WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

It's not my work but I liked it enough to copy and share.

edit: didn't realize my image cropped the bottom of the text. Let's try again.

https://files.catbox.moe/dsgifp.jpg

It's not my work but I liked it enough to copy and share. edit: didn't realize my image cropped the bottom of the text. Let's try again. https://files.catbox.moe/dsgifp.jpg

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt (edited )

"....I genuinely don't know how the lines should be drawn...."

You should post a new thread and get responses that way. Your subject matter needs to be germane to the topic here though. Conscientious objector has long legal precedent and standing. The baker falls under this for his religious beliefs. One hundred years ago, no one would have dreamed the baker would have a legal issue because this was a predominantly Christian European society. Since 1965, the flood doors were opened to immigrants from all over the world. Every religion is now in the balance. There's so many competing factions, it has made a shamble of our laws. These laws were based on Christian ideals. Look at your States statutes regarding civil rights. It's a complete laundry list of faiths regarding religious rights. The one that exemplifies the mess best is Satanism, which is contrary to Christianity and antipodal. This is really the crux of your question concerning the baker though. Does a faggot have rights over Christian religious rights? According to commerce and the public accommodations section that person does have rights. I think the baker met that requirement, but I believe the judge in the case ruled against the baker for political reasons. The ruling was in error. No one should be forced to act on anything if it is against their conscience. The sodomists had plenty of other remedies and actually acted like Twitter is doing to conservatives. Twitter is a far different case in terms of discrimination. Twitter is acting to by de-platforming political speech they don't like. And they try to hide it under different mechanisms such as "fake' information, "Hate Speech", "lewd and obscene", and more. Then, Twitter doesn't return calls using other excuses. This is obviously abuse of their license to operate. You should research the Codes yourself for a better understanding. A public accommodation cannot discriminate against a class of people for their political views. You seem to be confusing a single customer incident with something that is occurring against tens of millions of Americans.