Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

Throwing people out of a restaurant for not liking them is mean BUT legal. Not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple is mean AND illegal.

It does make me suspect that you're a bit forgiving of those who do discriminate against LGBT people, perhaps even sympathetic towards them.

This is so cliched and so hypocritical.

They won't work against the Left. Ever see the picketers outside an abortion clinic? Most of them are over 80 years old. If the Right tries following around Democratic officeholders, after two blocks someone will have to call for an ambulance for the designated rightie confrontor.

You believe wrongly. The Constitution, in Article II, Section II, Paragraph 2, says the Senate must advise and consent on the President's choice for public office. That requirement is fulfilled by talking about the nomination in the appropriate committee, a "floor vote", (a vote before the entire Senate), is not necessary. The Democrats debated all of Bush's nominees in committee, so the Constitution was satisfied. Merrick Garland's nomination was not even discussed in committee, rather Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced to the whole country that NO action-not committee debate, let alone alone any further action-will take place until after the election 11 months in the future. That goes against the Constitutional requirement for the Senate to "advise and consent" on the President's nominees for public office.

The cake maker and the restaurant owner were both out of line and had no right to single those people out for discrimination.
Anyone who urges harassment is partially liable for ensuing violence.

It is indefensible to hold up the nominating process on false pretenses.

Could the democrats have been giving Bush a dose of the medicine they received when Republicans blocked Bill Clinton's nominees?

Seriously, you're being an idiot here.

During President Bill Clinton's first and second terms of office, he nominated 24 people for 20 federal appellate judgeships but the nominees were not processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Always right and truthful my ASS.

here is what you wrote

you can't imagine how many times I re-read it, trying to find something positive in it

CoastalRat wrote:

maporsche wrote:

based on a protected class status

I get it now. You can refuse to serve someone who is not in a protected class for whatever reason you wish. But by God, refuse to serve someone in a protected class for any reason at all and the left demonizes you.

Thank God Ms. Sanders is not a lesbian. Or black. Or an Indian. Or disabled. Or a part of any other protected group, right? Cause then I'm guessing you would be condemning the restaurant owner, correct? It is only because she is not "protected" under some "special group" that she can be refused service. Thanks for clearing that up maporsche.

honestly. it gets worse with every re-read.

Could the democrats have been giving Bush a dose of the medicine they received when Republicans blocked Bill Clinton's nominees?

Since the score was even at that point, the Democrats would have been far better off not picking another fight.

Refusing to consider a nominee is just a form of rejecting that nominee.

I perceive no violation of the Constitution.

in a nutshell I will simply say that the gay couple were not refused service because of the group they belong to (I guess you mean that they were gay) but because the action they wanted to undertake (getting married) was inherently disagreeable to the baker. Seems the same to me.

They didn't pick a fight. The Senate is under no obligation to pass the President's nominees,