Of course they do..... In the same way the bakery can choose not to make a cake for a gay wedding
How the fuck can we fight so hard for a case like the bakery, where we are adamant and saying that they should be able to choose whether or not they make a cake for a gay wedding because they're a private business -- but then turn around and say that in a situation where it doesn't fit our narrative, the store suddenly don't have those same rights anymore?
I'm pretty sure that would make us some big ass fucking hypocrites.
Unless that store is state or federally owned, then it's a private business and they can make any rules they want... The same way they can require you to wear a shirt and shoes....
BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO FUCKING SHOP THERE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR POLICIES...... It's pretty fucking simple. You don't like their policies? You don't give them your business....
Typical smoothbrain take on radically different subjects
The gay wedding cake had merit, because the baker was asked to participate in an activity he was reluctant to be involved with due to his religious beliefs , hence he respectfully declined their request and instead offered them his standard list of goods. ... The point being that u can't force anyone to partake in ur beliefs, but neither can they deny u standard service or goods based on ur immutable characteristics
These stores are not pulling back from anyone due to their beliefs, they are literally denying u service unless u confirm to their petty demands that they have no no right to ask of anyone,if they can't tell me to wear red underwear, they can't tell me to put on a mask, their flimsy policy be damned
Private businesses have no authority to rip up the first amendment, nor do they have any moral or legal right to force customers to comply by their beliefs, what I wear is none of their business, provided I ain't a deranged drunk who's disrupting their business while butt naked
The whole shoes n shirt comparison is moot, because there's a difference between being a degenerate on drugs versus someone going about their business
Basically I can't deny u service cuz ur gay, neither can u force me to put glitter on ur cock, cuz I happen to be a glitter merchant
It's the same with masks, as long as u ain't buttnaked, the shop really doesn't have a say on what u wear, u wouldn't tolerate a business telling ur girlfriend she can't shop there bcuz, her skirt is too short as per their "policy", bcuz what she wears is none of their business
The left is brilliant at using corporations to subvert freedom n rights under the pretext of mUh private property, cuckservatives like u just cheer it on bcuz mUh capitalism good, and anyone saying that pvt property has its limits is a hypocrite bcuz mUh cake... It's tiresome really, we are our own worst enemies
Fuck these stores. They don’t have the right to micromanage my existence just to enter their faggy ass building
Of course they do..... In the same way the bakery can choose not to make a cake for a gay wedding
How the fuck can we fight so hard for a case like the bakery, where we are adamant and saying that they should be able to choose whether or not they make a cake for a gay wedding because they're a private business -- but then turn around and say that in a situation where it doesn't fit our narrative, the store suddenly don't have those same rights anymore?
I'm pretty sure that would make us some big ass fucking hypocrites.
Unless that store is state or federally owned, then it's a private business and they can make any rules they want... The same way they can require you to wear a shirt and shoes....
BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO FUCKING SHOP THERE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR POLICIES...... It's pretty fucking simple. You don't like their policies? You don't give them your business....
Typical smoothbrain take on radically different subjects
The gay wedding cake had merit, because the baker was asked to participate in an activity he was reluctant to be involved with due to his religious beliefs , hence he respectfully declined their request and instead offered them his standard list of goods. ... The point being that u can't force anyone to partake in ur beliefs, but neither can they deny u standard service or goods based on ur immutable characteristics
These stores are not pulling back from anyone due to their beliefs, they are literally denying u service unless u confirm to their petty demands that they have no no right to ask of anyone,if they can't tell me to wear red underwear, they can't tell me to put on a mask, their flimsy policy be damned
Private businesses have no authority to rip up the first amendment, nor do they have any moral or legal right to force customers to comply by their beliefs, what I wear is none of their business, provided I ain't a deranged drunk who's disrupting their business while butt naked
The whole shoes n shirt comparison is moot, because there's a difference between being a degenerate on drugs versus someone going about their business
Basically I can't deny u service cuz ur gay, neither can u force me to put glitter on ur cock, cuz I happen to be a glitter merchant
It's the same with masks, as long as u ain't buttnaked, the shop really doesn't have a say on what u wear, u wouldn't tolerate a business telling ur girlfriend she can't shop there bcuz, her skirt is too short as per their "policy", bcuz what she wears is none of their business
The left is brilliant at using corporations to subvert freedom n rights under the pretext of mUh private property, cuckservatives like u just cheer it on bcuz mUh capitalism good, and anyone saying that pvt property has its limits is a hypocrite bcuz mUh cake... It's tiresome really, we are our own worst enemies
I don’t disagree with you. But I can think of at least two places off the top of my head that have a dress code and will deny entry.
“No shirt. No shoes. No service”
literally any restaurant with a three digit price menu.