misterwhite (#33) Yeah. I miss Roscoe.

You would. Tooconservative

Roscoe was such an obvious White clone/idiot, that most here miss him, as a whipping boy.

Free Roscoe!

Does he throw out everyone he doesn't like?

Stone does. It's legal to be a authoritarian ahole in the USA. Lucky for you!

If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want, and you don't have to bake them gay wedding cakes or whatever.

Presumably Stone would ban Donny Trump for promoting the gay agenda.

Maybe he doesn't want to come back because he thinks I'm an asshole. I think that is it.

Most people on this chit-chat forum know and understand that you are an asshole. So, you haven't added to our collective knowledge.

I was wondering why so many said Red State embellished and added. The video is quite clear he threw them out. And used all that gay nasty language.

I was wondering why so many said Red State embellished and added.

The Christians never said that they went there to "relax", that was added at Redstate. Why are there no quote marks around the relax shuck 'n jive?

Because they never said any such thing.

There are several quotes from the Christians as well as the video, but nothing about them going there to relax.

If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want

Not if you run a public accomodation, such as a place that serves food.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/public-accommodations-equal-rights.html

Public Accommodations at the Federal Level

Through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal government prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of the following: race, color, religion, national origin, and disability. The federal government does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. However, numerous states protect against age, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity discrimination.

Not if you run a public accommodation, such as a place that serves food.

I saw a few of them with coffee cups. So they were served their beverages.

So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?

So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?

It depends. IF you are a faggot. You get to stay and watch the dude butt fuck his butt buddy.

The guy did says something about doing that.

I agree with this filthy cum guzzling sperm burper... he should have the right to kick anyone out of his business. By the same ideology, a cake maker should be able to tell a faggot to fuk off, leave, when they want a faggot cake.

It depends. IF you are a faggot. You get to stay and watch the dude butt fuck his butt buddy.

Well, as entertaining as that might be, I was trying to ask nolu about accommodation law.

They were served beverages and went upstairs to relax and hang out, just like any other customers.

So if they were served in a coffee shop, does that constitute compliance with the requirement to serve all without discrimination? Or, if the coffee shop offers seating inside for all other customers, are you discriminating by asking the Christians to leave because you don't like literature they distributed elsewhere in the neighborhood?

Since the accommodation laws are written in terms of forbidding all discrimination, it seems to me that the shop owner did discriminate in telling these people they had to leave while allowing other customers to sit in the coffee shop, use the restrooms, browse books, use Wi-Fi, etc.

I'd like to see these Christians get a lawyer and sue this coffee bitch into the seventh circle of hell.

Not if you run a public accomodation

May a horde of gays demanding service descend on every public accommodation you enter.

Perhaps that will change your love for illegal unconstitutional legislation?

So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?

So why is that a problem as long as they are not bothering anyone else?

I bet you had no problem with the bakery being sued out of business because their Christian beliefs caused them to politely refuse to provide for a wedding for reasons that violated their beliefs.

So why is that a problem as long as they are not bothering anyone else?

It isn't. I'm speaking of whether they are denying an accommodation to these Christians based on their subjective belief that the Christians had distributed political literature elsewhere that the homo barista found objectionable.

I bet you had no problem with the bakery being sued out of business because their Christian beliefs caused them to politely refuse to provide for a wedding for reasons that violated their beliefs.

I've supported the Christians in all these RFRA cases. I don't get as lathered up over them as some of you do.

However, that bakery refused service entirely to the homo. In this case, the homo barista did serve them their coffee but refused to allow them to stay and enjoy the premises as he allowed others to do, all based on his objection to their freedom of speech activities elsewhere in the neighborhood. But he did clearly discriminate against them and admitted it was because of their free speech activities that were conducted entirely outside his establishment.

They should find a lawyer or get one of these generally useless Christian legal defense foundations like ACLJ to represent them.

But thanks for the baseless accusation all the same.

However, that bakery refused service entirely to the homo.

Well, it's not like the fag could sit down and hold his wedding there.

Also this was a long term event. They are dozens of places they could have gone to get a wedding cake. it's not like he came in from the street looking for a place to relax.

But i will agree with you that this is a civil matter.

If you own the place, you can pitch out whomever you want, and you don't have to bake them gay wedding cakes or whatever.

I agree you should be able to do that, but the law says otherwise.

So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?

"Here's your filet mignon sir, now take it outside and eat in on the sidewalk".

It should be a fundamental right of any American businesses owner to not cater or sell to anyone for ANY reason... and be able to ask ANYONE for ANY reason to leave property owned by them.

I agree. If his business suffers because of his decision, it's on him.

What about a restaurant taken over by Nazi bikers? Being forced to accommodate them results in the owner losing all his other customers. He goes out of business. Will the federal government compensate him?

What about a restaurant taken over by Nazi bikers?

I remember a number of years ago when I would hang out in such places, I would see signs saying "locals only" for a a select area of the establishment.

It was obvious this was meant for bikers traveling through. They were hardly locals.

It should be a fundamental right of any American businesses owner to not cater or sell to anyone for ANY reason... and be able to ask ANYONE for ANY reason to leave property owned by them.

