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.
Sorry, but businesses are ran by people. So you are still forcing people to associate with those they do not want to associate.
Businesses are not people.
Who runs them doesn't enter into it. Nobody in this country is forced to run a business. You are free not to do so if obeying the laws regulating business practices seem too onerous to you.
I don't. Why should they be allowed to hide their discrimination? Be proud of your beliefs post them for all to see. Let the market decide if they want to give their money to businesses that openly discriminate.
It is only selective to you, because you HAVE to bring up unrelated issues to buttress your "argument."
Why would unwed parents, people with tattoos, hetero's living together need her services to create flowers for a wedding?
As to couples seeking her services, where one or both have been divorced before, you have no way of knowing that, nor would she unless the people told her that.
I have tattoos and needed a florist to create flowers for my wedding.. Just sayin...
I don't. Why should they be allowed to hide their discrimination? Be proud of your beliefs post them for all to see. Let the market decide if they want to give their money to businesses that openly discriminate.
Should people who discriminate be forced to put signs on their front doors?
I'm not worried about signage, because the internet will do the job of outing them just fine.
Should people who discriminate be forced to put signs on their front doors?
I'm not worried about signage, because the internet will do the job of outing them just fine.
I'm sorry, but I don't check the internet before I go to every shop. In fact I don't know anyone who does.
Yes BUSINESSES should be required to list everyone they will not serve. Businesses that are open to the general public are not like someones private home. I never offered my home to be open to the general public.
There is a difference between a PERSON and a BUSINESS.
I'm sorry, but I don't check the internet before I go to every shop. In fact I don't know anyone who does.
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.
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.
Great! then 99.9% won't have a problem with it :-)
What you are referring to is the interstate commerce clause.
Interstate commerce has nothing whatsoever to do with me going down the road to the flower shop and ordering flowers.
The only way the interstate commerce clause would have any bearing on this specific case is if the flower shop were shipping flowers to another state, and the government would only have jurisdiction, under the interstate commerce clause, over those specific orders going across state lines.
The commerce does not merely relate to what you do. Its application depends on the degree to which the business depends on interstate commerce to function. If the flower shop is ordering flowers, vases, and greeting cards from out of state than Congress has every right to regulate it under the commerce clause. You might see Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 US 274 (1964) and the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 US 241 (1964) In Katzenbach v. McClung the Supreme Court relied on the fact that half of the goods used by the defendant's restaurant were shipped in from out of state and found accordingly that applying the civil rights law to that establishment was within Congress's power under the commerce clause. The same law was also applied constitutionally to a motel owner who didn't want to rent rooms to blacks.
The Supreme Court has said that there is a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to justify regulation of businesses under the civil rights laws. Your arguments were made before the court fifty years ago. The only problem is that your side lost.
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.
