- Mar 2013
- Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
You are wrong - and a liar.Since what you are saying is contrary to any facts, I think you are.
It did not seek him out. Someone filed a complaint because he violated the state's antidiscrimination law.Of course the ccrc went after him.
The couple's "intent" is irrelevant, since they did not break any law.If you are unwilling to admit to the intent of the gay couple in filing the complaint...
Being gay requires the same treatment as anyone else. No special treatment is involved here, except for someone who wants immunity from the law on account of his religious beliefs. If is the religious person who wants special treatment.Or do you think being gay allows for special treatment in a free market?
I understand all of it. As my quote shows, you are misrepresenting what the Court said.What part of impermissible hostility do you not understand, hmmmm?
Wrong. The CCRC could easily have upheld the law and ruled against Phillips without showing any hostility.If the ccrc did not act with 'hostility' towards phillips, it would not have ruled against him. In fact, the ccrc's hostility towards phillips is evidenced from the erroneous ruling itself.
Wrong. I am showing what the Court said. You are making up something and claiming the Court said it, when it did not.What you think the scotus did not say and what that means is mere speculation not supported by facts.
I suggested nothing. I quoted the Supreme Court. Your opposition to antidiscrimination laws is what is irrelevant.A person's labor and the work products thereof is that person's property. Gays do not have a right to a person's property. If people had rights over other people's property, it would not be a free market. And that is what you are suggesting here.
Antidiscrimination laws apply to places of public accommodation. Doctors and lawyers do not qualify by statutory definition. And your opposition to antidiscrimination laws - in places of public accommodations or anywhere else - has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court ruled.Could a christian physician refuse to perform an abortion on-demand?
Could a jewish lawyer refuse to defend an islamic terrorist accused of murdering innocent jews?