Of course. It *should* be. BUT ISN'T (as illustrated by several high-profile cases -- including the CHRISTIAN baker, the CHRISTIAN florist, etal. that went to court and/or were sued out-of-business.)

THIS incident was intended only to underscore the hypocrisy and unequal application of the law in OTHER CASES. And that was the point being scored by the Christian coffee drinkers.

MOREOVER, it also underscored the disgusting degree of hatred, cowardice, contempt and militancy of the typical Homofascist (as well as a pro-atheist judiciary) of and for Christians.

I saw a few of them with coffee cups. So they were served their beverages.

So is that enough or do you have to let them sit at your tables and hang out?

IF a business establishment has tables intended FOR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION AND USE, guess what?

I remember a number of years ago when I would hang out in such places, I would see signs saying "locals only" for a a select area of the establishment.

It was obvious this was meant for bikers traveling through. They were hardly locals.

Gonna guess it was NOT in the Seattle/SF area.

"Here's your filet mignon sir, now take it outside and eat in on the sidewalk".

Heh....

"Here's your filet mignon sir, now take it outside and eat in on the sidewalk". ...

"...while we continue to allow all the other customers to sit and enjoy their food in our dining room."

Exactly.

I strongly suspect THESE types of animals have infested every level of gubmint.

EDIT: As well as the MSM, Hollywood, Music Industry, Tech Industry, Social Media outlets...well...basically like termites they've infested and infected nearly every business and institution.

"...while we continue to allow all the other customers to sit and enjoy their food in our dining room."

If that's the rest of the equation...

Isn't this entire public accommodation thing either all or nothing?

I agree. If his business suffers because of his decision, it's on him.

That's what makes a capitalist society great... if you hate too many as a business owner, you'll go out of business.

My father, a successful business owner always told me... that money is the same color green from everyone.

I would normally warn readers of the foul language, but given this is LF....

HA!!

(although I have seen some salty language over at JR's Bar and Grill.)

The degree of hatred and contempt these sick mutants have for Jesus Christ is off the chart. I have absolutely NO doubt that this animal is demon-possessed.

The ranting about sodomy was real special, wasn't it? Maybe the guy should be an elementary school teacher. OR 'SCHOOL CZAR'.

OH WAIT. Remember 0bama's guy? The Liberal-Prog pro-Antifa/BLM/Homofascist Media LOVED him:

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES - The Washington Times - Monday, September 28, 2009

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an “older man.” At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse.

That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama’s “safe school czar.” It’s getting hard to keep track of all of this president’s problematic appointments.

Isn't this entire public accommodation thing either all or nothing?

That's what I thought.

They really should sue, let the Ninth Circus decline and then take it to the USSC.

There is also the broad principle of "equal protection under the laws" in their favor as mentioned at the end of Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment.

That's what makes a capitalist society great... if you hate too many as a business owner, you'll go out of business.

My father, a successful business owner always told me... that money is the same color green from everyone.

Well GI -- Dad was right; Only that model for business and philosophy was allowed to flourish during a DIFFERENT ERA of common sense, logic, and respect. (Btw, are you at liberty to tell us generally or specifically the type of business Dad ran?)

Pops likely ran his successful business before the local goob was hijacked by over-officious Commie/homofascist jackasses; OR, before the courts were taken over and judges allowed to harass and abuse their authoritah with political/philosophical axes to grind.

The color of money these days is apparently BROWN. Sh** brown as a result of corrupt pro-homofascist judges whose decisions are purely political or compensated to support pro-queer case decisions.

There is also the broad principle of "equal protection under the laws" in their favor as mentioned at the end of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Why is it the ""equal protection under the laws" always seems ambiguous in cases AGAINST conservative causes, but specific and in support of in cases affecting the radical/homo cause?

Just sayin'....

However, that bakery refused service entirely to the homo. In this case, the homo barista did serve them their coffee but refused to allow them to stay and enjoy the premises as he allowed others to do, all based on his objection to their freedom of speech activities elsewhere in the neighborhood. But he did clearly discriminate against them and admitted it was because of their free speech activities that were conducted entirely outside his establishment.

I don't think there is one case of a Christian baker refusing general services to homosexuals. It was when they wanted customized cakes for specific same sex ceremonies.

The only comparison I can make is if the Christians in the coffee shop wanted their paper cups emblazoned with specific Christian symbols like a cross or ichthus. Apparently they did not, and only ordered coffee.

THIS incident was intended only to underscore the hypocrisy and unequal application of the law in OTHER CASES. And that was the point being scored by the Christian coffee drinkers.

Yes that was the point which many miss.

MOREOVER, it also underscored the disgusting degree of hatred, cowardice, contempt and militancy of the typical Homofascist (as well as a pro-atheist judiciary) of and for Christians.

Truth. The leftists and SJW in particular believe tolerance is defined by what they mean it to be.

What an absolutely disgusting homofascist display of hate, contempt, and...yes, demonic possession.

If I was there...heh...and the barista owner said "what if I sodomized my partner right here" I would have responded "I did not know the coffee house was zoned for a gay bath house."

