The best government possible is the least government necessary : "Richmond Restaurant Denies Pro-Life, Pro-Family Group Dinner Service Over Christian Values"

On 12/6/22 11:45 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 8:22 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 12/6/2022 3:28 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 12/5/22 21:38, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 12/5/2022 7:05 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 12/5/22 15:13, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/5/2022 11:43 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/5/22 12:01, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/5/2022 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://thefederalist.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lie sites lies not read.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> The intolerant leftist mob is coming for Christians everywhere, 
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here we go with Hartung's "poor persecuted Christians" bullshit 
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christians are not "persecuted" in any way in this country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet a restaurant refused to serve a Christian group because of 
>>>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not my understanding. They refused to serve them because of 
>>>>>> their anti-gay beliefs, and it would not matter if those beliefs 
>>>>>> were motivated by religion or something secular.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are splitting hairs.
>>>>
>>>> Splitting hairs? It goes to the heart of the legal and moral issue. 
>>>> Such discrimination is not on the basis of religion and hence is 
>>>> neither illegal or immoral.
>>>
>>> It still amounts to the same thing. The restaurant was acting within 
>>> their rights, as are the various businesses who refuse to be a part 
>>> of same sex marriages.

It is their right to NOT serve a uniquely Christian or Jewish or Muslim 
meal on the menu, the same as the bakery with "gay" wedding cakes. Maybe 
gays should request the secular wedding cake with a man and a woman 
figurine with no free words written on them and that are 
limited/censored to the bakery's choices like TWITTER censors their 
public forum. The Cake is a PUBLIC forum seen by all the wedding guests.

But can you deny "persons" equal access as you do to the gun owners? And 
if so, is the Power to force service or deny service that of the 
Government's to write in a law to force the store owner to do as the 
Government mandates or is it the PROPERTY RIGHT of the owner to make 
those decisions and post them at the door? And the Government is the one 
being limited to comply with the *EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE*

I have no issue with a property owner denying guns on their property. Or 
leaving "gay" wedding cakes off the list of foods served or produced by 
their kitchen, and refusing to bake a gay wedding cake or a Muslim pork 
free kitchen dinner or wedding cakes or Catholic "Fish on Friday Dinner" 
or a Tibetan Yak butter cake or a Kosher Jewish cake. Or denying gays 
access to their property since gays are NEITHER MEN OR WOMEN according 
to gays.  If they re simply persons they have the same RIGHTS as the 
other persons, and no gay right to a gay cake. They have the RIGHTS of a 
person and that does NOT include the RIGHT to order a gay wedding cake.

That would mean that gays have no extra ability to order any cake, they 
can order the standard wedding cake sold to Jews and Muslims and women 
and men with the limited text and art and ingredients that the bakery 
decides it can or wants to provide.  The reason for the limitation of 
the menu is irrelevant because it's property RIGHTS over being gay or 
any specific "type" of person that the Democrats care to invent. And 
Democrats have created hundreds of FAKE sexual identity "personas" that 
don't exist and a Bakery can't adhere to all their WOKE language and 
vegan and other demands that they could later be sued for NOT adapting to.

Racial equality is NOT above property RIGHTS of the owner... but any 
owner that uses the DNA acknowledged race or the two DNA genders of 
person's or the RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms to do business or infringe 
on other RIGHTS would mean they can't get Government grants or loans or 
be contracted to any form of partnership or get financial support of 
government.

Like the separation between Religion and Government, there is also a 
separation between the Government and any business or person that uses 
race/gender of (persons) and religious RIGHTS and Gun RIGHTS or other 
RIGHTS to refuse business then Government tax dollars are banned to them 
as well as any government partnering or assistance.

I suppose we could set-up a background check system within the 
Government to separate those businesses from any Government connections 
and/or recources.

If it's OK to ban Religions from Government resources and to infringe 
with people buying a fire-arm  then it must be OK to force them to 
undergo a background check before they can get a business license... the 
same as getting a gun permit or license or registering it.

And NOT having that business license must be a felony... since it is 
with a gun.

>>
>> I forgot. You are movement libertarian who
> 
> Hartung is not in *any* way libertarian.  He is a right-wing statist.
> 

But I am pretty close to a Libertarian, I'm what you might call a 
Constitutional-Libertarian.

Which is what I consider the Founders that wrote the Constitution, they 
tried to keep to the idea of LIBERTY but excepting some limited Government.

*The best government possible is the least government necessary*


-- 
-Reality Matters-