For example, if the coffee shop saw Christians saying grace before eating and drinking, throwing them out would be doing so for their free exercise.

They had already been served and gone upstairs to a reading room before the owner, probably tipped off by some busybody, found out what kind of literature they handed out and came up to demand that they leave.

If he served them, I'm not sure how you would sue him. He provided the beverages and bakery-made goods (if any) that he had on display. I'm not sure that public accommodation includes a right to be seated if other customers are claiming that you upset them.

I suspect he was kicking them out for trying to convert Teh Gays from sodomy to Christianity

Something along those lines -- but not in the coffee shop which, again, is the key point.

I'm not sure that public accommodation includes a right to be seated if other customers are claiming that you upset them.

Good point! I think they used that loophole in the 50's when blacks demanded a seat at the counter -- "No can do. It'll upset the whites."

Something along those lines -- but not in the coffee shop which, again, is the key point.

True enough. No one has alleged they were proselytizing in the coffee joint.

They might have been wearing their abolitionist T-shirts or had other abolitionist gear. Some of the abolitionist T-shirts are pretty graphic stuff with aborted babies all chopped up and such. There are a lot of restaurants that would not want you to wear that kind of stomach-churning stuff in their business.

Looking at the pamphlet, it seems they were trying to convert gays to pro-life, not to get them to dump their sodomy lifestyles and become Christians.

This is a very aggressive pro-life group, they refer to themselves as abolitionists.

I think you agree that if that was their sole message they're in the wrong neighborhood.

Or maybe you believe those fundies just happened to find a coffee shop owned by a homo IN SEATTLE by accident,because there are so many of them and so few owned and operated by heterosexuals or people who keep their sexual orientation to themselves?

When was the last time you were in Seattle? It's the second largest gay haven next to San Francisco.

I think they used that loophole in the 50's when blacks demanded a seat at the counter -- "No can do. It'll upset the whites."

If they were wearing graphic bloody T-shirts, that is very different from refusing to seat someone because of their skin color.

And you forget: these abolitionists were served their orders.

In Selma and Birmingham, they were not allowed to sit or to be served, per state law.

Not the same. And I'm not going to spend the day explaining why. Because this is kind of a dumbass thread to begin with.

To: sneakypete (#12)

I think Stone banned him again. He hasn't surfaced over at 4um yet though he reads and posts over there too on pretty much a daily basis.

Maybe he's busy with his new tractor. I was hoping he'd tell us how he likes it.

Why would faggots care one way or the other about abortion?

I have no idea.

Well, I do.

They all support everything anti-Christian, anti-socialist, anti-white people and have been taught to behave that way. They are indoctrinated idiots.

Frankly I have seen no seen no evidence that this Christian group behaved in any way other than what they said.

I think you agree that if that was their sole message they're in the wrong neighborhood.

You should find out more about these abolitionists. They are small but very aggressive.

Not like the Westboro church bunch but a lot more aggressive than your run-of-the-mill pro-lifers.

"phucking stupid."

You voted for TRUMP? You are a phreaking phucking stupid retard, incapable of realizing your voter responsibilities.

Frankly I have seen no seen no evidence that this Christian group behaved in any way other than what they said.

I didn't say that they did.

If they were wearing graphic bloody T-shirts, that is very different from refusing to seat someone because of their skin color.

Yeah. Or if they brought with them actual aborted fetuses.

Then again, the article mentioned neither. So maybe we can put the speculation behind us.

You voted for TRUMP? You are a phreaking phucking stupid retard, incapable of realizing your voter responsibilities.

Sorry that Mrs. Bill Clinton thing didn't come through for you.

Maybe next time, comrade.

You've mistaken me for someone who actually gives a shit about this non-story.

He said in post #61.

I don't want to call you "phucking stupid." but it seems like you missed his point.

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.