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.
seriously? as a bar owner you want to continue to serve a drunk more drinks and be responsible if he gets into an accident? not smart business. you want to extend more credit to someone who is known to not repay his obligations, more credit? not smart business. you want a business owner to be able to refuse service to people based on their color or religion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell Plotts
I do not believe that a business should be able to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion or sexual orientation. That said, if a merchant chooses to do so on the basis of their religion they should be required to post a sign at each entrance announcing that so that customers can choose not to do business with the merchant. Full disclosure!
It's the picking and choosing that's the problem. I suppose a middle ground approach would be to limit these laws to innate things, which would exclude religion.
I do not believe that a business should be able to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion or sexual orientation. That said, if a merchant chooses to do so on the basis of their religion they should be required to post a sign at each entrance announcing that so that customers can choose not to do business with the merchant. Full disclosure!
This florist does serve gay customers. So did other owners who were sued for refusing to serve a ssm.
Our nutty courts get involved in all sorts of minutia, like how many Santa's and reindeer it takes to turn a Christmas display from religious to secular. Yet, they're incapable of distinguishing between refusal to serve a gay customer and a religious objection to serving a ssm.
Oh please, we all know that sexual orientation is in the law to protect gays, though straights are covered.
What next ... will you tell us that same sex marriage isn't special for gays because it protects the right of straight men to marry each other ?
At its very core, marriage is a legal contract between two adults. It is unconstitutional to deny a person the right to enter into a contract based on their gender.
The thread isn't so much about discrimination against LGBT's per se as it is about the polarizing issue of same-sex marriage (and please note that I did not say same-sex civil unions). In almost all the cases cited, the conflict involves militant LGBT's deliberately forcing their agenda upon the proprietors of small enterprises, and usually those business owners are known in advance to be affiliated with the Christian coalition -- the LGBT lobby's demon of choice.
How anyone can equate this with the Civil Rights movement, which was directed against much stronger and well-established opposition with obvious distortions of the law on its side, is beyond my understanding. I don't object in the slightest to legal recourse for sexual minorities in segments of the economy for which there is a significant impact. But this is about the sort of miniscule political horse-trading of which only the most simplistic component of Left is capable, and only because the most simplistic component of the Right is the target.
If it gives you a cheap thrill, so be it; but try not to waste other peoples' time, effort and taxes trashing each other; any sensible jurist would simply refuse to waste his/her time on such a petty squabble.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-29-2015 at 11:53 AM..
These business owners are setting themselves up for a battle. They should handle it like my mechanic in South Mississippi did.
The waiting room was full of white people. A young black woman walked in and asked if he could take a look at her car. He told her he was too busy to do it that day, but when she left, a white customer walked in with a similar request. The mechanic had no problem taking on the job. It was then that I realized he must have been prejudiced against serving blacks. He just knew how to get out of it without making a scene or calling down the feds on his business.
I'm not saying it was right, or moral, but if the small business owners said they were too busy to handle a request, there would be no need for them to stand on their soap box and make an issue of it. I have mixed feelings about same-sex marriage but nothing is accomplished by in your face discrimination. And really.....who wants to give their money to someone who obviously judges and despises them for their lifestyle? Move on.
At its very core, marriage is a legal contract between two adults. It is unconstitutional to deny a person the right to enter into a contract based on their gender.
The Supreme Court will decide that.
Besides, are you actually suggesting that not selling flowers or baking a cake is denying the right to marry
Besides, are you actually suggesting that not selling flowers or baking a cake is denying the right to marry
No. Different issue, but related because they do both touch on discrimination laws in our country.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. In real life, she should have just shut up about her reason for not wanting the gig, and he should have just taken his business elsewhere and spread the word amongst his friends so they would not patronize her store.
But because both of these people seem to be drama queens ( no pun intended) this is going to play out in court and in the media.
Besides, are you actually suggesting that not selling flowers or baking a cake is denying the right to marry
The "wedding industry" is among the most fleeting and transitory of all forms of entrepreneurship; it concentrates a fair amount of time, attention and expense upon an event which is unique to the limited number of people involved and, unless the principals are given to polygamy, isn't supposed to repeat itself.
Why then, does a special-interest group insist upon invoking the power of the state -- the only institution granted a legal monopoly on the use of force -- in what ought to be regarded as a private matter, and was until a handful of political opportunists seized the issue?
You have lowered yourselves, and your cause, to precisely the same plane of absurdity as the membership of the Westboro Baptist Church -- the homophobes who poison the dignity of military funerals with their "God hates ****" nonsense.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-29-2015 at 01:06 PM..
This is a great example of how people claim to love freedom and equality but really do not like either. We could have freedom and let owners serve who they want, but people don't like that and whine that it's discriminatory. We could have equality and force owners to accept everyone, but people don't like that because they always want to be able to exclude those who they don't like. In reality, people just want special privilges for their own pet groups.
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.
