daddyo

  That applies only to one side, of course.

  But it wasn't. Does the business owner have the right to deny someone service because of that?

  What hate and ignorance are you referring to? I see disagreement, but I see no hate or ignorance.   There are numerous definitions of "Christian", most of which have little to no basis in fact. What is yours? Based on your name-calling of some who don't agree with your view, I could call your criticism of people who profess to be Christians "hatred" if I wanted to, and I would be as justified as you in that criticism, but I won't do that. Does the business owner have the right to refuse someone or not?

  Does the concept of "freedom of association" not apply to private business owners? And if that's the case, should they be forced to remove any "no guns" signs because they're violating someone else's rights? After all, that's the whole premise behind this case - someone's perceived rights were violated by a business owner.

  You're right; you did say that and I missed it. Thanks for pointing it out to me.   The parallels may be obvious to some, I guess, but I still think it's a stretch. Blacks have no control over their physical characteristics. Gays may or may not have control over their sexual preference, but they do have control over their behavior and the choices they make.   I don't know that anyone should be treated differently, but I think a business owner should free to choose who he does business with. If someone doesn't want my business because I carry a gun, I take my business elsewhere. Even if gun owners were a protected class, it still wouldn't give me any right to force the proprietor to violate his own business practices and make me an exception.

  Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to label me. I was referring to another post in which that label was used.

  That's true. I don't relate to someone wanting to marry someone of the same sex. Does that make me a "hater" just because I don't?

  I guess it depends on whether or not you equate the civil rights movement to gay rights. I don't and neither do many blacks.

  While that's a funny statement, accusing someone of hating just because they won't compromise their standards, nor bend to the will of someone else really does nothing to help the argument.

  And this is exactly how the gay lobby operates.... accommodate and accept us or suffer the consequences. That's tyranny.

The gay lobby has a real PR problem. They haven't been able to persuade the majority that there is nothing wrong with their sexual preference, so they've decided to abuse the legal system to make their point. This scenario is a great example of that.

  One of the advantages of owning and running one's own business has always been that they could refuse service to anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose.   Why should someone in the private sector be forced to offer service to someone with whom they don't want to associate? The reason really doesn't matter. I couldn't care less if two people I've never met in my life want to live their lives together. But the government shouldn't be able to force me to do business with them if I don't want to. The reason doesn't matter. The Bill of Rights works both ways.

I suppose the day is coming when sensitivity training will be mandatory for everyone, or you'll have to pay a big penalty to the gummit.

And the MSM continues to ignore this. Unbelievable.

Every parent's worst nightmare. I hope she is found soon and that she is OK.

I think Hertz is the only rental company I've ever used. Any problem I've had with them, they've taken care of it; no questions asked.   No reason to use anyone else.

There's NEVER a good reason to tailgate, and it's simply against the law. This morning, a white Chevy pickup decided he was going to tailgate me in the far right hand lane between Franklin and Nashville instead of going around me. Guess what? He almost hit me because I brake checked him. He still didn't get the message, so I did it again. He floored it and went around me. Did he want me to send him a telegram? Idiot. You have no right or justification to ride someone else's bumper.

Good point, Dave. I'll bet not a single one of those drivers behind you is willing to pick up the tab if you get a ticket for speeding just so they can be on their merry way. They can just sit there and stew for all I care.

  That hasn't been my experience. While there is no shortage of rude and selfish drivers, there are still plenty of courteous motorists.

I have to say that I really like Tarantino's films. They are highly entertaining. But they are entertainment only, and I place no political or historical significance on them.

  Wasn't my intent at all. Didn't mean to upset you; sorry.

  OK, then, give me YOUR definition of "reasonable" as it applies to the statute.

  The statute is about impeding normal AND reasonable traffic. Tailgating and excessive speeds are not "reasonable".   And my point was about tailgating; not MPH.

  The 5 mph difference in my post is arbitrary and just for illustrative purposes, so I can only conclude that yours is too.

  "Quickly enough" for who? If I am driving 70 passing someone doing 65, and someone is on my tail, they are violating 55-8-124 and creating an unsafe traffic condition, not the other way around.