Jackson Jambalaya

A whole hour passed mad not one bigoted statement?

Must be heavy censorship

For the life of me I don't understand how one judge can rule (for the minority) that opposes the vote of the majority of people. That is not democracy.
If the minority can't win in an election they try to win in the judicial system. That is not democracy.

What happens if the majority are mouthbreathers?

Mr. Weir-I'm a card-carrying Rankin County Christian Republican. My thoughts on this bill-it was unnecessary hatred and bigotry thinly masked as a religious "freedom" bill. It should have been called the religious discrimination/right to be an ignorant bigot bill. Not since the 1960s has out state representatives, senators, gov, & Lt gov been so hateful. They use the buzz terms "god" "abortion" "gun right" and now "gays" to invoke fear in the public. They prey on the ignorance of the general population in an attempt to further their discriminatory practices. The majority of the educated masses in our state do not agree with this bill. It's hateful. One day (or even today) our Christian children and grandchildren will look at us in disbelief over this legislation. Shame on our legislature, gov, and lt gov

Please do not appeal, Mr. Hood. The law is clear, and clearly violated by this hate filled bill. An appeal will waste thousands of dollars.

Two-Star General Hood pretty much covered the waterfront in that campaign speech. All he left out was 'for the children'.

No, 11:07, what you call democracy is mob rule. That is not what was ever intended by our founding fathers and is exactly why we have our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Weir,
The Constitution is there to protect the rights of the majority and more importantly, the minority. Just because the majority decides to pass a law that violates the rights of a smaller group of citizens doesn't make it legal. Maybe you should consider how you would feel if YOU were in the minority and the majority passed laws that took away some of your freedoms. I'm sure you would expect that "one judge" to protect your rights just as if you were a member of the majority. Hood is absolutely correct on this issue.

Wow to the comments. Maybe there is hope for this state. Let's see if Bryant and Gunn come out and say JJ is the liberal media.

Religion is all about punishment and power. All a person has to do is read the bible. Most of the people who support the law our leaders passed have never read the bible, if they can even read.
We need leaders who will put more thought into how to stay in budget and less on punishing a certain group of people.
Our leaders had to borrow from the rainy day fund to balance the budget but want to spend more money trying to defend a law they passed that should have never even been considered.

If a managing partner of a law firm issued a statement like that, the firm would be fired. Probably what Hood wants here.

all these outside groups pushing this unnecessary bill miscalculated by trying to wage a culture war in a state with a democrat AG and a set of very liberal to centrist federal judges who could hear the inevitable legal challenge. It may be easy to get the legislature to buy in, but you got to convince the courts too.

regardless of how anyone may feel about 1523, any minimally competent attorney, less and except Speaker Gunn, knew that bill would never survive constitutional scrutiny. Hood shouldn't waffle, he needs to simply say the obvious and refuse to appeal. The Governor, Speaker and Lt. Gov. are simple clowns to carry on the charade.

Johnny Weir, we are a democratic republic not a pure democracy. The reason we are not is that our Founding Fathers not only wanted citizens to have a voice, they wanted to protect citizens from the " tyranny of the majority".
They also didn't want crazy or stupid people to vote or to be elected, but we messed that one up as Mississippi's legislature proves over and over again!

I continue to be perplexed at the nature of Philip Gunn's part in all of this. He's a good lawyer from a first-rate law firm, and he couldn't see how this would come out legally? Or more likely he sat on his hands and abandoned any notion of fidelity to his professional duties, as he has done since he became "Mr. Speaker." Surprise, surprise.

That said, I would much rather have him as Governor than L'il Tater.

@ 7:26...the problem with your argument (a) there is ALWAYS a smaller minority who's rights get trampled by the bigger minority. In this case, it is the 2 or 3 people who TRULY believe they would be committing sin to participate in any way, shape, form, or fashion in a marriage ceremony that, according to THEIR deeply held beliefs is immoral. It does not matter one iota how YOU or anybody else feels about their belief. They have a right to believe what they believe just as you have a right to believe what you believe. And, (b) not one single soul would be deprived of a single, solitary right by enforcement of this law. Gays would NOT be prevented from obtaining a marriage license, from having their ceremony, from having a wedding cake, or flowers or anything else. There is ALWAYS a plethora of people ready, willing and able to provide ALL of these services without the happy couple even seeing a blip on their radar screen. If there is any "misleading" going on as respects how this law is being represented, it is those who claim it deprives Gays of their right to marry. That is simple a LIE.