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Ah yes the catch all clause. The fake Satanists are hard at work trying to break that clause.

Why is it the ""equal protection under the laws" always seems ambiguous in cases AGAINST conservative causes, but specific and in support of in cases affecting the radical/homo cause?

Just sayin'....

Par for the course.

However, many of these states which we see Christians prosecuted are due to unConstitutional local or state laws/ordinances.

So we have the 14th cited in quite a few cases against Christians, yet the 1st Amendment "protects" the free exercise of religion. The Constitution does not protect the free exercise of sodomy promotion, but as we know for homosexuals it is truly a religion. ;)

The liberal view is free exercise of religion stops with an individual's basic civil rights (read 14th Amendment). Some states, take this view as 'gospel' truth and so do the leftist courts.

This is why the Christian baker case before the SCOTUS will be the Roe v. Wade of religious liberty in these United States.

If ruled in favor of the Christian baker, a lot of state and city ordinances will be null and void.

If ruled in favor of the Christian baker, a lot of state and city ordinances will be null and void.

One thing we know: Gorsuch is not timid. Not in arguments before the Court, not in conference, not in deference to Roberts. And he's been voting in lockstep with Clarence Thomas so far.

Of course, Anthony Kennedy is probably sensing a prime opportunity to stab us in the back, no matter what his former clerk is up to.

One thing we know: Gorsuch is not timid. Not in arguments before the Court, not in conference, not in deference to Roberts. And he's been voting in lockstep with Clarence Thomas so far.

Of course, Anthony Kennedy is probably sensing a prime opportunity to stab us in the back, no matter what his former clerk is up to.

For the question of the Christian baker it is truly testing the extent of the 1st Amendment. The homosexual plaintiffs do not have much to go with except a very loose interpretation of "equal protections." They can't even cite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it specifically states no discrimination of "race, color, religion, or national origin."

Whereas the coffee guzzling Christians do indeed have a case against the barista owner as we see below.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, , or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

Now of course atheists of the New Atheist brand are not slackers and are now using the temple of Satan to mask their intents of gay "rights."

There's also an attempt in Missouri for a self proclaimed Satanist who has a civil case against the State to remove pre abortion mandatory counseling as she said is religious in nature and not accepted by her 'religion' of Satanism.

Satanist sues Missouri over abortion laws

I think she will lose as her premise is human life beginning at conception is a religious view. When in fact life beginning at conception is a biological fact. That she is a science denier won't help unless she gets an all liberal court.

The State's Attorney General should know human life begins at conception as is abundantly clear:

Human Development

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, , or national origin.

I was going to quote the exact same thing in my earlier post but wasn't sure how the 1964 act has been altered in EOs or subsequent legislation. I think it has sex or gender in there now. I know 0bama was trying to do that via regulatory authority but I don't think he succeeded.

Maybe nolu is up to date on the statutes and regulatory changes.

I was going to quote the exact same thing in my earlier post but wasn't sure how the 1964 act has been altered in EOs or subsequent legislation. I think it has sex or gender in there now. I know 0bama was trying to do that via regulatory authority but I don't think he succeeded.

The Executive branch can impose such but only within the power of the branch. So Obama did extend such rights to the military and fed gov agencies but not impose such on the States. That is my understanding.

The emperor also did so for transgenders but looks like Trump pulled the carpet.

I think we are both a little unsure exactly what the current state of the laws and regulations are after 0bama's unlawful orders and Trump's recissions of much of them.

There have been no SCOTUS decisions expanding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to homosexuals.

There have been attempts in conference committees to bring forth legislation to extend these rights but have all been buried. They will now remain so as long as there is a GOP House and Senate.

This is how the Zer0 admin tried but now being torpedoed by Sessions:

N.Y. / Region

Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gays 1789

Attorney General Jeff Sessions boarding a plane on Thursday for a trip to El Salvador, where he will meet with local leaders about fighting gang violence. PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS / ASSOCIATED PRESS By ALAN FEUER JULY 27, 2017 The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

The department’s move to insert itself into a federal case in New York was an unusual example of top officials in Washington intervening in court in what is an important but essentially private dispute between a worker and his boss over gay rights issues.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the Justice Department said in a friend- of-the-court brief, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”

The department filed its brief on Wednesday, the same day President Trump announced on Twitter that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military, raising concerns among civil rights activists that the Trump administration was trying to undermine lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights won under previous administrations.

Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gays

There have been no SCOTUS decisions expanding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to homosexuals.

Except for Obergefell which granted gay marriage and associated legal rights.

Except for Obergefell which granted gay marriage and associated legal rights.

A good point. Which begs the question on what Obergefell hangs it hat? What precedence? None that I know of other than the very loose use of the 14th Amendment.

Only that model for business and philosophy was allowed to flourish during a DIFFERENT ERA of common sense, logic, and respect. (

Back then, there were neighborhood stores and voluntary segregation, so it was rare to see a negro among white shoppers. And vice-versa. You had to go shopping "downtown" to see minorities. At least, that was my experience growing up.

Neighborhood integration and shopping malls came later.