I agree, however, I *am* glad that the ruling was "they didn't follow procedure" and not "it's okay for him to discriminate." I am saddened by the outcome, but not nearly as disgusted as I was before I read the explanation.
-
-
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
I guess I don't understand this BS ruling. What is to stop ANYONE form claiming something is against their "religious" beliefs? Could I now not sell to people with tattoos, people leaving Red Lobster, or football players you know for touching the skin of a pig? WHERE does it end?
-
I don't think I agree with the ruling but you are conflating two different things- the baker's argument was not that he shouldn't have to sell to gay people, it was that he should not be forced to create, as an artist, for the celebration of something he is religiously opposed to
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
But who is allowed to say what is or what isn't discrimination? Isn't that what agencies like the Civil Rights Commission is supposed to do? And if they do not give a fair hearing to someone, isn't that just as bad as the original alleged discrimination?
-
when the basis of your argument is that another group of people doesn't deserve to be treated as human beings, then you're discriminating
- Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.