They were absolutely brought up as a red herring because the people bringing them up don’t believe in them.
And if they had their way, they would be as selective as they are accusing the Libs of being.
They would allow the baker to refuse to bake the cake AND they would call for Twitter to allow every speech, period.
They aren’t complaining about being “censored” on Twitter because a baker was being forced to bake a cake.
I’m not making claims. They are.
No.
Only in regards to protected classes. I reject your legalist attempt on the grounds that you are the beneficiary.
This is the key… the Baker being denied has nothing to do with the conservative grievance of lib censorship
PA laws only apply to the protected classes.
What part of PA law are they not required to enforce?
No, they are the basis for the rationalization of the very concept of public accommodation. It doesn’t matter who “believes in them”.
You can’t have that cake and eat it too.
Don’t do me any favors…specially when I’m well aware of tactic that’s being played here. You’re not smarter them me despite how much one convinced themselves.
Thus why those lacking the ability to have intellectual conversation is censoring opposing viewpoints.
If they weren’t being afraid of being challenged…they wouldn’t be supporting censorship as we clearly see libs here are doing.
Dancing around a simple yes or no.
It is really weird to attach one issue to another like one has something to do with the other.
We are now at a point where there is this argument that something that is unjust can only be met with more injustice.
It is a really strange position.
That literally makes no sense.
They’re your (c) arguments!
I asked you that question while back…and you never answered. Now you’re demanding I answer your?
Doesn’t work that way.
Yep. They have that right imo.
Sure it does. You just won’t see it.
Yet they don’t. That’s the point.
Todos en la cama or todos en el suelo.
Everybody in the bed or everybody on the floor.
It is a strange bit of logic that is being employed.
And I don’t recall said poster standing up for that bakers rights.
Or … and now hear me out… it was nonsense.
To the tune of Caveats?
Pot, Pot, this is Kettle, over.
No they’re not.
I didn’t start this thread.
I didn’t bring up PA laws.
And I have a decent enough memory. I can remember the debates we had on PA laws and who fell on what side of them.
That argument makes no sense.
The answer to what is seen as fascism (your words) isn’t advocating for the expansion of that fascism.
It is a silly argument on its face.
Hannity Community
The official community forum of Sean Hannity. Join the conversation with fellow conservatives on the issues that matter most.