(June 6, 2018 at 7:56 pm)Khemikal Wrote: No, "we" won;t have to do any such thing. You may require it as a condition of your continued diversions..but I have no use for it. Nor was there any reason to mention it in this case, as this case was not a comment on that ruling.Okay then. I'll just shut up now.
What makes you think, btw, that there was something about this case that wasn;t "pretty open and shut simple"? Are you still running with the wingnut messaging campaign that this case gave people (or even the baker in question) the right to discriminate against teh gays? There are only so many times I can point out that this is not what happened.
(June 6, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Joods Wrote: White people don't get relaxers. I don't do relaxers. So you're saying I have to stock my salon with relaxer chemicals on the off chance someone might come in and want one and that I have to give them one because they ask for it? Wrong. And if they want to claim discrimination, bring it. I wouldn't be stocking supplies for services I don't intend on performing regardless of someone's color or sexual orientation. So if a black person wants to rant and rave because I refuse to provide a service to them that I don't keep supplies for, they will lose.No, Joods, lol..I'm telling you exactly what you just quoted.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
