(03-21-2017 12:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  You are still forcing someone to take part in a religious ceremony which cuts against their faith/conscious.

As anyone can see, plain as day, this is your fundamental gripe.

Have I ever said otherwise? My gripe is that people should not be forced to participate in religious events which run in opposition of their faith. I extend that to philosophy for those who hold their "atheism" or political stances tightly.

Quote:And of course, it is fundamentally invalid.

I look forward to a ell thought out proven response as to why.

Quote:Just as if someone claimed their faith requires them to murder Mexicans, would still go to prison.

Ohhh it's only a non-sequitur... hamburgers...

Quote:

(03-21-2017 12:46 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  It's also borderline illegal to do that and I would guess that even if you could prevail in court it would come at an amazing cost..

Definitely not illegal to give bad service.

I never said it was clearly illegal. I said you could get ruined in court trying to defend yourself for it. If I spit in your food, because you're short, I'm going to have trouble on my hands.

But since you have a shovel, and seem intent on digging yourself into a hole.

Quote:http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-12...rimination The Washington, D.C., law firm that two years ago joined the NAACP in alleging racial discrimination against black employees at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurants on Thursday filed a $100 million lawsuit accusing the restaurant chain of widespread discrimination against black customers. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Rome, Ga., and seeks class-action status.

Cracker Barrel restaurants are accused of providing black customers with poor service, "segregating" them from white customers and giving them food taken from the trash in a lawsuit filed by Gordon, Silberman, Wiggin & Childs on behalf of 21 customers, 19 of them blacks and two whites.

Quote:If you could prove that the poor service was because the provider wanted to discriminate against you, that's another matter.

So yo're ok with this as a wink-wink nudge-nudge compromise... Says a lot about your character.

Quote:But how are you going to prove that, so long as the provider keeps his cool and doesn't run his fool mouth?

You are aware that civil suits don't require beyond a reasonable doubt right?