Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, that's not true at all. A business is allowed to discriminate in all instances and for any reason EXCEPT against those protected classes. You can bar someone for being a Yankees fan, but not for being black. You can refuse me service because I'm a real estate agent, but not because I'm Irish. Protected class laws do NOT promote equality, they provide additional protections for those classes than the laws provide for most of us. Why do we allow that?
That's my problem with it. We all know business owners can kick people out, but when the government steps in and tells them why they can and why they can't... sounds kind of like thought crimes to me.
If a couple thinks that they can sue to get a private establishment to do something that goes against the belief system of the proprietor, why wouldn't they think they can sue to force a church to go against their beliefs?
Prior to this lawsuit had such an establishment been sued based on sexual activity?
Stay on point here, Cal. You're arguing that very soon the liberal courts will be telling churches what to do. All I'm asking for is some evidence that that has happened. Federal courts have been around for over 200 years, so if it's happened you should be able to come up with evidence.
What part of "Private establishment" do you not understand? They can reserve the right to serve whomever they want. And there is not a dang thing you can do about it. That's what this country is all about.
You don't like it? Move to Canada. We don't want you here if you don't want to respect my right to private ownership.
I don't know what your definition of private ownership is, but here in the United States the rights of the owner of a business are limited by the legal constraints under which that business operates. And not just in Vermont.
That's my problem with it. We all know business owners can kick people out, but when the government steps in and tells them why they can and why they can't... sounds kind of like thought crimes to me.
It's not a thought crime if the business specifically says out loud, "We don't serve gays", as this business did.
It's not a thought crime if the business specifically says out loud, "We don't serve gays", as this business did.
That's not what I mean by thought crime. What I'm saying is that it takes motivation into account when considering who business owners can and can't serve. Similar to hate crimes in a way.
There are thoughts on this matter i would like to present.
1. The owners, while not being the one to have refused service, is in fact legally in the wrong, because service was refused in their name.
2. The couple pushing this is actually damaging their cause. Remember, honey catches more flies than vinegar. If the couple had simply acknowledged this, and let the owners know of their displeasure, NICELY, and then gone on their merry way to some other business that would be happy to accommodate them, the owners would see how nice the people are, that they refused service to.
By simply acknowledging the issue, they take the high road. The owners are the people who are the losers here, and in addition to losing business, they also see how polite and charming the people are whom they turned away, and this will hopefully have a positive influence on them in the future. By taking the COURT method, and forcing this issue, and forcing them to spend money, and showing them how vindictive the couple can be, they simply ensure that the owners know that they made the right decision, and that they didn't want to have clients like this.
What part of "Private establishment" do you not understand? They can reserve the right to serve whomever they want. And there is not a dang thing you can do about it. That's what this country is all about.
You don't like it? Move to Canada. We don't want you here if you don't want to respect my right to private ownership.
PUBLIC accommodations. And Vermont doesn't allow them to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation. Welcome to America.
Vermont is trying to turn this in to the USSA (what ever happened to the live and mantra I guess that was scam just to get your evil agenda off the ground because if people knew in 1960's what this would lead to, there would be anti sodomy laws in every state in the union)
What part of "Private establishment" do you not understand? They can reserve the right to serve whomever they want. And there is not a dang thing you can do about it. That's what this country is all about.
You don't like it? Move to Canada. We don't want you here if you don't want to respect my right to private ownership.
Rand Paul, is that you?
Perhaps you don't understand how our civil rights laws work in the U.S. If a business is open to the public, it is not permitted to discriminate based on race, religion, ethnic background, etc. It doesn't matter if the business is privately owned or not. In many states, sexual orientation is one of the categories by which it is illegal to discriminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
if people knew in 1960's what this would lead to, there would be anti sodomy laws in every state in the union)
And the Supreme Court would have struck every one of them down, just as they did in 2003.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
Protected class laws do NOT promote equality, they provide additional protections for those classes than the laws provide for most of us. Why do we allow that?
That's not true. Everybody has a race, everybody has a sexual orientation, everybody has an ethnic background. Anti-discrimination laws protect everybody.
Would not the service be hosting the wedding? Why must they have to only be performing specific acts for it to be against their religious beliefs? They did not discriminate against homosexuals for only being homosexual as they have offered rooms to homosexuals in the past. It was what they deemed a religious ceremony, a wedding, that the owners' objected to hosting. Personally, I think hosting something indeed does require some substantive services in order to host an event. You seem to want to dissect it down to the minutae to determine what is and is not considered substantive. That's not the issue. The issue is whether requiring this inn to host a homosexual wedding is or is not a violation of the inn owner's civil rights and thus, does the law in Vermont violate the inn owner's civil rights?
And again. It was a Buddhist wedding ceremony. The owner's objection wasn't to the religious content of the wedding. It was to the persons getting married. And they cannot say on the one hand, we rent rooms to homosexuals because we aren't discriminating, only we do discriminate when we want to. And yes, the little details, the "minutae", is what's important here. Because it's important to the owners, obviously. If it weren't important, they wouldn't make a distinction between renting out a room to homosexuals for a wedding reception and renting out a room for homosexuals to sleep in. They made the distinction, so their argument is that the services they provide for renting the reception hall are distinctly different than the services provided to any other guests. So the question becomes how so? What services for renting the reception hall violate their religious beliefs. It's not my argument, it's the owners' argument that those specific services violate their religious beliefs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
