Senator, with all respect, it's not about discrimination. Seems to me it's about protecting ones religious liberty, which is what this nation is about across the board of all religions, why is it so hard too see. But easy to spin.
-
-
-
It's about protecting one's religious liberty (to discriminate), I think you meant.
-
No, actually it's discriminatory to force or extort a business owner and insist he or she conform to your ideology.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You don’t get to pick and choose. You demand boycotts, pulled advertising, demand stores stop selling guns. Baker has 1st Amendment Rights just like everyone else. They could have easily went to another baker and this would’nt have been an issue.
-
Also, he was happy to sell them other baked goods, however, he was unwilling to create, using his deeply personal artistic expression, a centerpiece for a ceremony to which he was, due to his religious convictions, opposed. Antagonists refuse to comprehend this distinction.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is exactly why you need to support
@Julie4NYSenate@Biaggi4NY@zellnor4ny@jasirobinson34@RJackson_NYC@BlakeMorris4NYS@jessicaramos@SRachelMay in their primary races. Trump Dems in IDC have failed to protect LGBTQ community in NY. No Genda. No conversion therapy ban. -
It is time for elected Democrats to speak out and support these challengers! The grassroots groups are working our butts off for these
#TrueBlue candidates, but it’s tough competing with GOP and corporate $. We need your help,@SenGillibrand
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Jason, you gotta be clear. They have a right to not make a "custom" cake. That's a service contract. What they can't do is tell them they can't shop at their store.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Not based on arbitrary reasons they can't
-
Tweet unavailable
-
In several states, sexual identity is protected under the same statute. It was in Colorado, but the store owner didn't deny service overall. So you're actually incorrect in this case.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Did you read the decision? Because that's not at all what SCOTUS decided. Bye...
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
7-2 in favor of freedom of religion: something you obviously hate.
-
A disturbed lady....
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Please read the opinion and not the media headlines
-
Amen. Folks on both "sides" of the discrimination issue are missing what the actual case before SCOTUS was about. It was not, "Does religious liberty trump LGBT rights." It was about the Commission acting on biased views about religion. Gillibrand is sensationalizing this.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.