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

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Ok, so they are safe.. the Rockettes and the other PAID performers who refused broke the law though and should bepunished .. right?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

She is pushing it on Trump. Everyone who refused is.

No one has pushed anything on to Trump.

Since the right made EXACTLY your claim .. the cake can still be provided by someone else. The Left said that's not good enough.

It's not even comparable. Apples and oranges.

a reply to: ketsuko

If a gay couple is outside a bakery brandishing a gun and promises to shoot anyone who looks funny at them, then they walk into the bakery wanting a wedding cake, the baker could refuse on the basis of what the couple did and said outside the bakery - NOT simply because they are a gay couple.

The entertainer is refusing to work for Trump because he is doing the equivalent of brandishing a gun and promising to shoot anyone who looks at him funny.

a reply to: introvert

Actually, the choir has been hired to perform a task. They were hired to do a job.

And while the choir is performing, someone is refusing based on political ideology.

I think that the argument of demanding services from any commercial business other than emergency medical services is without merit. The free enterprise systems works as the Trump camp demonstrated by not forcing anyone to entertain the President of the United States. Conversely being punished for not baking a cake is a great example of the very attitudes that got Trump elected.

As an American, a businessman and as stated in another thread, I am an advocate of the "leave me the hell alone" form of government. I would probably go out of my way to resist any demand for services from a client I didn't want to work with. I probably wouldn't refuse the work. I would simply set the fees for my time very, very high and the the free enterprise system work. Non the less, government should not be mettling in forcing small businesses who to provide services for.

I am sure in the case of the baker there were dozens of competitors waiting for the order. I not like it was an emergency surgery. Just let the system work.

I am sure the Trump team will find enough great entertainment available to have a nice show. And I for one will remember the entertainers that respect the office of my President, and more to the point the one that didn't. That's how I will spend my entertainment dollars. See the system works.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Ok, so they are safe.. the Rockettes and the other PAID performers who refused broke the law though and should bepunished .. right?

I don't know much about the Rockette issue. I'd have to look in to it.

a reply to: introvert

According to you they have. If not providing a service is pushing your beliefs on others they have. If it's not ... then the baker didn't do it either.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Actually, the choir has been hired to perform a task. They were hired to do a job.

And it appears they are going to do that job. That does not negate the fact they are a private religious entity protected by the 1st amendment. A place of public accommodation does not have those protections.

And while the choir is performing, someone is refusing based on political ideology.

As is her right, as long as that burden is not pushed on to others.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Ok, so they are safe.. the Rockettes and the other PAID performers who refused broke the law though and should bepunished .. right?

I don't know much about the Rockette issue. I'd have to look in to it.

They have an actual contract where they are obligated to perform. The left became hysterical and Radio city said they didn't have to follow their contract if they had a moral objection.

The left loves it. Hypocrisy.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

If a gay couple is outside a bakery brandishing a gun and promises to shoot anyone who looks funny at them, then they walk into the bakery wanting a wedding cake, the baker could refuse on the basis of what the couple did and said outside the bakery - NOT simply because they are a gay couple.

The entertainer is refusing to work for Trump because he is doing the equivalent of brandishing a gun and promising to shoot anyone who looks at him funny.

No. The baker refused because the wedding was not a wedding. In religious terms, God does not recognize weddings between other than man and woman. You can't bake a wedding cake for what isn't a wedding. To do so is to mock God given that wedding is one of the holier ceremonies in religious terms.

You are asking the baker to sin and to participate in sin. Then you are asking the state to compel it.

This is why religious freedom is so important.

I'll bet the Mormon singer and the Rockette would feel similar levels of moral disgust if they were compelled to perform for Trump. And you are happy not to compel them because you understand their disgust.

Since you don't understand how the baker feels, you are happy to force them do it anyway.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

According to you they have. If not providing a service is pushing your beliefs on others they have. If it's not ... then the baker didn't do it either.

I cannot comment on something I have not looked in to.

a reply to: kaylaluv

What you describe is breaking the law. Your analogy is incredibly stupid and without merit. Trump is doing no such thing.

The gay couple simply has different beliefs .. like Trump.

Left can't handle anyone with different beliefs. the lady who quit even said it was a MORAL and RELIGIOUS objection. Not fear for her life ... like someone waving a gun.

a reply to: introvert

So it is okay for an individual to refuse service based on political ideology.

a reply to: introvert

"There is a small group of year round Rockettes who are contractually obligated to perform at scheduled events throughout the year. We are pleased that Radio City has agreed that for those Rockettes with year-round employment, participation in this event will be voluntary as well."

www.nbcnews.com...


And the left loves they are able to get out of it. Hypocrites.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So it is okay for an individual to refuse service based on political ideology.

Yep because political ideology IS the left's religion and we have religious freedom in this country.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So it is okay for an individual to refuse service based on political ideology.

If that person is running a service of public accommodation, no.

a reply to: ketsuko

Really? So if a rich customer wanted to purchase a wedding cake for his 6 year old daughter's birthday party (which isn't a wedding), the baker would refuse? Ha. I don't think so.

A cake is just a cake - flour, eggs, sugar, etc. There is no sin involved in baking a cake.

I would have no problem whatsoever if a baker refused service to a gay couple because they were brandishing their guns and promising to shoot anyone who looked at them funny.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So it is okay for an individual to refuse service based on political ideology.

If that person is running a service of public accommodation, no.

But the Rockettes are contractually obligated to a business that is one that works for the public.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

"There is a small group of year round Rockettes who are contractually obligated to perform at scheduled events throughout the year. We are pleased that Radio City has agreed that for those Rockettes with year-round employment, participation in this event will be voluntary as well."

www.nbcnews.com...


And the left loves they are able to get out of it. Hypocrites.

Ok. That has nothing to do with me.

Again, I have to look in to it.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You didn't even read or think about what I wrote.

I can tell.