[codexon]

Why not?

It is the dominant category in the US and has been often been used as a reason for discrimination in the past especially among supporters for segregation.

By using a concrete example, I hope I can help him or others realize absurdity of his views.

[pbhjpbhj]

Thanks for expanding.

As for why not: well, because it implies that you believe people who are Christian are racist and white. Perhaps also because the disjunct suggests that you believe race and religious choice to be equivalent with regards to discrimination - one is a choice the other is not.

Plus the story is about removing those with dissenting views from a social invitation only event in a private location.

Suppose the president practised homosexual sex and the bumper sticker was a "God hate fags" one. Do you maintain your view?

[codexon]

> Plus the story is about removing those with dissenting views from a social invitation only event in a private location.

Just because the event was hosted in a private location does not make it a private event. Just because a supermarket or restaurant is privately owned doesn't make it a private service. Saying that it does allows people to selectively discriminate based on race.

Yes I would maintain my view if they were merely attending the speech and not being a nuisance: which is the case in this article.