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.
Would you think the same if this were an inter racial couple..........
Why must the couple be forced to respect the businesses religious beliefs.....isn't that an agenda?????? How about respecting that gays can marry in Vermont.....life is a two way street.
That said......I'd simply walk out and not give the homophobes my business/money.
On a side note, as a Nurse do I have the right to refuse to take care of posters like you....because I surely would if I could????? After all......isn't healthcare a big business in our country????? If you don't respect me as a person why should I "break my back" taking care of you?????
Something to think about????
Sure you have the right to refuse to serve anyone same as they do. You seem to insist on a right to refuse that you would deny them. But I agree I would seek another nurse and move on with life.
Could one of you please explain, though, why, given that we have such laws, you think it would be taking the high road or showing class for these women to sit back and take the discrimination they have been subjected to without a peep?
Just because you can sue someone doesn't mean you should... Live with your own beliefs and let others live with theirs. Problem solved.
Sure you have the right to refuse to serve anyone same as they do. You seem to insist on a right to refuse that you would deny them. But I agree I would seek another nurse and move on with life.
I've NEVER refused ANYONE help...it's NOT in my nature...I was making a point and proposing an alternate scenario...... which went over your head.
And yes I've had a few dumb patients homophobic enough to put their health in jeopardy while waiting for another Nurse....takes all kinds I guess.....
Thanx for proving my point! "They" do "it" every time....ROFL.....
....for these women to sit back and take the discrimination they have been subjected to without a peep?
I invite you to consider how the world would be if everybody agreed that the best response to illegal, discriminatory conduct was to just take it and do nothing about it.
And I think the answer is that in this specific case of perceived oppression, the reason they should not pursue the matter further is because the situation would seem to be a Pareto efficient one. As that relates here, it means that they were not harmed in any way because the women are no worse off after the transaction than they were before the transaction. They are merely in the same position. No negative externality has been passed onto the women in this case.
There are times when one should fight an injustice, but what is the injustice in this case when no negative externality has been transferred to the women? There is none, because there was no harm done, and hence no legitimate reason whatsoever exists in which to seek compensation for that which was not even done to them, since the purpose of a lawsuit is to seek compensation for that which was lost.
The women have lost nothing they did not have to begin with, as they found themselves in largely the same position afterwards, as before they walked through the Inn door. Had the couple by pure fate of circumstances never even had the misfortune of walking into that one specific Inn, the couple would still find themselves in the same position. What specifically did they lose after having walked out of the place denied, that they did not have already walking into it? Nothing. The position was the same, both before and after.
If I don't give you my candy bar, you haven't "lost" a candy bar which was never yours to begin with. Civil cases ostensibly exist to compensate people for that which they have lost. In both this case, and the other, no loss was incurred, since neither you or the gay couple did not have "it" to begin with. You therefore should not expect to have standing to seek compensation for that which was not lost.
It's not even like we are dealing with a situation where a contract was breached based on that which was promised, and hence expected as a legitimate property transfer such that you could consider it a legitimate form of loss (or a threatened loss based on that which was a promised economic transfer). If the Inn had contracted with the couple and then later on decided to breach contract when they found out that the couple was gay, then I'd object to that because I object to efficient breach of contract. But that's not even what happened here.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 07-21-2011 at 12:10 AM..
And I think the answer is that in this specific case of perceived oppression, the reason they should not pursue the matter further is because the situation would seem to be a Pareto efficient one. As that relates here, it means that they were not harmed in any way because the women are no worse off after the transaction than they were before the transaction. They are merely in the same position. No negative externality has been passed onto the women in this case.
There are times when one should fight an injustice, but what is the injustice in this case when no negative externality has been transferred to the women? There is none, because there was no harm done, and hence no legitimate reason whatsoever exists in which to seek compensation for that which was not even done to them, since the purpose of a lawsuit is to seek compensation for that which was lost.
The women have lost nothing they did not have to begin with, as they found themselves in largely the same position afterwards, as before they walked through the Inn door. Had the couple by pure fate of circumstances never even had the misfortune of walking into that one specific Inn, the couple would still find themselves in the same position. What specifically did they lose after having walked out of the place denied, that they did not have already walking into it? Nothing. The position was the same, both before and after.
