Well, they love theirs but hate the other guys'. That obvious truth aside, I don't like to see anyone making out in restaurants.
Thank you. Ricter will always try to side step the issue and weasel his way out of a losing argument, while never admitting himself to be technically wrong. Convertibility is just a screaming shill, and has no such reservations on being labeled such.
There is a right to that cheeseburger ,if the storekeeper took your money. Why did the photographer accept the contract, and the money, and then refuse to fulfill the commitment?
Absolutely incorrect. Do you even try anymore? I am totally for someone's right to be gay. I am totally for their right to marry, to do whatever they want in their own privacy - hell, they can even do it in public places, so long as it's within the confines of the law (like any other hetero couple). But the difference here is you are forcing someone they have to accept the freedoms of others in their establishment/business.
Of course if they took the money, there is a right. But you obviously don't pay attention to any of this. People don't want the money in the first place. They don't want to be forced to serve someone.
They're loosing it . . . bit time. . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though many cheered when Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062, the bill that would have made it legal for people to refuse to serve LGBT people on religious grounds, there were also some conservative pundits who were not so happy. The biggest complaint was that Brewer was tossing aside the freedoms of Christians: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html
It's a bit easier to understand when you recall one of their axioms, "<del>Father</del> Boss knows best."
right, the saying "your freedoms end where the next mans' begins" is the best way to look at it. otherwise, if you work it out logically, someone's rights are being violated.