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.
It's ridiculous that you feel the government should have such control over it's citizens that it can decide who you should interact.
As it stands, businesses aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc. I'm against discrimination. You seem to be fine with it. Sounds like a personal problem. Good luck with that.
Recently, I have read several accounts regarding business owners who refused LGBT requests for their services. Should religious business owners have to serve LGBT or risk losing their livelihoods, be threatened, boycotted, etc.. for their religious convictions?
I think they should put big signs in their windows: "We Do Not Serve Gays". Maybe a little Bible verse on it to let everyone know their excuse for their bigotry. Yep. Let them make a statement right there in their window (or on the front door) that they choose to single out someone because they do not believe that we are all equal. "This Business is Owned and Operated by a Religious Bigot and You Need to Change Before We'll Serve You."
As it stands, businesses aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc. I'm against discrimination. You seem to be fine with it. Sounds like a personal problem. Good luck with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
I'm not sure what this has to do with my opinion that a restaurant should be able to deny service to a person based upon their religion.
Keep in mind, I think should activity is vile and disgusting, but it's not the business of the government.
I'm guessing you also believe that lawyers who represent criminals like crime?
It's a good thing you're not a judge, because you'd probably allow evidence obtained without a warrant by police so that you wouldn't side against the criminal.
Have there been any instances where Christians were denied service by an atheist or gay business? I Googled it but can't find anything.
Every site has to do with Christians whining that they're not allowed to discriminate against gays.
I wonder what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.
Fine, let them discriminate. Just don't ***** about it when somebdy takes offense and pickets your business.
As I stated earlier, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Of course the business can be ostracized if they decide to do business in a way that the community feels is wrong. If a business decides not to serve Muslims, then Muslims should be able to picket that business, write letters and call for boycotts.
Religious business like churches should not have to serve gays and lesbians, or anybody else for that matter. That's 1st Amendment separation of Church and State.
Commercial businesses, however, should have to serve gays and lesbians (and blacks and Jews, etc).
Have there been any instances where Christians were denied service by an atheist or gay business? I Googled it but can't find anything.
Every site has to do with Christians whining that they're not allowed to discriminate against gays.
I wonder what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.
Gays have too much business sense to deny making money off people they don't like and/or agree.
I am all for a homosexual, black, Asian, etc being able to walk into a restaurant & sit down to enjoy a meal, same as anyone else. The same goes for providing medical care to all equally (although you may have issues with payment, insurance etc). That goes without saying. But making a photographer photograph an event they don't want to photograph is taking that concept entirely too far, and a homosexual being turned down by one single photographer while many other are ready & waiting to serve is hardly a reason for activism.
To me artistic endeavors are different than, say, not allowing blacks in a restaurant. People who participate in artistic endeavors, and this includes photography, are inspired by certain things & relate to certain things, and create their creations based on their vision & inspiration of those things. They aren't compelled to create something that's not of their mentality to suit someone else's. It's called "artistic integrity."
Thus, you get photographers who don't do ANY weddings while nonetheless doing portraits. You get photographers who only want to photograph newborns. You get some who specialize in weddings. They do this because only those activities inspire them to create their creations. You can try to get a wedding photographer who specializes in that to photograph your infant all you want, but that they aren't inspired by your child & choose not to is all the reason they need.
Thus, if a wedding photographer can't form a connection or rapport with a homo couple because they disagree with the whole premise altogether, they won't be successful in making a good creation because it's not their thing, and thus shouldn't be made to do so if they don't want to. Period.
I can say this on some authority as I am a hobbyist photographer myself, and I've done little in the way of weddings, but those endeavors which I have done & done with some success, it was because I related to the event and/or the people in it. I'm not here to please the people, I'm here to photograph whatever I want to. Even if I were to go into business because I felt my skills were good enough for that, I want to photograph what I want to photograph, who I want to photograph, when I want to photograph, and for whatever reason I jolly darn well please. If the law can't respect that, it needs to be changed or even ignored, and those who advocate such laws need to be destroyed, demolished, and smashed into a zillion pieces and sent into the dark abyss of the most remote place that can be found so they can just stay out of the way. To compare this to blacks being denied a meal at a restaurant in the 1950s is just absurd. I'm not making you a hamburger at McDonald's, something which requires no artistic expression and any 16 year old can do--with that all you do is follow the steps and put the food out, you are not connecting with your customer in anyway back there in the kitchen. With wedding photography, you ARE. I'm here to express an artistic interpretation of the events as *I* see fit, and with WHOM I see fit. Period.
If the law disagrees, the LGBT people and all those idiotic judges who rule as such can kiss it, smack it, and sit on a stick & spin for all I care. Maybe LGBT should stand for "let gays blow themselves," especially if they're going to nag & harass & cause trouble this way where it's neither needed nor wanted.
Commercial businesses, however, should have to serve gays and lesbians (and blacks and Jews, etc).
Other than the obvious reason of it's the right thing to do, why should any business (other than healthcare related) have to do business with anyone?
Let me ask you this.
Let's say that you live in a neighborhood that is 90% white and you are being transferred and need to move to where your job will be. Should the government be able to say that the neighborhood is not diverse enough and then make a ruling that you can only sell your home to a black, Asian or Hispanic person?
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.
