Jack and DP said:BaylorOkie said:Selective morality is a heckuva thing.bubbadog said:You're right, I haven't seen anyone say that. But I have seen a load of outrage.BaylorOkie said:It's her right to refuse Sanders, and no one is saying otherwise.bubbadog said:
So if a restaurant owner refuses to serve Sarah Sanders out of moral conviction (one of the tweets copied in the article suggests as much), is that fundamentally different from a cake-baker who refuses to serve a same-sex wedding based on religious/moral conviction?
I'll hang up and listen.
Assuming there indeed is a parallel between this case and the Colorado baker, do those who side with the baker think that those on the other side are justified in expressing outrage over the stand the baker took, even if they have to acknowledge now that the baker had the right to take that stand?
I believe in the right of both business owners to refuse service, but I would have baked the cake and I would have served the Sanders family.
It's an angry world we live in, and that's too bad. Everyone wants to get mad about something, it seems. But I have decided I'm not going to be involved in all the anger and boycotting. If I start boycotting a business because ownership/mgmt believes differently than me, I see that as both ridiculous and a slippery slope. And I hope people that believe differently than me will still consider my business.
If you can't serve coffee or chicken to, or build a house for anyone to benefit them as HUMAN BEINGS, we have big problems.
I boycott a local honey seller at our farmers market. He ran for a state office several years ago on an extremely racist platform. Our whole neighborhood quit going to a great local restaurant because the owner continually made anti-Semitic remarks. He's now out of business. There are some people that I'm not going to do business with.
I agree. I see too many people arguing and protesting instead of voting with their wallets.
Personally, I don't get bad service from the same person over and over.