Feel and Tator have shown themselves to be eager to pander to the lowest instincts of Mississippi voters on 1523. I am disgusted with them.

Gunn is just pandering to the rednecks. He's hoping they'll forget about his flag deal in 2019.

Go to YouTube and check out Muslims refusing to bake cakes for same-sex weddings. Where is the outcry? Let a Christian refuse and you can lose your business or home. It hasn't happened in MS but it has sure happened in other states. Write the bill any way you want but these people shouldn't be cut out of the public square due to their religious beliefs.

wrong 12:20, if they don't want to issue a license to same sex couples, they need to find another job. like the former circuit clerk in Grenada County, who resigned because she knew that she was going to be compelled to issue such. i admired her convictions and think she is one of the few people involved in this issue that had a true moral compass.

People can have deep held feelings about many things. That is their right. Just because they have deep held feelings does not make them right or wrong. Something people with these deep help feelings should remember is that other people may have completely different deep held feelings.
If your deep held feeling is based on a fairy tale you should not expect to have a law forcing others to believe like you. Go ahead and enjoy these feelings but give other people, who do not believe in fairy tales, the same rights.

Since the fascists demand that everybody cater to their whims, let's look in magic ball and see where we are 15 years from now: prostitution is legal (like in Nevada). What happens to the prostitute that refuses services to a same sex John ? Will she/he be jailed for refusal of service?

Fascist demands are fascist.

I will vote for any candidate whose platform isn't trying to.outredneck his opponent.

2:17, Prostitutes usually have sex with people who are willing to pay them money to have sex with them, male or female (like in Nevada).

@307 If a prostitute refuses to have paid sex with a same sex individual simply because of discrimination (not liking sexual relations with the same sex), whats to stop the government from attacking said refusal.

Because 5 years ago, bakers weren't forced to bake wedding cakes, caterers weren't forced to cater, photographers weren't forced to photograph, places that rent out locations for weddings, wedding planners, people licensed to perform marriage all had the right to say no. Why are they forced to do things they don't want to do? Because of facists.

sign me 217

2:12 - The problem with your comment is that those who don't believe in "fairytale" are the ones who's rights are HONORED and those who DO believe are the ones being discriminated against....just as you've proved by saying THEY should keep THEIR beliefs to themselves. Christians can't say a prayer on public property, even though that PUBLIC property belongs to THEM just as much as it belongs to anyone else because some atheist who lives 3000 miles away might be "offended: by it. A county clerk can't stay true to her religious beliefs by simply asking the OTHER clerk to issue the marriage license because the gay guy's FEELINGs might get might get hurt. Self-employed Baker can't refuse to use his personal GOD GIVEN talent to bake a cake for the same reason. All while hate-filled gays discriminate against these people by singling them out to provide goods or services they can NOT provide without violating their religious principles then SUE them to FORCE them to do these things against their will. How anyone can say that's not Government-MANDATED discrimination is beyond me.

Everybody is jumping the governor's shit. Remember.....this was a bill that made it's way through both chambers. All the governor did was sign it.

Representative government at its best. Most of us favored the bill that became law. The nipple-ring crowd won this round.

Feigning concern for prostitutes in Nevada are we?
I bothered to look it up. Nevada has some of the harshest RAPE laws/ punishments I've ever bothered to google. So, I think the prostitutes are okay, for now. ✌️

"Christians can't say a prayer on public property"

Just FYI, this is false. May not be able to lead others in public prayer - like the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned (do any of you pious frauds ever bother to read the Bible?) - but ain't nobody gonna stop you from praying yourself.

But that's not enough, is it? You want to make *other* people participate, probably because you're so weak in faith that you need to see other people compelled, and you don't have the faith to pray alone and confidently.

i give you the wisdom of Rust Cohle to help explain why otheriwse educated men (who are attorneys and sworn public officials) would pass something like HB whatever the number was....completely pandering to the lowest common denominator. And in Mississippi, that denomiator is really, really low.

If youtube links do not work here, a simple search of "Rust Cohle Religion" will sudfice.

https://youtu.be/_RfUj09pWfM

Why would a follower of Christ pray on public property? Christ said you shouldn't do that.

Jim, the reviewing stand is waiting for you.

