510
Comments (76)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
G_regulator 1 point ago +1 / -0

Personally I don't think anyone should be denied access to any service based on political ideology, sexual orientation or anything else, other than abusive behaviour.

People here will cry foul when Gab gets denied access to banking services because of political affiliation but will support a baker refusing to serve a transgender.

2
BS2020 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm agnostic, but I still support people of faith. If its against someone's faith and they can clearly communicate that, it should be their option. We live in a free country. Any person that goes out of the way to sue someone for that is just using the person as an excuse to make their political point. The Dems have been using the Judicial Branch to enact revenge against those they oppose and THAT shit needs to end.

1
G_regulator 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree that sueing instead of just finding a baker that's happy to do the work is using the judicial branch to punish those who disagree with your opinions.

Also there's a difference between being denied access to services universally because of your political or religious beliefs and being denied service by one baker and not another.

Fundamentally I think we agree.

2
BS2020 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I do believe we agree -- reasonable people can do that lol