Christian? They wouldn’t sell to Christians and if any Christian crossed into their county they would in not so polite fashion have them leave as soon as possible.
What if that was the case?
Who owns the property to be sold?
It’s your right.
What you’re advocating is that goverment gave us that right…and thus pushing laws to validate those rights when in reality the concept of BoR’s is that goverment doesn’t grant rights.
Why aren’t you advocating keeping goverment out of your sex life?
I advocating keeping goverment out of my religion. Libs advocating keeping religion out of goverment.
I also advocating keeping goverment out of our sex life…but libs advocating for goverment involvement.
And you wonder why we view libs as hypocrites?
Or is it that you want goverment to impose your morality?
Here is the thing.
I am talking in broad historical terms. Not in philosophical platitudes.
So … if there was a town that was majority Atheist and they through means ran out the minority Christian and then after that refused to serve them or grant them any sort of right to do business in the county lines and if any of them showed up… they would in a not polite fashion be asked to leave. preferably before sundown … would that be okay?
If it’s what the people in that town wants…then so be it.
Same thing with Christian town…if they want a cross on main street why not?
Embrace the cultures, traditions and heritage differences.
Or is that too hard?
Good to know.
Thank you for being honest.
1 Like
Deviant reporting in. Shout out to all my fellow degenerates.
7 Likes
Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot.
1 Like
Wouldn’t this place be fun if Mayor Pete won in 2020?
3 Likes
Bigots are going to bigot. Nothing new.
You apparently have not been paying attention. This is about abiding by our Constitution and its defined and limited powers granted to Congress, and the will of the people as expressed during our Constitution’s amendment process. But hey, let one of our notable Chief Justices explain it to you.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void._ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
So, tell me, what is your problem with abiding by our written constitution and using its amendment process to accommodate the “rights” you desire?
JWK
Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court’s majority vote
What interest me are bigots that don’t know they’re bigots. 
2 Likes
The vast majority of the Democrat Party Leadership does not support and defend rights associated with property ownership. And especially so when it comes to confiscating the property which poor working people have earned by the sweat of their labor.
JWK
Democrat leaders claim to be advocates for hard working people. If that is so, why do they not promote an end to the unconstitutional “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the bread which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor?
Revenge?
Are you not a bigot?
Just more sour grapes over people who are different.
What’s funnier though is morons that don’t know they’re morons. Sometimes it’s fun to hear them babble. Like trump.
1 Like