Are you people really so blind?. 1523 was a charade from the beginning. Feel, Tater, 6-Gunn and the whole RINO cabal passed the bill SO THAT it could be shot down by the courts. That way the agenda moves forward but they get cover. They're all in on the game and The General is just playing his part. It couldn't be more obvious.

"You want to make *other* people participate, probably because you're so weak in faith that you need to see other people compelled, and you don't have the faith to pray alone and confidently. "

Uh, no; about 180 degrees off. This was an attempt to force traditional Christians to participate in a religious ceremony (e.g., a gay wedding) that the baker/photographer/whatever felt was an attack on his/her own religious beliefs. The penalty was civil fines that have forced a few unwilling participants out of business. Notice the gays, who sometimes "just happened" to have recordings of the initial phone call trying to make someone participate in their religious ceremony, never called on a Muslim baker(probably afraid they would get killed, based on recent activity by members of the 'Religion of Peace').

The foolishness of 1523 was trying to allow government employees to refuse to provide government services; that's different than coercing private citizens to enter a private contractual relationship against their will.

11:18am You have obviously not read the bill but listened to what others said it means.
You obviously don't understand that marriage is a legal contract and the religious ceremony is optional. Here's your hint: you need a marriage license and proof of marriage to have your marriage be legal. A church wedding only will not suffice. That is why you get a marriage license and then show proof a ceremony by someone legally authorized to conduct the ceremony took place.
You engage in selective outrage since many sins are listed in the Bible and ignore the instruction not to cast the first stone unless you are without sin. Are you really? You don't seem to have a problem supporting other sinners or being " puffed up". Do you ask who are fornicators? Do you ask if they are adulterers or thieves? You have listened to those who bore false witness and led you to commit the same sin on this blog. That's one of the 10 and there are no exceptions to be found. And, if you are a Christian, you should be giving a bit more weight to what Jesus had to say.

10:45 pm No one with authority to conduct a marriage ceremony has ever been forced to do so. That hasn't changed. You can't even force the minister of your own church to marry you! And there are laws against making threats to anyone. Anyone threatened should call the police.
And, if you are so silly and so without sin as to think that taking a photograph or baking a cake is the same as being an invited guest and witness who supports the marriage and your soul is at risk, just advertise that you don't do weddings. The money you'd lose isn't more important than your soul and you know what the Bible says about being a " rich man" and what a burden that is!

6:31, there is absolutely nothing stopping a Christian from praying anytime and anywhere they get the urge. The other people around them do not always want to stop everything they are doing just so the Christian can pray. Prayer does not have to involve all others in the area. Other people should not be forced to pray along with the Christian.
A govt. employee should know what the job they want to fill involves. If they cannot perform the job they should not take the job. That is simple common sense. Remember it is a job.
If you are in any business that sells to the public that is what you should do, sell to the public. The beliefs of the customer should not be something you need to know. Either sell your product or close down and go home.
It is very simple. All people should have the same rights. The only difference in a gay person and a straight person is who they are attracted to. Every person, gay or straight, should have that right.

6:49, the governor should have had the intelligence to not sign a bill that is discriminatory, does harm to the state, and is not so bad that it has to be stopped by others higher up.
Our governor failed the people. The bad part is he does not even know what he did is wrong.

"Much ado about nothing"

Why is it that gay, atheist commenters, and their useful idiot supporters, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that Muslim bakers refuse to bake for gays, Muslim believers routinely stone gays and throw them from the nearest, available high roof?
Where is the LGBTQ outrage, and lawsuit, over Muslim bakers?
Selectively outraged cowards.

10:58, where exactly and when did muslim bakers throw a gay person off a roof top for simply trying to buy a cake? How was it possible for them to get away with it without charges? I would like to know what city and state would allow this because they were muslim.

9:21 A govt. employee should know what the job they want to fill involves. If they cannot perform the job they should not take the job. That is simple common sense. Remember it is a job."


Virtually ALL GOVT. employees were employed PRIOR to the unbelievable transformation that has taken place in our county in the last decade or so. The MAJORITY of Americans have been overrun by minuscule factions that have been promoted by the liberal agenda in order to weaken American fabric to the tearing point.

12:15, a true Christian would have quit their job immediately when the unbelievable transformation took place. If they continued to work we can see they valued a job and the pay over their Christian beliefs.

