Left Hypocrisy on Serve / No Serve; Don't Tell Me 'Both Sides Do It'

originally posted by: twfauThe woman has resigned, the business owner is still going

Rockettes who refuse did not resign.

When did trump become a conservative, he is a new york liberal, the type of people the gop used to hate so much, saying no service because of someone being gay, or saying i wont sing because your a pompous ass, not even close to being the same thing, oh and thanks for addind the little sjw title, more crying from the right, funny how its ok for them to cry about everything.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

That too would raise constitutional issues. If you are refusing to accommodate a specific event because of religious moral issues, you are violating their 1st amendment rights.

That is exactly what this woman said she is doing.

There is a difference. She is not asking Trump or anyone else to bear the burden of her beliefs/choice. The choir is still going to perform.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

That too would raise constitutional issues. If you are refusing to accommodate a specific event because of religious moral issues, you are violating their 1st amendment rights.

That is exactly what this woman said she is doing.

There is a difference. She is not asking Trump or anyone else to bear the burden of her beliefs/choice. The choir is still going to perform.

And there are a whole slew of people who refused and won't perform. So those people broke the law?

a reply to: ketsuko

The baker is not officiating at the wedding. They are providing a cake.

a reply to: kaylaluv

you forgot, "Until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on".
Funny how you can quote mine and as long as it's anti Trump, it's acceptable. I'd say it's lazy and shows how scummy you are.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

That too would raise constitutional issues. If you are refusing to accommodate a specific event because of religious moral issues, you are violating their 1st amendment rights.

That is exactly what this woman said she is doing.

There is a difference. She is not asking Trump or anyone else to bear the burden of her beliefs/choice. The choir is still going to perform.

And there are a whole slew of people who refused and won't perform. So those people broke the law?

No.

a reply to: kaylaluv

The singer is not officiating either, only providing music.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

The baker is not officiating at the wedding. They are providing a cake.

Well then, that clears things up! The gays were not going to be kept from marrying without the baker providing the cake and Trump will still be inaugurated without the Mormon woman singing?

Everyone should be happy. Most of the right would be.

But the left only thinks one situatation should count because they only agree with one.

a reply to: introvert

Then your point is moot. You said as long as the choir performed she is ok, implying it becomes wrong if they don't perform. So we are back to this woman refusing service based on her moral and religious beliefs ... which I thought was wrong ...

a reply to: network dude

And how long will that take? Years? Centuries? There was no deadline mentioned. The fact is, he DID say to ban all Muslims from entering the country. You can no longer deny that he said that.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: kaylaluv

The singer is not officiating either, only providing music.

And the music will still be provided. Trump is not being denied "service".

The women in question objects and is bearing the cost of that objection. She's not pushing it on to others.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

She is not providing her music because Trump promises to do bad things to innocent people.

The gay couple are consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: kaylaluv

The singer is not officiating either, only providing music.

And the music will still be provided. Trump is not being denied "service".

The women in question objects and is bearing the cost of that objection. She's not pushing it on to others.

Oh, do you so you are contending there is only one person who bakes cakes in the world and THAT'S why there was so much fuss?

Because if she denied these poor gays their cakes then they wouldn't ever have any cake at their wedding because she is the only baker in the world who does it?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: kaylaluv

The singer is not officiating either, only providing music.

And the music will still be provided. Trump is not being denied "service".

The women in question objects and is bearing the cost of that objection. She's not pushing it on to others.

She is pushing it on Trump. Everyone who refused is. Since the right made EXACTLY your claim .. the cake can still be provided by someone else. The Left said that's not good enough.

Hypocrisy.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

She is not providing her music because Trump promises to do bad things to innocent people.

The gay couple are consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

Oh ... what bad unlawful illegal things would she be a part of and face charges over? Or you mean she has a MORAL objection ... like the baker.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

She is not providing her music because Trump promises to do bad things to innocent people.

The gay couple are consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

Yes, we get it. She thinks she is making a moral objection.

But what you don't get is that the baker was making a moral objection too.

It doesn't matter how you view whom you think are the victims in this case.

All that matters is that each party here is refusing over what is a moral objection and for no other reason.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Then your point is moot. You said as long as the choir performed she is ok, implying it becomes wrong if they don't perform.

Even if the choir didn't perform, she is ok.

So we are back to this woman refusing service based on her moral and religious beliefs ... which I thought was wrong ...

The choir is a voluntary religious entity. They are not an entity of public accommodation.

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh, do you so you are contending there is only one person who bakes cakes in the world and THAT'S why there was so much fuss?

Because if she denied these poor gays their cakes then they wouldn't ever have any cake at their wedding because she is the only baker in the world who does it?

I said nothing of the sort. What are you talking about?