Just replying in kind to how I was treated. I assumed from the Golden Rule that since you were treating me with scorn and derision that was how you wanted to be treated and I was obliging you.
Just replying in kind to how I was treated. I assumed from the Golden Rule that since you were treating me with scorn and derision that was how you wanted to be treated and I was obliging you.
Lol. No, you were portraying yourself as taking the "high road" but in fact chose not to take the "high road" while simultaneously recommending me to take the "high ride."
This entire line of reasoning is a red herring because, as I have pointed out several times now, the only part of your comment to TLK that I was addressing was this;
Sigh, it is unfortunate you have to be reminded of how incorrect you are with your statement above. Let's reminisce together, give me a beat! Okay in
post number 581 you said:
According to the Idaho RFRA, their business has nothing to do with it.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
Their business is not their person.
In
post number 607 I responded to your indented comment above with "
A few points. First, the word "person" can refer to a business and if I recall correctly, Idaho does have legal precedent for the word "person" to mean and include "business." Now, while this may seem weird or strange to you, this notion of the word "person" to include a "business" made news over the summer in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the federal statute of RFRA used the word "person" and under federal law "person" was defined to include, inter alia, "business."
Then in post number 618 you retorted with this stellar non-response, red herring, and tangent to my italicized comment above. You said in response:
While this may seem weird or strange to you, the Hobby Lobby case was about what benefits a company can offer its employees, not what people they can refuse to serve as customers. I would love to see a closely held corporation claim that their within their legal rights to refuse to serve blacks or Muslims because of their religious beliefs and see how quickly the RFRA defense is shot down.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the word "person" including "business" under Idaho's RFRA. Second, your retort demonstrates rather conspicuously you painfully misunderstood how Hobby Lobby was used by myself. I didn't invoke the Hobby Lobby case as any authority for the Idaho RFRA law regarding the meaning of person to include a business but rather Hobby Lobby was cited to illuminate the fact it was not unheard of or novel for the word person to include a business in an RFRA statute.
However they are independent and separated from any one individual person when it comes to the rules they must follow. Therefore businesses have certain rules they must follow that transcend the individuals in the store at the time. Whatever employes are manning the store at any particular time must follow those rules as well.
Yeah so? This has absolutely nothing to do with my comment of, "
This is a pleasant legal fiction, and indeed not an accurate reflection of reality. What are places of public accommodation but entities composed of and ran by people. It is not as if public accommodations have a life of their own independent and separated from people." Now, recall my italicized remark was in response to your indented commentary below.
However a reasonable person would not interpret an ordinance that specifically references actions that "places of public accommodation" cannot do, as automatically applying to individuals.
A reasonable person is going to understand it takes a "person" to comply with public accommodation law. In other words, a reasonable person isn't going to read and understand a public accommodation law will require a lifeless, brick and mortar building to not discriminate but rather a person, a flesh and blood human being, with human DNA, is going to comply with the public accommodation law.
If the owners don't wish to follow the governments rules, there are ways around that. The Hitching Post found a way around city ordinance quite nicely. Without I might add, consulting Eugene Volokh.
I award you no points for making an irrelevant and unnecessary remark about Volokh, especially since you have labored tirelessly you couldn't care less of his position, although his legal exposition is in fact relevant for me but not for you. Nice!
This remark above was in response to my comment of, "In addition, Volokh's view is very relevant. Volokh offers a legal defense of the Hitching Post irrespective of the city's perceptions of the situation. This is rather significant because Volokh provides alternate reasons why the Hitching Post may be exempt." 
