Oh, I see...good point. First, small businesses had to serve women, against their will. Then, they had to serve Blacks, against their will. Now those inhumane LGBTs are staking their part of equality. Discrimination is becoming so difficult that the small business owner is screwed.
Refusing to serve them during a normal day is discrimination, being forced to take part in something that goes against your religious beliefs is another form of discrimination.
Just watch, like all the "strawmen" before it will spread to the big churches too.
Already happened in Houston. Nicknames "the bathroom bill" The mayor and city tried to force the churches that spoke against it to turn over their sermons and all other data on the issue.
What kind of discrimination is it? I looked up the definition of 'discrimination', just to be sure we're talking about the same thing..."the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people".
Your correct according to Websters. IMHO Rick is saying that being forced to be politically correct vs a persons private views is just as wrong.
Personally, I don't need some government entity to tell me what to think. If I think its wrong, that's my right. The 1st amendment falls into this.
Notice in these threads how the naysayers go straight to perverted thoughts.....
Most of those anti-discrimination-against-homos laws that they have in the leftist states were passed before gay marriage was legal in those jurisdictions. I think cases like the baker and wedding chapel being forced to cater to them will prevent such laws being passed in any more states. At least that is one thing we don't have to worry about here -- it will be a cold day in hell before the Oklahoma legislature will pass one of those anti-discrimination laws.
We're all free to think what we want. We're not referring to rights about thinking. We're referring to rights about discrimination. Fortunately we live in a country where discrimination based on sexuality is becoming illegal; it's just unfortunate that such evilness requires said law.
It is a peculiar sense of morality that labels the exercise of freedom of association "evil," but is A-OK with threatening violence against people who did not start it's use.
Notice how this is already happening?
