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.
Orthodox Jewish restaurants usually post a Kosher sign in the window. That means they do not serve pork or dairy products with meat. The food is also blessed by a Rabbi. Did you know that? Unless you do, do not ask for bacon and eggs, or a glass of milk with your corned beef sandwich. I have NEVER been denied service at a Jewish deli because I am non-Jewish.
BTW, you do know that both Jews and Muslims don't eat pork? Actually, the food is very similar. I had a GF in HS who was from Syria. Yep, she ate at Jewish delis.
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.
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?
3. Iowa. A bistro and art gallery owned by Mennonites refused a gay wedding request for the use of their building. they have since been targeted with countless hate filled emails.
4. Kentucky. A custom T-shirt shop refused to print shirts with pro homosexuals messages.
5. Washington. An elderly florist refused to make the flower arrangements for a gay wedding.
6. Colorado. A bakery refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple and was boycotted.
Where would YOU draw the line, OP? (and forgive me if this has been answered, I didn't read all pages)
But if someone doesn't like the idea of homosexuality and can refuse to serve them, then where does it stop?
Should Christians be allowed to refuse service to Jews, Muslims, Atheists?
Should Atheists be allowed to refuse service to any other faith?
Should Baptists not have to serve Lutherans?
Let's forget about religion for a second.
Should blacks not have to serve whites? Or Vice versa?
If this IS about the religious beliefs of some people, what about a woman who's been divorced? Should it be legal for places to not serve her?
I don't mean to answer your question with other questions, but when you break it down none of these really make sense do they?
Edit: D'oh, after reading the comment directly above mine it does appear as though I didn't break any new ground.... oh well.
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.
Actually it is. In case you hadn't noticed, government can and does regulate business. You can cry about it all you want, but that is the way it is and the courts have upheld those rules. You have about as much of a chance winning your "It is my business and I'll do what I want argument" in court as you do claiming the income tax is illegal. You can't have it both ways in life. Businesses want the protections the government and the law provides, but they want to be able to ignore rules and regulations that they don't like. If you don't like it you're free to setup shop in some place like Somalia. No pesky discrimination laws there. Just be sure you have plenty of guns, ammo, and bribe money to pay off or fight off the local warlords.
Where would YOU draw the line, OP? (and forgive me if this has been answered, I didn't read all pages)
But if someone doesn't like the idea of homosexuality and can refuse to serve them, then where does it stop?
Should Christians be allowed to refuse service to Jews, Muslims, Atheists? YES
Should Atheists be allowed to refuse service to any other faith? YES
Should Baptists not have to serve Lutherans? YES
Let's forget about religion for a second.
Should blacks not have to serve whites? Or Vice versa? YES
If this IS about the religious beliefs of some people, what about a woman who's been divorced? Should it be legal for places to not serve her? YES
I don't mean to answer your question with other questions, but when you break it down none of these really make sense do they?
Edit: D'oh, after reading the comment directly above mine it does appear as though I didn't break any new ground.... oh well.
LOL, instead of going to another bakery, they filed a complaint. And avail yourself of the many examples of threatenting, mean-spirited comments, phone calls, the business owners have received.
Americans are free and under no obligation to accommodate religious beliefs they don't adhere to. They will do what they have to (as the Christian store owners did) to adapt.
Now, just who are the hate-filled, intolerant bigots again?
A civil marriage is not a religious belief. So they were not accommodating any religious belief. They were selling a cake. A cake is not part of the marriage ceremony. A cake is not blessed by the officiant. A cake only comes AFTER the couple are already married at the reception. Generally the reception is not even at the same location as the marriage ceremony.
As for adapting, there is still question as to whether anti-discrimination laws apply to cottage food industries or not.
Actually it is. In case you hadn't noticed, government can and does regulate business. You can cry about it all you want, but that is the way it is and the courts have upheld those rules. You have about as much of a chance winning your "It is my business and I'll do what I want argument" in court as you do claiming the income tax is illegal. You can't have it both ways in life. Businesses want the protections the government and the law provides, but they want to be able to ignore rules and regulations that they don't like. If you don't like it you're free to setup shop in some place like Somalia. No pesky discrimination laws there. Just be sure you have plenty of guns, ammo, and bribe money to pay off or fight off the local warlords.
Sorry, but it's absolutely no concern to the government as to who private people associate with or do business with.
Do you feel the government should audit you and say, "Mr. Jones, we notice that 50% of your friends are white, 30% of your friends are black and 18% of your friends are Asian, but only 2% of your friends are Hispanic. This does not represent the ratios that represent a proper diversity. We need you to change your ratios to fit Code 65.3 Section 6d, and if you fail to do so, we'll fine you for each offense." Do you feel the government should stop people from possibly discriminating against others or do you feel discrimination should be tolerated by those utilizing public roads, buildings, schools, etc?
Look people, the United States has had laws protecting people from discrimination going back to the 1800s.
You want to live in this multi-cultural, multi-racial, pluralistic society? Take advantage of all the good things that go along with living in the largest economy in the world? Take advantage of the court systems and monetary systems and regulations that go into a business?.... then suck it up and serve everyone equally.
The day I get to designate that none of my tax money goes to support the public road that leads to your wretched shop of discrimination, or to educate the people who work in your shop, is the day you can say that I'm not allowed to visit or get served on account of my race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or (lack of) religion in your business.
This is civilization. Adhere to the responsibilities of same, or leave.
But you went into that Jewish deli knowing full well the menu limitations, and you were okay with them. In this scenario, you're argument is like comparing apples to oranges. It's not like you went into the Jewish deli and began to raise all sorts of hell and threaten lawsuits because they wouldn't serve you food that was not kosher.
The bakery made wedding cakes. The couple were not asking for something that the bakery didn't already offer.
No, the government did not have to inject itself into what private individuals were doing. The government needed to only inject itself in what the government was doing. The government should not allow the government to discriminate via school segregation, poll taxes, etc. If a city or county refuses to hire a person due to race, that is when it's the government's job via the Constitution to step in.
A private business or person not serving a person due to their race or ethnicity is revolting, but it's not the business of the government.
I am genuinely curious about this:
Obviously you don't think it is the business of the government to make laws disallowing discrimination based on protected classes among the private sector. A laissez faire approach. The free market will take care of the "revolting" business owners who don't allow in coloreds or gays. The open, non-discriminatory businesses will rise to the top and the market will take care of itself. Maybe there will still be a niche for skinhead-themed restaurants in markets that support it. If there is, there is no issue. The government shall make no law and all that. I assume this is your position.
There are others who are claiming the discriminatory religious business owners getting nasty emails and become pariahs are a bad thing. They have a religious and constitutional right to refuse service to anyone who engages in any activity they feel is morally wrong. In turn, it is wrong that they are ostrasized as they are.
Do you agree with the latter group? I assume being a free market, non-interventionalist you would say that the anger these businesses receive is a natural expression of the markets' desire. Or maybe not. I am not getting at anything here.
I believe that protected groups are protected for a reason. All men are created equal and all that. I feel the government has a role in ensuring that all its citizens' rights are protected except where those rights directly disenfranchise others. That includes from other citizens and entities, not only the government itself. Following this train of thought I believe that murder is a violation of one's right of life and the government can make laws that forbid it, etc.
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.
