Saw this article and immediately thought, "How can she get away with that?".

From the article:


How in the world would you A) enforce this and B) legally be able to discriminate against legal firearm owners? Is this not the exact same thing the Sweet Cakes By Melissa did and they were sued successfully for $135,000?

First question - how in the name of Hell would she be able to prove one way or the other whether someone did or did not own or condone the ownership of an firearm?

Someone is media whoring themselves and trying to get famous by painting her business with the blood of the dead. Seems as though it's working, too.

gun owners are not a protected class.

Now get to the back of the bus....

Why don't I ever get to live around the good places. This would be a daily occurrence.

Unlike LGBTQWXYZ - whatever - the right to keep and bear arms is actually enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and yet nothing will be done by the courts to these bakers. Utter hypocrisy.

The anti-upper-decker

No, it's far worse.

The judge that graveled that suit in should see how they cope with a full mag.

I would be perfectly happy to not put any of my money in her pockets.

Guessing that's a sink next to the shietter.

LMAO!

It's not even remotely the same thing.

Did your husband just whisper that in your ear?

Discrimination against LBGT is out of fashion.
Discrimination against gun owners is in fashion.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. George Orwell, Animal Farm.

Genuinely interested to hear how this is different.

My first thought was "Oh well; I'm sure gun owners won't care to put money in your pockets anyway," which ought to be the first thought of anyone anywhere in a free society whose business is not wanted in any establishment for any reason.

A society of pansie-a$$ed victims is all we've become.

Just because you're gay doesn't mean everyone else is too.

If you can't see the obvious difference, you're just a moron.

I realize you think you're funny, but you mostly come across as an idiot, which is why I keep you on ignore most of the time.

I'm not sure why I even saw your post, but I'll fix that immediately.

This is her direct quote...

“I cannot, in good conscience, accept anyone inside of my restaurants who believes that this is OK.” end of quote
She also used the word "condone". It is exactly the same.

Pretty easy solution here. Show up, announce you're a gun owner and see what happens. If you're refused service sue and collect your $135,000.

You're younger than I'd have guessed.

Hey Snipper, Your father may have been an [bleep], but you need to forgive him. Not for his sake, but for yours. You'll be better off not trying to live your life to spite him.

Repeating a fantasy won't make it true.
Saying you won't allow gun owners is not the same as discrimination based of sex or religion.

You people talk a lot about "rights" and "freedom" but only want them for yourselves and those who agree with you.

It's her business, and she can do this if she wants.
If you don't like it, don't eat there.

LOL
More of your mindless drivel.
You're one of the whiniest bitches I've ever seen anywhere.

I suspect you also think you're funny and intellectual too, but you're really not.

You just parrot silly rhetoric and pretend you said something original.

Exactly like your defense-of-infanticide "arguments", then.

Glad to see you're still minding your own business...

I suspect you also think you said something witty, but I don't see your babbling. There's never anything meaningful anyway.

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

You're a liar, but that's already known.

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

Slow learner?

Repeating a fantasy won't make it true.
Saying you won't allow gun owners is not the same as discrimination based of sex or religion.

You people talk a lot about "rights" and "freedom" but only want them for yourselves and those who agree with you.

It's her business, and she can do this if she wants.
If you don't like it, don't eat there.

[/quote]

Do you ever read[or bounce it around in the hollow space above your neck] the total B.S. that you post?
Or, are you just pro LGBT/anti gun?

"
It's her business, and she can do this if she wants.
If you don't like it, don't eat there."
Would this not apply to the gay/lesbian[?] couple that sued the bakery? Please explain your stance.....in depth.

Snipper has Daddy problems and as such is ***very*** sympathetic to the queer cause.

That's pretty damn apparent. Looks like he's 'coming out'?

Do you ever read[or bounce it around in the hollow space above your neck] the total B.S. that you post?
Or, are you just pro LGBT/anti gun?

"
It's her business, and she can do this if she wants.
If you don't like it, don't eat there."
Would this not apply to the gay/lesbian[?] couple that sued the bakery? Please explain your stance.....in depth.[/quote]
You can't disprove what I said with facts, so you revert to the same moronic middle school taunts as your cohorts.

You can't even figure out the correct way to do a quote.

You can't disprove what I said with facts, so you revert to the same moronic middle school taunts as your cohorts.

You can't even figure out the correct way to do a quote. [/quote]

The more you ramble, the more you prove what I said.
Call me anything you like.
It just makes you look like the fool you truly are.

