OC for ME
Regular Member
I indicated my specific objections to this bill and why I believe that this bill would be bad law.Correct. Wet floors, locked fire doors, etc have been previously and pretty much universally addressed in this nation. As has denying access and services based on race, gender, religious or political affiliation, and now based on choosing to engage in homosexual conduct and broadcasting that choice to the public.
If you'd like to publicly state your objection to these successful "efforts to diminish property rights" I can accept your objection to this bill as principled. Otherwise...
I object to your continued pejorative description of my position.
I object to those who invite the public to enter their premises while maintaining a dangerous environment.
Do you really object to laws prohibiting grossly dangerous conditions like locked or non-existent fire doors?
I also object to an unlevel playing field.
So long as Christian bakers and photographers face governmental force for not participating in homosexual "weddings" and receptions, so long as all male institutions face lawsuits forcing them to admit women, so long as affirmative action places white males at disadvantage for college and jobs, the left can live with one requirement they don't like.
Charles
Does not this bill recommend that the government be used to compel/coerce a private property owner to act contrary to his wishes regarding the peaceable use of his property? Do you not support this bill?
My description of your position on this bill and what it portends is accurate.