Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3089280" data-attributes="member: 13624">Yes, you are.&nbsp; It&#039;s not the government&#039;s place to exact punishment on behalf of people who are &quot;pissed off;&quot; governments are instituted to secure certain rights, not to make sure you&#039;re not &quot;pissed off,&quot; and you certainly don&#039;t have a right to a discount from Company X because you happen to do business with Company Y.The wedding cake issue (and the similar photographer and florist cases) aren&#039;t directly comparable because, in those jurisdictions, there are specific statutes making sexual orientation a protected class.&nbsp; Personally, I think that such statutes are a bad idea--businesses ought to be free to choose with whom they&#039;ll do businesses, and on what terms--but like it or not, they are valid, duly-enacted law.&nbsp; Show me the statute making a protected class out of NRA members, and show me how treating them exactly the same as non-members (that is, not giving special treatment in the form of a discount) violates that statute, and you&#039;ll be on to something.Otherwise, you&#039;re just trying to use the tax code to punish what can probably be classified as &quot;core politlcal speech,&quot; which enjoys the very highest degree of protection under the First Amendment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3089280, member: 13624"] Yes, you are. It's not the government's place to exact punishment on behalf of people who are "pissed off;" governments are instituted to secure certain rights, not to make sure you're not "pissed off," and you certainly don't have a [I]right[/I] to a discount from Company X because you happen to do business with Company Y. The wedding cake issue (and the similar photographer and florist cases) aren't directly comparable because, in those jurisdictions, there are specific statutes making sexual orientation a protected class. Personally, I think that such statutes are a bad idea--businesses ought to be free to choose with whom they'll do businesses, and on what terms--but like it or not, they are valid, duly-enacted law. Show me the statute making a protected class out of NRA members, [I]and[/I] show me how treating them exactly the same as non-members (that is, [I]not[/I] giving special treatment in the form of a discount) violates that statute, and you'll be on to something. Otherwise, you're just trying to use the tax code to punish what can probably be classified as "core politlcal speech," which enjoys the very highest degree of protection under the First Amendment. [/QUOTE]

Verification