Quote:
Originally Posted by Major
There is no hypocrisy. The baker you referenced was exercising his religious freedom under the Constitution. Article 1 reads that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Accordingly, the government cannot force someone to do something that is against his or her religion. The Supreme Court agreed.
That being said, for instances when a customer is accosted in a restaurant, it is up to the restaurant owner to protect the customer, unless the behavior is criminal. Whether the customer is accosted by political enemies or a misogynous creep, the owner, I would think, has a duty to protect the customer, if the owner values the customer. If the owner does not decide to protect the customer, as in the Sarah Sanders/Red Hen incident, then we as customers can decide whether to patronize the establishment and encourage others to do the same.
|
I respectfully disagree and will say that my understanding of the Supreme Court decision was very narrow and does not give blanket permission to refuse to serve someone based on religious beliefs. Instead, it found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. Both business owners respectfully declined to serve someone, and in my opinion, both were wrong. I have not heard that either owner was hostile toward the customer - protestors after the fact certainly were. I do agree with an earlier poster who said civility is declining. But, this remains simply my opinion on a forum that focuses on one of the greatest places I know.