If a baker is considered a "public accommodation" such that he/she/it has to sell to all comers, why isn't PayPal and the general banking system? This is just redlining under another category.
If a baker is considered a "public accommodation" such that he/she/it has to sell to all comers, why isn't PayPal and the general banking system? This is just redlining under another category.
But bakers don't have to sell to all comers according to Colorado's courts, just to people in the Left's protected categories. There's problem denying service to people who hold the odd belief that the US Constitution should be adhered to according to the plain meaning of its words, or who think that the Supreme Court erred in redefining marriage to make the notion of "gay marriage" sensible as a matter of law, or who voted for Donald Trump, for that matter.
"The left's protected categories . . ." That would be "people we no longer allow you to discriminate against because they're black or female." There, fixed it for you.
If that fixes it, how is the that Colorado ruled against Jack Phillips when it was neither on the basis of race nor sex that he denied service, but on the basis of the content of the message he was asked to convey in a custom cake, an objection which the Colorado authorities twisted into denying service on the basis of the sexual orientation (original instance) or gender identity (the more recent instance) to provide a basis for persecuting the baker for extending his free exercise of religion into his workplace?
If you really wanted to fix my post, you'd have suggested adding the word "no" between "There's" and "problem" which I had meant to include.
If a baker is considered a "public accommodation" such that he/she/it has to sell to all comers, why isn't PayPal and the general banking system? This is just redlining under another category.
But bakers don't have to sell to all comers according to Colorado's courts, just to people in the Left's protected categories. There's problem denying service to people who hold the odd belief that the US Constitution should be adhered to according to the plain meaning of its words, or who think that the Supreme Court erred in redefining marriage to make the notion of "gay marriage" sensible as a matter of law, or who voted for Donald Trump, for that matter.
"The left's protected categories . . ." That would be "people we no longer allow you to discriminate against because they're black or female." There, fixed it for you.
If that fixes it, how is the that Colorado ruled against Jack Phillips when it was neither on the basis of race nor sex that he denied service, but on the basis of the content of the message he was asked to convey in a custom cake, an objection which the Colorado authorities twisted into denying service on the basis of the sexual orientation (original instance) or gender identity (the more recent instance) to provide a basis for persecuting the baker for extending his free exercise of religion into his workplace?
If you really wanted to fix my post, you'd have suggested adding the word "no" between "There's" and "problem" which I had meant to include.
This is quite good and could be the precedent required for a lawsuit.
That's a good way to describe it, "redlining." Thanks for that.