So if someone is refused service at a restaurant on the basis of their skin color or religious preferences, they should just go somewhere else and not report it? What's the point of having laws against discrimination if they're not utilized and enforced?
So if someone is refused service at a restaurant on the basis of their skin color or religious preferences, they should just go somewhere else and not report it? What's the point of having laws against discrimination if they're not utilized and enforced?
(1) The point is that specific law should not exist for that reason described. But beyond that, just because laws exist, doesn't necessarily mean that ones first impulse should be to solve it the government way.
If your neighbor engages in some minor legal transgression, maybe they did not not cut their front hedges by the street down to the exact height as proscribed by the local zoning ordinance so that it does not obstruct the vision of drivers.... does that then imply your first response is that you make it a habit to call the local code enforcement, rather than... perhaps talking to your neighbor, or addressing the matter through other means?
If your neighbor smokes weed and you know he has a 5 gram baggie on his kitchen counter, does that then mean your first inclination is to report him to the local cops? And hey, why not even make a phone call to the DEA while one is at it... you know... just in case he is "trafficking" in it.
Or maybe your neighbor borrowed your lawn rake off the front porch when you were not home, because you usually let him borrow it, so he figured you wouldn't mind. Sure, one could call it theft, and in this case one actually could make a case for why they lost something... and maybe the neighbor does deserve to have the cops called on him..... but again.... does it necessarily follow that ones first inclination is always to address matters through legal means?
Do you report every single person who's license plate you can write down as you witness them all driving over the speed limit on your way to work each day? Do you turn yourself into the law on a daily basis for violating the law?
So why is legal redress seen as the first option here when people so often let things slide on a regular basis, and choose to address the matters through a variety of other possible means.
(2) Yes, I think they should report it, if they feel so compelled. The question is report it to whom. And my answer would be not to the government, but rather report it to damn near everyone else in the world (or country, state, whatever...) and spread it as far and wide as one feels compelled to do.
* Put the business owner on blacklists.
* Go take pictures of their business and get a domain name like "TheDocksideInnareaunchofF-tards.com" and mercilessly mock these people y making a parody site. Treat them like one would parody the Phelps family.
* Post the businesses information on websites such as "thisbusinessisapieceofcrapboycottit.com."
* Picket their place and boycott them. Even more devious, try to "get to" all of their suppliers or people they deal with and apprise them of the situation and see what kind of economic leverage can be brought to bear. Perhaps their suppliers might also find their conduct reprehensible.
* Try to get the local community news station, if you have one in your area, to try to interview them. Maybe they'll show up with cameras to their business and embarrass the owners and employees, right in front of all the customers.
Or try to get the business on one of those "Shame on you" consumer report type news programs where the reporters go after shady businesses. A lot of news networks have something similar. They'll show up at a business and stick a camera in the owners face and try to publicly shame the owner by plastering their face on television.
* Show up at the owners house and take photos of the owners, their house, their property, their spouses, their vehicles, their other business, their kids... dig up all their public records, and post all this information on websites, and every other conceivable form of media worldwide.
* Thoroughly abuse these people to the maximum extent possible right up to the point of harassment. I'm pretty "open" in this department and fully support pushing the edge of the envelope.
* Get the good folks at 4chan /b/ to have thousands of people call their store and play twenty question with them about why they are a bunch of discriminatory F-tards.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 07-21-2011 at 12:57 AM..
"We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians," they wrote. "Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in."
Sorry, you can't always get your way, the world doesn't work like that and I do believe they are aware of that..its their beliefs and its their property,...you or anyone else are not being harmed by being denied this one thing..there are plenty of other places that would serve you, that is what most people do when they run into a business that they don't like, they go somewhere else, they don't "sue" and claim their "rights" are being "violated"...many of us are aware you're not entitled to every freaking thing..get over yourselves..
at first it was to "just be left alone", now it morphed into "you must accept me"....how else can you explain it?....these people never refused any gay couple a room, but in this one instance they couldn't go along with it because of their beliefs, and somehow they became labeled as "bigots" "hate-mongers", "homophobes"..etc...why?...because you people can't get your way all the freaking time?....no one is allowed to disagree and have different beliefs.?...but quick to call others "bigots" at the most miniscule, slightest disagreements...