@11:22am. You are either purposefully being ignorant or just can't handle reading comprehension and current events? First, there is a video of a person trying to get Muslim bakers in MI to bake a cake for a gay wedding and they all refuse - angerly at that. Second, the poster above is clearly saying Muslims in other countries throw gays off buildings which once again is on video. I would venture to guess that given the opportunity for more punitive punishments against gays in America they would eagerly jump at the chance.

Point is the bakers in MI receive no scorn from the liberal media or gays rights groups; but in states like OR we have a baker who is fined $100,000 dollars and driven out of business for not baking a cake for a gay wedding.

I am a conservative voter who was against HB 1523; but I am even more against liberal hypocrisy and an out of control judicial system that can screw over a private business owner for not wanting to produce a product for whatever reason. I would hope that you can agree that a printer shouldn't be required to print pamphlets for the KKK or similar? Let the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding suffer through the market-driven system where other gay couples can choose to use another baker. And in today's social media world it is much easier to call out narrowminded private business owners and let the market take care of the outcome.

12:43, do you think the same rules should apply to a baker that doesn't want to bake a cake for a black person?

As much as it may twist your little mind:

Groups do not have rights, whether a group of homosexuals or a group of religious people. Rights pertain to individuals, and government has a moral responsibility to recognize the equal rights of all individuals. Although it would be wrong for government to violate the rights of religious people more severely than it does already, ultimately religious freedom laws should not exist. They should be replaced with freedom laws—laws that establish freedom for everyone equally.

A summary of “Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society"

Each individual has a right—whether or not government recognizes it—to the product of his effort and to freedom of association. A “right” to the product of someone else’s effort—whether a wedding cake, a pizza, an automobile, or an Internet cable—would inherently violate the producing party’s rights of property. It would also violate a business owner’s freedom of association by forcing him to associate with (i.e., serve) those whom he does not want to associate with. Government’s proper role here is to protect individuals’ rights to property and association even when they behave immorally, not to force bigoted business owners to serve gays. (Of course, individuals also have a right to denounce and boycott businesses of which they disapprove.)

But, to sum up your point in the current situation unlike race and gender, sexual orientation is not a protected class — yet. And while we have on a whole places that do business with all races of people, the market is speaking when you clearly have sections of towns with businesses that 99.9% cater to a particular race of people. Yet, you don't have liberal hypocrites saying boo about that. Go to the Walmart on Hwy 18 verses the Madison Walmart and you will find much more aisle realestate dedicated to black hair care products on Hwy 18... market driven decisions my friend not racism.

#1:Should bakers be allowed to bake a cake for a black person? In MY opinion, anybody should be allowed to refuse to do business with any one they don't want to do business with. But to answer your direct question with a direct answer: The issue is whether a person should be allowed to claim Conscientious Objector status in order to avoid violating their religious beliefs. So, since being black is not a sin (at least, not in any organized religion that I've ever heard of), the question is moot.

#2: Does our constitution limit our right to PRACTICE our faith only to SILENT prayer? Answer, NO! It does not. Furthermore our freedom of speech protects our right to speak our minds. That INCLUDES praying out loud if we want to. We ALSO have the right to assemble. Therefore, if a bunch of us want to assemble in public and pray together - out loud - we SHOULD have the right to do that without interference from ANYBODY.

#3: to whomever it was that said a person must have a marriage license to get marriage... Yeah. So, what's your point?? NOBODY has said that ANYBODY could not get a marriage license. NOBODY has even attempted to show that this law would have interfered in ANY way with a Gay person getting a marriage license. Neither has anybody even attempted to demonstrate how a Gay person would be prevented from getting a cake, or flowers, or a beautiful venue, or a karaoke DJ.....NOTHING would be denied a Gay person. NOTHING.

The Supreme Court's Decision to redefine marriage has created a lot of questions about the rights of some people vs the rights of others. Both groups have legitimate legal rights at stake here. This will go on in various courts for years. How the SCOUS could read the constitution and think that somehow THEY have the right to redefine marriage in all 50 states is beyond me. According to the US constitution each state can define marriage for itself.
I think the writers and supporters of this bill have done a pretty good job of trying to protect the rights of some people without violating the rights of others. Of course the liberal crowd kicked into outrage mode at once. Do you liberals not see how crazy it is that you want others to be 'tolerant' of your views until you have some sliver of legal control? Then you have NO tolerance. Gay rights folks could gain a lot of respect from the rest of us, and not hurt their cause at all, if they would take the stance that 'As long as we are free to marry we don't want to infringe on anyone's rights. If someone doesn't want to bake a cake or sell flowers for a gay wedding we don't want them to. We have set up a website where gays can find people who want to perform all these services for your wedding. And at the courthouse, as long as someone on the staff will give us a license without delay, we don't care who it is.' If the gay leaders, if there is such a thing, would promote some good will they could make 90% of this strife disappear.

