Are you suggesting it is not against US law to discriminate against people for being gay or bisexual? Refusing someone a service because they are gay or bisexual is no different then refusing them service because of the color of their skin. Using your religion to justify that does not change it.
Not selling pork to everyone is not the same to not selling cakes to people because of who they sleep with.
A) several of those bakers were fully willing to BAKE a cake, just not cater weddings. AND
B) since at the time, LBGTQ was not a protected 'class', how was it wrong at the time"??
Also, would you have an issue if a business said "Since most drivers who die from texting and driving are kids, i am not going to sell a car to anyone under 23"??
Deflection is all this movement has left in their arsenal of disingenuous rhetoric.
How is it being disingenuous?? IF one is being done for 'safety reasons' (gun age restrictions) WHY NOT make all things that way for 'safety reasons"??
Steps.....one step at a time.
I had never heard of Kroger selling them either until the other day......I just heard that it was in their Marketplace stores. I shop at one of the Kroger Marketplace stores, but I've never seen any guns being sold there...I don't go to that part of the store, I'm there for groceries.
Same here. Two years ago, i had to get rid of old 'recliner chairs' cause the levers to raise the footrests finally broke (though they did last me 5+ years).. I shopped around and the local kroger marketplace down in Pickrington had the best value.. YET i don't remember seeing any guns (other than some Nerf stuff in the toys section) on offer..
a whole generation of kids who want NOTHING to do with firearms will be voting soon, maybe not this cycle or next, but there is going to be a big shift regarding gun culture in the US
Then i truly pity our military and police readiness in the future, if they want NOTHING To do with guns period..
AND while yes, inaction will bring a backlash, SO WILL MAKING stupid do nothing laws, just to 'appear to be doing something'..
Well no, that's not the logic I was using at all, the logic I was using is that no civilian should be able to own a rifle capable of inflicting the sort of damage detailed in that article.
So what about all those people who've bought desert eagles (.50 cal pistols) or civilian versions of Barret .50 cals?? Should they not be allowed to own them "cause of the damage they can cause"??