Only if you delete the salient phrase of my sentence.:rolleyes:

A tacit yes given your deletion. :cool:

Au contraire. It was a "no," emphasizing that you changed the inherent meaning of my post with your deletion. Ever heard of taking things out of context or is that too difficult a concept for a Texan to grasp?:rolleyes:

The Dotard just can't help himself. He tweets:

The Red Hen Restaurant should focus more on cleaning its filthy canopies, doors and windows (badly needs a paint job) rather than refusing to serve a fine person like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!

I'd sue the muddafucka.

So, you don't see the similarity in these two instances of refusing service based on one's beliefs? The two wrongs make it right philosophy in action.

Neither case had to do with the customers' beliefs. In the gay case, they were refused service for an inherent trait (i.e., being gay). SHS was refused service for what she did - incessantly lying in support of a cruel, racist, homophobic and misogynist agenda. Being gay is not a choice. SRS constantly lying to the American people in support of a vile authoritarian wannabe's agenda while on the public payroll is.

As Finn points out, the difference is the gay couple came to the bakery with clean hands, without being figures of public malfeasance. SHS came as a public political figure in violation of both secular and religious norms.

It's discrimination for status vs. discrimination for cause. It's now public consensus that discrimination for membership in a disliked group is illegitimate, even if one has a 'religious rationale.' But discriminating against an individual for that individual's known public conduct is a different matter, is it not?

Both cases had to do with the servers'/owners' beliefs.

It's discrimination based on what one believes is right. See the similarity?

OK, but one belief involves disapproval of private persons doing something perfectly legal and the other involves disapproval of a public official constantly lying in support of illegal and vile practices (unconstitutional Muslim ban, revoking due process from asylum-seekers, illegal campaign contributions via porn star payoffs, self-dealing through charitable foundation ...).

In short, SHS wasn't denied service due to her beliefs/views, she was denied service due to her actions (constant lying while on the public payroll in defense of illegal activities). Half of our country seems OK with the Trump administration's constant lying and have helped normalize and excuse it. This restaurant owner belongs to the other (righteous) half.