Right.

Not to mention telling the kid “well your father was never charged with anything, so tough luck, you must be lying about the abuse” is INSANE. In family domestic cases reports of abuse and assault can go unreported for years out of fear of the abusers (or even to protect them in some cases) To use the fact that he was…

Kids shouldn’t be made to do anything that makes them feel this uncomfortable.

I’ll tell you “what about the Dad”? If he’s okay with his kids being in juvie until they are 18 he is a sick bastard.

I’ve been slightly obsessed with this since I read about it yesterday; I used to live in the county it’s happening in so it feels especially close to my heart.

I thought she perhaps had a relationship with The Children’s Village and by relationship I mean kickbacks. But your thought makes sense.

This is the first I’ve heard of the case. Thanks for giving an expert legal opinion, because my lay opinion is only WHAT THE FUCK. How in the world can you compare the children to the Manson cult? Also, so what if the father is fighting for rights? Abusive parents — mothers and fathers — fight for parental rights all…

A-#)*&%$-men! What LUNATIC holds the kids responsible, and IGNORES the child’s statement of “my father is violent”, and FORCES him to see said father!?

HERE FUCKING HERE MOLLY!

I’m going to bet there is some privatization of that child center going on also!

I can’t believe the Bar Association hasn’t sent out a hit squad. This lunatic makes the entire judiciary look crazy.

Amen.

I’m a family law attorney, and my office has been up in arms about this all week.

It’s not even the plastic toppers that were the issue, it was flat out that it was for a gay wedding. They didn’t say “Oh, we’ll make you the cake, but we aren’t doing the toppers”. The judge had to put a gag order on them because they were calling for other businesses to start denying service to gays.

There’s a difference between refusing to sponsor a message and refusing to serve a customer. Additionally, there’s a difference between refusing to serve a customer and refusing to serve an entire demographic of customers.

Yes. Not serving certain products is acceptable. Not serving certain PEOPLE because of their inherent human characteristics is not.

I mean, how are they supposed to convert the poor sinners and help them see the hetero light if they just make up an excuse? They’re refusing to serve gay people for their own good because everyone knows if the original videographer turns them down gay couples will shrug, break up, and find an opposite sex partner.

I realize that this comparison isn’t perfect, because it isn’t based on religious beliefs, but there were many restaurants in this country who refused to serve people of color until there was enough pressure placed on them. One way to place pressure on these businesses is to sue them.

Operating a business in the public sphere means you agree to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Nobody forced the business owners to do that.