said by MaynardKrebs: said by camelot: said by MaynardKrebs:
and not foist that on the rest of the public.
So don't patron his business. Problem solved.
So, hypothetically, what if his business was the ONLY one in a town which provided that good/service. Who's rights are being infringed then?
What if the person who wanted that good/service was a disabled woman with cerebral palsy in a wheel chair ?
Is the store owner within their religious rights to say:
a) I don't cut women's hair
b) I don't cut cripple's hair
c) I don't do wheelchairs
d) Some combination of the above?
I think the point trying to be made is where is the line drawn? It could be a slippery slope. Let's say the HRT says it is OK to deny service to women. Next someone uses that precedent to deny service based on skin colour, age, perceived sexual orientation... at what point does it become "unacceptable"?
I would tend to agree with the point Mr Krebs is trying to make, which I think is that we can't allow one freedom to be used a shield to infringe upon another person's freedoms.