Getting to be quite a few long winded people on here. Lots of talking but not much understanding. It isn't hard to understand. Any right you want for yourself should be extended to every one else. End of story.

Ms. has a lot of extra money. People should demand that the governor hire every attorney in the state to fight this thing. Take as much money as needed to fight this. Make cuts in education. Make cuts to all benefits. Raise taxes if needed. We the people want to pay extra taxes.
No wonder Ms. is at the bottom.

The 'Mississippi at the bottom' nutcase speaks again ^^^ @ 4:29.

Please tell me how somebody having to shop around for a cake is 'being punished'.

10:26
Please tell us all how defending this bill is a 'wise use' of taxpayer funds? Mr. Perkins has plenty of funds. Maybe his organization can pony up the dough.

God may pay his bills, but he doesn't pay ours.

Everyone should read Judge Reeve's opinion. It is well written, logical and unassailable in my view as an attorney. I believe Hood has a clear duty not to waste money on an appeal that could only be frivolous. There can only be one honest answer: the law is unconstitutional. Don't waste another dime on it, Mr. Hood. That is your duty.

"What if the majority is a bunch of mouth breathers?"

Conversely, What if the majority is a bunch of spike-haired, nipple-ringed, velvet-slippered men marching in a rainbow parade?

Choose your poison.

Christians certainly can say a prayer on public property. You just can't force everyone else to pray with you or disrupt the activities of others. Christians can pray at school, they just can't force others to pray with them or disrupt the activities of others.
How would you feel if you were in a public setting or your children were at school and suddenly a person or group pulled out a rug, faced Mecca and started praying out loud?
It may come as a shock to some of you but not all Christians believe they should pray out loud only when in a house of worship. The Bible has some passages they feel support that point of view. Not all Christian denominations believe in proselytizing.
Some of you are making the assumption that all Christians agree with your evangelical point of view. You seem to forget that even in one denomination there can be divisions. Not all the Methodists and Presbyterian Churches are the same.
And, I hate to break the news to some of you, but if you are going to be engaged in commerce, you have to follow the law. You don't get to provide goods and services just to people you like and of whom you approve unless they are violating the law on the premises.
Our Founding Fathers knew full well what it was like to suffer from oppression . The persecution of Protestants by the Catholic Church was not ancient history to them. And, they had been denied access to goods and services available to those in power as well.
Practice YOUR religion in your home and place of worship. No one is stopping you. Do not impose your Biblical interpretations on me when I'm trying to socialize with friends, conduct business , or buy goods and services.

3:07 The judge makes gaping errors in historical references. Regardless of one's position, this opinion is poorly written. But because this opinion rides the crest of the stampede, it will still be hailed as wonderful.

I wish those opposed to the law would offer cogent responses. Instead they just name call and demonize. Dissent does not equal hate.

6:57 said, " Do not impose your Biblical interpretations on me when I'm trying to socialize with friends, conduct business , or buy goods and services."

This is deceitful. This matter is about allowing Christians the right to not to have to close their businesses or violate their religious convictions. Regardless of what else is in the law, this is what Christian want. If you want to buy from someone who does not hold to those religious convictions, then no one is stopping you. You on the other hand, want to force your business owners to capitulate under the thumb of your oppression. What hypocrisy!

"Should a bakery be allowed to refuse service to a black?"

No. Primarily because there is federal law that speaks to race discrimination.

There is no federal law that speaks to discrimination against homosexuals.

While federal discrimination law does include sex discrimination, any fool knows that means discrimination against one because he or she is a man or a woman. Homosexuality is not a sex class. It's an activity.

A business certainly has a right to refuse service to someone based on his/her race. But he also runs the risk of encountering a legal hurdle for that decision.

