On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 08:26:22 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

why should the religious person get to refuse service
but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service?

Because their convictions (i.e. racism) are so "deeply held." (Sarcasm
Alert!) That seems to be an extremely difficult to quantify standard some
want to apply to not only people, but corporations and with recent Supreme
Court decisions, seems to be picking up steam.

I am not sure when the Supreme Court left the rails, but when was the last
time you saw a corporation on its knees praying in Sunday Church? Or, as
the LW wags put it, if Corporations truly are people, why hasn't Texas
executed one yet?

We've reached an age where the Supreme Court no longer legislates in the
real world, but somewhere in outer space where money equals free speech, a
tax is not a tax, clauses they don't like are simply made to disappear, etc.
I'd almost prefer an activist court to a lunatic one that seems to spit out
decisions much like a slot machine, totally at random.

One thing that's always amazed me. Even primates in the jungle and
apparently some smart dogs know when they are given something, they are
expect to give something back in return. Even if it's just a stupid pet
trick.

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!


Isn't it interesting how we all KNOW how human nature works and we all
know that if someone gives someone else a ****load of money they
expect something in return AND that they will GET something in return.
Yet our politicians would lie to our faces saying they aren't swayed
by all that money that is the lifeblood of their election to office.
If they will lie about something so patently obvious you know they
will lie about pretty much anything.