again, they still still would have got some kind of accommodations....just not that reception hall, they weren't outright denied service...some Movie Theaters don't allow Parents to take their kids into rated R movies after a certain hour, they aren't denied outright from going there and I don't remember any lawsuits from people demanding to take their kids to any show at any hour....I mean why not?...according to many here a business don't really have a right to run their own property the way the see fit and should bend over to just about each and every demand because they are "public" or whatever...could it be that many people know you can't always have your way?....and yet you people claim its all about "equality"....well guess what?...many people deal with their own "inequalities" all the time because we realize you can't always have your way, the world doesn't work that way...the sooner you people relieve that the more "equal" things would get...
again, these people weren't outright denied accommodations, they just couldn't get the accommodations they wanted....oh well, get over it...the world doesn't revolve around you people..
and as someone who is agnostic and into "mysticism" I am well aware that I am in the extreme minorty with my "beliefs" and don't get bent out of shape every-time I run into someone of opposition and I am not going around pushing my views onto others..why?...because I have better things to do.....if a Christian hotel refuse to host my seminar on astral projection, then guess what?...I'll go somewhere else..and believe me, many people, hell even the atheists consider what I and others do as "evil"....(not sure why the atheists do though, confusing)
and I love how people keep comparing this to the black people struggles.....police beatings, KKK, dog attacks, church burnings, mob lynching....etc......yeah, I can sooo see the similarities between the civil rights protests and the gays running around in the most nauseating clothing in parades...you people need to come off it...
and as far as these "anti-discrimination" laws, I think they are ridiculous...I mean it didn't stop Harold Pierce, a black man in the 1950s during the height of discrimination from starting Harold's Chicken to serve his own people, he didn't "sue" to make the fast food chains "serve" them and that business became successful, one that I would gladly walk past any McDonalds to get to, to have their honey BBQ wings....
now I am not saying these "anti-discrimination" laws are bad, but you people act like society can't function without them...literally here and on other threads on this issue people said that society can't function with this kind of "discrimination"....somehow the human race/civilization did for thousands of years without these "laws" but whatever....and I don't know how not granting this one request for them, this one thing somehow equates to a threat on the fabric of society...major insecurities or something...
not everyone is going to agree with you, get over it, move on....not everyone that disagree with you is a hate-filled bigot..not sure how standing by one's religious convictions makes you a hate-filed bigot but whatever...
just because people aren't given you your every demand doesn't mean they are out to "oppress" you because they are "bigots who "hate" you...some of us just don't care...we have real problems and being denied a reception hall isn't one of them...(goes to show you how "spoiled" Americans are when not getting your every desire some how means you are being "oppress"...I am sure the 3rd world inhabitants would gladly tell you what real oppression is)...stop trying to get total strangers bend over for your lifestyle, not everyone thinks you are "special"...
Nothing happens. Churches are private religious organizations. They can do whatever they like with their chapels. They can ban or allow whatever they want. They can even conduct marriages however they damn well choose. They can marry 1 man to 1 women, 1 man to another man, every member of the church to every other member of the church in a giant web of polygamy, 1 women to 1 stapler, etc, etc, etc.
And I think the answer is that in this specific case of perceived oppression, the reason they should not pursue the matter further is because the situation would seem to be a Pareto efficient one. As that relates here, it means that they were not harmed in any way because the women are no worse off after the transaction than they were before the transaction. They are merely in the same position. No negative externality has been passed onto the women in this case.
1. They are actually in a worse position than they were in before. Before they had the opportunity to hire a place that was publicly advertised as being available for receptions; after the discriminatory decision they no longer had that opportunity.
2. You overlook the fact that standing up and fighting against discrimination not only benefits the couple, but advances society by preventing or reducing discrimination in general and provides other couples the benefits that this particular couple was denied.
To repeat: If you are in a business open to the public you must serve the entire public without discrimination. If you cannot abide with this then form a private club open only to a specific membership.
As a former businessman I wonder why anyone would refuse a customer so long as they could pay for whatever I was selling. Turning down customers makes no sense what so ever.
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.
