Printable View
It would be an interesting case if someone brought suit against a gunsmith for not performing service for reasons as Tim lays out, although I agree with all my heart. But if a baker can be sued by homos for not baking a cake, and the law says that business owners must provide service for all.....well......I wonder how it would play out?
1. democrats aren't peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by jason60chev
2. democrats are not a protected class
3. libtards have already posted in their places of business, odd because how could they have a business, not wanting to serve Republicans.
4. It would be interesting
Yeah, at first the same thought crossed my mind. But then I realized that since much of the Democratic ideology revolves around being anti-gun would it not seem strange that one of their own was filing suit to force a business to BUILD A GUN? It would be counter to everything most Dem-Libs stand for and in a way would be backing 2nd amendment rights. Man it would be priceless. 24/7/365 of Shuff being interviewed---LMAO---Priceless!Quote:
Originally Posted by jason60chev
The only thought that crossed my mind was the amazing amount of new business I'd have. Boy the interviews would be fun!Quote:
Originally Posted by ordmm
I think I'm fine. As I thought, political affiliation is not protected except by SOME local laws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9dfb087f7a23
One more thing. If any government were to pass a law making political affiliation a protected class and say you must do business with that class, how about me?! Ebay won't let me sell guns on their site, they are refusing service. Facebook won't let me sell guns or even post guns I have for sale on my site. Google won't let me put in ads for firearms in their ad program. I have been refused service over and over again by democrats everywhere. I would welcome this battle.
If anything like this were ever to come to trial, the perps stance would certainly come out during cross examination.
Given their mindset, I can imagine how the questioning would go.........
" Isn't it true that you are an anti-gun advocate?"......"Well, yes"
"And isn;t it true that you wanted Mr. ____ to perform gunsmithing work for you?"......"Well, yes."
"Why in the world would an anti-gun advocate want to own a gun?"......"well, I need for self defense"
"SELF DEFENSE?!"........."Well, yes. Doesn't everyone have the right to self defense?"
"But you are anti gun"........."Well, yes"
"And you own a gun?"......"well, yes"
"But you don;t think that others should own guns nor promote their ownership or use?"......."Well, yes"
"And you are suing Mr. ______ for not performing work on your gun because he disagrees with
your views and your advocation that he be put out of business?"........."Well, yes"
"If you put all of the gun smiths out of business, then who would perform the work on ther gun that you
own that you have just stated that others should not be able to own nor use?"............."Well........I don't want to put them out of business."
"Isn;t that what you just testified to?"..................."Well, yes. But that isn;t what I meant."
"Then what did you mean?"................................."Well...... .....Only the pro-gun gun smiths should be put out of business"
Now that's damn funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by jason60chev
You assume a logical argument can be had with one of these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by jason60chev