For many years I was in the construction business. I never built a liquor store, strip club, or casino. Once, an architect friend asked me to work with him to build a low budget motel on highway 80 in West Jackson. I declined. I reasoned that this place would be used for prostitution and for affairs. You could argue that all motels are used for prostitution and affairs. I would agree, but this misses the point. The point is that I owned the construction company. My money was at risk and my name was on the door. It was my decision to make an no one else's. I could have decided not to build churches. That was my right. So a lot of this bill is about property rights. I understand the if you are selling shoes you must sell to everyone. But if your business involves creating something custom made for a specific customer no one has the right to force you to work for any customer and you can refuse for any reason or for no reason. Property rights are extremely important in our country. They are part of the foundation of our success as a nation and should be strongly defended.

6:57am said: And, I hate to break the news to some of you, but if you are going to be engaged in commerce, you have to follow the law. You don't get to provide goods and services just to people you like and of whom you approve unless they are violating the law on the premises.

Oh really? Being rude is not breaking the law; yet businesses every day refuse service to jackasses of all kinds.

Most Christians have failed in reading their bible they thump so loudly. Instead of beating your bible like a drum try opening it up and reading it.

8:09, It is beginning to look like the law feels the same about not selling to a black as it does to any other person. I know this is a disappointment to you. The judge does a good job explaining it. You just have to understand what the judge is saying.
It is only right and fair that a business run the risk of encountering a legal hurdle when they decide their business does not have to sell to a customer just because the owner does not agree with something that is not their business in the first place.
Face it, it is the law. Don't like it? Get another job where you are not involved with other people. Ever tried sheep herding?

10:17 We don't have socialism in this country. (At least we aren't supposed to) If you own a business YOU own it, not the government. There very specific instances where you must sell to everyone, but in general if you are creating a custom product for a specific customer you have the right to refuse. Try forcing an attorney to take your case if he doesn't want to and see how far you get.

10:50; Let an attorney tell me he won't have me as a client because I am a female, a black man or a Jew and see how far HE gets.

10:50 The attorney does not have to give you a reason and he won't. Again, it is his business.
This is the outgrowth of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The act went too far. As a result some people try to twist it around to mean even tho you own a business, the government runs it. That is what they do in Russia and why their people are always suffering.

10:50, the attorney listens to your case before he decided to take the case or refuse. That is his business. Selling cakes is sort of different. A baker does not need to know anything about the customer other than what kind of cake they want. Why they want it does not matter. Your only job is baking a cake to sell to a customer. Nothing about the person is your business.
That isn't so hard to understand now is it?

10:50 do you actually believe that? Supposed you researched attorneys and you know without a doubt this guy is the best in the state for your case. He still might turn you down based on all sorts of things and doesn't have to give you the correct reason. It could be conflict of interest, his political beliefs, his reputation, or his profit. Or he only does divorces for hot looking women. Or all of these. But somehow the cake maker, in your world, doesn't have these rights. What about the contractor who said something before. You want him to build a liquor store for you. It is a legal business. He refuses to build liquor stores. Does he have that right? Is he an attorney or a cake maker? Where is the line? You have drawn an arbitrary line that does not exist. My line is also simple - If I make cakes and set them on the shelf for sale I have to sell to whoever has the money. But for custom made cakes, I can make them only for people whose last name starts with 'E" if I choose to do so because it is my business.

It's all about the political race in 2019. Tater Gunn, do the right thing. This is going to backfire on you and put Hood in the mansion.

KF: please publish Judge Reeve's opinion so all these pontificators will actually read it.

12:02; If you owned a business or had every worked in one of any size you would know damned well that even though somebody owns a business, the government DOES run it.

5:29, that is the main problem. People do not know what they are talking about. We could include the governor and his politician buddies in that.

5:29 this is 12:02 I owned a construction business for 15 years. I hate to disappoint you, but I ran it. The government deposited my checks for taxes. If you let them run your business I feel sorry for you.

Hood loses in 2019. Just watch.

12:02 p.m.: You're right...an attorney does not have to give a reason for turning you down. Neither does an employer have to give you a reason for not hiring you. But, have you ever heard of Disparate Impact? Whether you're a law firm or an employer, if the EEOC comes-a-knockin with evidence that 85% of your rejections have belonged to one or more protected classes, your ass is in a bind. And you're going to be compelled to defend your decisions. If you can do that fine. If you tell the EEOC to suck ditch-water, fine.

equality equals protected classes

8:22, sure you owned a business. I think you are making a mistake by calling a paper route, you, and a bicycle a construction business.
A business owner know better. A paper boy may not know better.