Deleted double post

I'll take your response as a simple NO.
You have nothing to stand on but[hormonal] emotion. That time of the month, or that time in your life?
But your answer is just what I knew it would be,100% baseless.

Snyper,
Maybe after you teach Raeford how to do quotes, you can figure out how not to double post.

Let me help you with this......

Whose rights do you think are being violated?

Just because you said my cock tastes like sheit don't make me gay.

That's the websites doing, not mine, but I'm glad you found it humorous.

You're just babbling aimlessly.
There was no "yes or no" question to be answered.
I'll take your response as a sign of your mental deficiencies.

When 50 people, plus your immediate family, tell you that you're an idiot, you might want to listen. Idiot.

Figure it out.
It's pretty obvious.

Steelhead, it's obvious you can't read either, so you can save your childish rambling for someone who cares:

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

A few things to keep in mind: human rights are the only rights you can sue other citizens for, courts decree which rights are human rights and they change with levels of acceptable perversion, Constitutional Rights are rights granted by the government, people can infringe on Constitutional rights without recourse, and obviously, the government can too.

I am quite aware of who has had their rights trampled.

I simply asked you to make your expressions here a little more clear. If your expressive limits have been reached Bless your heart...

LGBT is not a sex, it's a perversion just as radical Islam is not a religion but a perversion of a religion.

Technically, defense of the 2A is not "an immutable characteristic", such as race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc., as defined and decided by the SCOTUS.

A property owner ought to always have the right to deny entry or service to any person or persons of their choosing for whatever reason they determine. That is where the SCOTUS went off the tracks on the bakery case, but it applies here as well.

Of course, that doesn't prevent others from boycotting the business of an idiot or bigot and shutting it down, either, and that is the proper course of action with this bitch in Maine. She has her property and gets to make the calls as to whom she serves. Others get to make the call as to whether she does enough business to stay open. The courts need not be involved here, and ought not have been involved in the bakery case.

So in short, what you are saying is that you're a c&nt and every woman in your family is tired of you bleeding cuny dragging all over the furniture.

GOT IT!

If you can't figure out a very clear, unambiguous statement then the problem isn't that what he said doesn't make sense (because it does) it's that you can't or won't comprehend the obvious.

So one can assume she is also refusing to allow service in her establishment to LEOs? But that's Potland so what do you expect....

It will be funny the first time some Afro Ghetto Trash walks thru the door, holds the place up and she calls the cops...

any Afro Ghetto trash with any brains will know that this lady's place is the safest place in Potland to walk in and hold up the joint....

As long as Three Dollar Dewey's still let's me in I'll be okay in Portland.

As long as Three Dollar Dewey's still let's me in I'll be okay in Portland.

They are as clear as they need to be for one of average intelligence to understand.

Just because LEO's sometimes use those guns in the course of performing their duties doesn't necessarily mean they "condone" them or own them personally.

There's no way she can enforce it anyway, so it's really a waste of energy to get your panties in a wad over it all.

Pretty much.

Just like gun free Zone signs. The only person who will find out I'm carryin, is going to have more to worry about....for a very short time

Told you before. Gun Owners are the new negroes....




Society demonized cigarette smokers to the point that it is now part of the social conscience. They are working on doing the same with gun owners.

Islam is a religion. You have been sucked in to the left's lie. Read all about it in their book. The vast majority of Muslim are like the vast majority of Christians. They claim the name, but don't obey their Rule Book.[b][/b]

Typical lost sheep.

How would the numbers compare,

Deaths per year by AR-15 - vs - Deaths per year by AIDS.

Scotus got the Sweet cakes decision wrong.

Your wrong in believing there is no discrimination by the lady who is against AR owners. That discrimination is is just as real and blatant as Sweet Cakes was toward the militant LGBT couple.

I personally am an equal opportunity discriminator and believe that the LGBT's should be discriminated against just as equally as the AR owners and business owners can choose who they want to do business with.

The only real difference is queers are a protected class and AR owners aren't. I believe that neither class should be protected as one class far outnumbers the other and through the element 82 option can protect itself quite well.

I also am thoroughly convinced that you are a d#$k with ears...

I never said "LGBT is a sex".

I said what I said, and it remains true even if you aren't smart enough to know what it means.

As to "perversion", that's just you using your "religion" to pretend you're better than someone else, when really you aren't.

You are wrong there too. Just because religion agrees with natural law on an issue doesn't make it (solely) a religious issue.

You are right, it was not A yes/no question, it was TWO yes/no questions. Of which neither were you capable of answering. If answered truthfully and correctly, your argument is flushed.