(03-21-2017 10:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  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.

Well then, I guess they shouldn't voluntarily put themselves in a position whereby they'll need to commit a crime (discrimination) to avoid having to tangentially be apart of an event that runs opposite of their faith.

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  If I spit in your food, because you're short, I'm going to have trouble on my hands.

That's a separate crime.

The equivalent analogy would be that you keep coming back to the table and saying "jeez guys, sorry, we must have lost your order ... let me put a new one in for you, what was it again?" until they went away.

(03-21-2017 01:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  You are aware that civil suits don't require beyond a reasonable doubt right?

This is a fair, and good point.

Nonetheless, it would be difficult to prove.

(03-21-2017 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's an *******'s way to do it.

Ah yes, you're right -- I should just commit a direct crime (discrimination) instead. Maybe hold them up at gunpoint, for their wallet, to boot?

You are making it impossible for them to get what they want instead of being honest. So you refuse service in a way that they can't get an alternative. Its being a passive-aggressive jerk. People like that are poison in the workplace. I do my best to try to get rid of them.