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.
Once again, and staying on topic, no non-essential business should be forced to have any customers they choose not to do business.
This is silly talk, for two reasons.
One, it opens flood gates for people to blatantly discriminate, and creates color lines. Of course, those that were never of a color wouldn't understand why that's a problem on multiple levels.
Two, it would crash and burn the economy. Part of the reason there IS an economy is because of the wealth of all. Say if we went back to a "Whites Only" society; rednecks can arbitrarily choose to reject anyone of any other color. Guess what? Tax dollars are affected = state revenue is impacted = Federal reserve health is constricted = programs and military are cut, etc etc etc.
I used to say as a teenager: racial divide ending was not a matter of some people just marching and others getting enlightened. No. Just like barbed wire with cowboys, the end to racial divide was a simple matter of people saying to themselves "...you know, we make this much money now, but if we let the coloureds spend, we'll have their money too!"
Money. That's all it's about. And that's why businesses can never be allowed to discriminate. It would harm the economy - setting aside the moral and ethical dilemma such a change would introduce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Interesting. That means that raising the price to discourage someone from using a service is not allowed.
Exactly - at least not for a silly reason.
As an example, you could raise the price of cigarettes to discourage smoking. But you can't do it for only 18-year olds because you just don't like or agree with teen smoking. You would have to raise for everyone who wants to purchase cigarettes.
You could raise the price of day-after pills, to discourage unprotected sex. But you can't just overcharge teen girls, you'd have to raise for anyone who wants them.
You could raise the price of junk food to discourage obesity. But you can't just overcharge fat people, you'd have to raise for everyone including thin people.
In other words, if a person were so hell bent on keeping homosexuals out of their store, they really have only one option and it's not fullproof: Do things that are looked down upon by the homosexual community but that is not directly designed to refuse service. One other commenter said they would just funnel some of the profits to anti-homosexual agendas.
There is NO law against that sort of contribution provided it's done by the book.
There is NO law against putting a sign that discloses that the company contributes to anti-homosexual agendas. HOWEVER, if that's the only contribution, the sign might be construed as discrimination; therefore the company would just contribute to 3 or 4 other non-anti-homosexual agendas, then have a single sign that just discloses what the profits are contributed to. Skirts the law. Of course there's no guarantee anyone will read it.
There is NO law against standing up the business in a place that is known to be hostile against homosexuality.
That's about all you can do though. If a homosexual couple disregards all of the above and still wants to shop at your store, you have NO choice but to serve them like any other customer. No price increase, no refusal of service, no blocks, nothing.
Jack McCoy (Law and Order) said, "Man has only those rights he can defend." I disagree.
In the real world, Man has only the rights that do not tread on other rights, regardless of defensibility.
I have tattoos and needed a florist to create flowers for my wedding.. Just sayin...
Sorry, have to go back to sinning now..
Tattoos are not a sin, anyone who told you that has never actually read or understood the bible. The law regarding tattoos has nothing to do with sin, it was given by God to the people of Israel so that they should keep their bodies pure and sanctified in his honor. No one is going to hell for having tats.
I understand, but the percentage of shops in most places that will discriminate will be very limited. It most likely wouldn't be an issue 99.9% of the time.
It was nice discussing this with you. Have a wonderful weekend.
Tattoos are not a sin, anyone who told you that has never actually read or understood the bible. The law regarding tattoos has nothing to do with sin, it was given by God to the people of Israel so that they should keep their bodies pure and sanctified in his honor. No one is going to hell for having tats.
There is no difference between Leviticus 18:22 (homosexuality) and 19:28 (tattoos). They're both arbitrary rules from ancient mythology. And therefore they are no basis for interpreting equal rights today.
No one is going to hell because there is no hell. You may as well give advice on how not to get to Oz, Middle Earth or Margaritaville.
There is no difference between Leviticus 18:22 (homosexuality) and 19:28 (tattoos). They're both arbitrary rules from ancient mythology. And therefore they are no basis for interpreting equal rights today.
No one is going to hell because there is no hell. You may as well give advice on how not to get to Oz, Middle Earth or Margaritaville.
I've been to Margaritaville in Orlando, even have a tee shirt to prove it.
This had nothing to do with serving a member of a group but it had to do with being a part of a celebration of a gay marriage (oxymoron) which according to Biblical law would be wrong. The florist would be very involved by providing the flowers for that "event".
Also, again, race cannot be compared to homosexuality. This is not like the issue of race at all. If more people understood both race and homosexuality, it would be a much more intellectual discussion.
This had nothing to do with serving a member of a group but it had to do with being a part of a celebration of a gay marriage (oxymoron) which according to Biblical law would be wrong. The florist would be very involved by providing the flowers for that "event".
Also, again, race cannot be compared to homosexuality. This is not like the issue of race at all. If more people understood both race and homosexuality, it would be a much more intellectual discussion.
Does she refuse to do any service that includes a sin? Like weddings for divorced people? Weddings where the bride is not a virgin? Flowers for dates where someone might have sex before marriage?
Or is she a cherry picker when it comes to "sins" she will not serve?
I'm shocked this thread has made it this far with so few mention of this correction. It was corrected twice, but posters went on for pages with the first amendment being misrepresented.
Quote:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
So, in essence, the first amendment does not protect her "freedom of religion." It says plainly that the government cannot pass a law that aids or prefers her religious beliefs. You say you went to law school, but you cannot comprehend this basic principle? I've never graduated with a degree and I can understand this plain and simple.
The first amendment, ironically, does the opposite -- it strips her of any protection.
On this subject I would like to say this: To all those who believe that she has the "right" to discriminate in offering her services in her business, I wish there was some way we could set up some kind of simulation machine where you lived a full month in a society where people could do this. I'm fairly sure at the end of this month there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from you when you see how secretly horrible people can be. The first time you get turned away from the nearest grocery store and have to go to the next town over because you're a white male or some such you're not going to like it, I guarantee.
Why, yes, I am insinuating that there would be a lot of discrimination and it would be inconvenient. It's been proven time and time when people are allowed to discriminate ... they do.
I'm closing my post to say that, as a black woman, this situation certainly does have many parallels to the civil rights movement of the sixties. LGBTQ+ people have been raped, murdered, and treated so horribly in many ways, just like fellow blacks were.
I close with this:
“In republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of minority.”
Do you remember who said that? Have you all forgotten majority rule versus minority rights?
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.
