[Skybird]

The baker is nobody#s property and runs his own buiness, I assume at least. Declareing that he must accept just everybody as his custjm er - which means he must accept to do business and have a contract with just anybody - is a vilation of human rioghts. Of course he must have any right to have s sign in his wiondow: "No negros" or "No Jews". And the public has just any right to take not eof that, and to draw consequences form that by either not buying at this abkery anymore, or not caring.

The customer should have a right that any store must serve them, no matter what? Does this include that stores have any right to demand that peopole must buy at them, not at some other store?

This anti-discrimination law thing is hilarious. It always was.

Everybody who runs a business, shouzld and must have the right to decide whom he accepts as customer and wants to do bsuiness with and agrees on a contract, a treaty, an act of bartering. That is so profound that I do not even will to argue abiout it, that basic it is. I accept no reeducating and no moralising and no paternalising to play aorfund with and limit this, that profound I see it.

People and customers and compoanies must have the freedom to decide whom they accept as business partner, and whom, not. They necessarily also must accept any consequences form that. They then mjst decide whether they accept that conseqwuences, or alter their own decision scheme on whom to acept as business partners, or they must shot down andf nkvoe somewhere else, if they feel like it.

Nobody owns anyone else, n obody has a right to lay claim for th eother, nobody has a right to be liked, loved, accepted by somebody else. That is socialist, collectiovist, brainwashing, totalitarian, paternalistic drivel.

You cannot fight racism by forbidding racist opinions. Islam's behaviour shows that. The US racism problem shows it from the opposite direction.

Only enlightenment, and thus; culture, and family educaction help.

I rather accept some racist shop keepers her eor there, than the constant state-driven re-educaiton schmes and plans that int he end only limit freedom more and more and take respnnsiblity away form people and suibmit them to the self-claimed authority of the state.

The point is, while a racist shop may be there, I am not forced to buy there.

The point also is that what one sees as racism, another one does not necessarily agree on. And in our political correct times, these killer labels are swung like rhetorical war axes and broadswords just to silence unwanted opinions and pacify public opinion by consensus enforced by mobbing of anonymous masses.

This lawyer is wrong, and completely.

---

A bit more reason was shown by the German Constitutional High Court yesterday. There was a Muslim couple with a child, eligible for emelentary school, and two schools available in their neighbourhood: an ordinary public school 3 km away, and a Catholic school 250 meters away. They asked to be allowed into the Catholic school. The school said: Okay, but be advised that we are a deliberate Catholic school, and for our students, participation in Catholic religion courses and church services is mandatory, and parents have to agree to that by signing a legally binding declaration of consent. This is what I call the my-house-my-rules-masterrule. The couple did sign that, and the kid went to the school. Then they started to sue the school for forcing their Muslim child to attend said courses and services. They went through the various levels of the court system, lost everywhere, and finally adressed the Constitutional High Court - which thankfully now has refused to accept their case and drove them away, saying they have no valid claim to file at all.

I may or may not agree with religious schools, the point is: I am free to accept sending my kid to one, or choosing a public school. If this religious thing is so fundamental to me, then 2.5 km hardly shall make me waver.

We have had another court case two or three years ago, where a Catholic hospital was forced to accept a Muslim nurse wearing Islamic clothing. The judge said that the nurse knew it was a Catholic hposital with a certain dress code, did not mean that she shares respjnsiblity for her deicison to nevertheless ask for work there, nor means the fact the house is in ownerhsip by the Catholic church means it can rule that catholic values and rules shall not dominate there and demand its workers to comply with them. So, German courts do not decide consistsently on such "discrimination" claims. The ruling yesterday was anything but natural and to be expected, even if all courts before also refused the claim.