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.
In theory that's correct because they can always go elsewhere. But what if everybody gangs up on them and they can't get what they want anywhere? Like buying a house.
You could also think of it this way... Our plane crashes on an island and it's just you and me (or it could be 10 people, or whatever, but lets keep it simple). You decide to gather supplies and build a little shelter, and I do something else like finding food. Later on I decide that I want a shelter too, so I try to force you to build a shelter, or let me use yours, or I even offer to trade you some of my food. Do you have the right to say no, or are you obligated to provide me with shelter?
Let's say you didn't like me because I have blue eyes and told me no, please leave me alone and build your own shelter. I think I would be the one at fault if I threatened you (which is what laws are) into providing that service for me, even if I think your reasons are stupid or hateful.
Even if there are more people involved, nothing changes just because one group outnumbers the other. If the other 8 people side with me, it's still wrong to force you to serve me just because I want something you have.
It's conventionally understood that if I opened a business it would be my private property, as I invested my own money into it.
But you are serving the public. Is it fair that others in your community are able to derive services from a business but you can't just because you have a different lifestyle?
Using the baker as an example; let's assume that it's a small town and he's the only baker in town. The gay couple is now faced with the prospect of not having a wedding cake. Straight couples in the community have no issue getting a cake but the gay couple have to go out of there way to get the same thing. I just don't think that's fair.
Now if the gay couple were to ask for something that would be considered offensive on the cake then I would say the business owner has the right to refuse that but not the basic service of providing the cake.
But you are serving the public. Is it fair that others in your community are able to derive services from a business but you can't just because you have a different lifestyle?
Using the baker as an example; let's assume that it's a small town and he's the only baker in town. The gay couple is now faced with the prospect of not having a wedding cake. Straight couples in the community have no issue getting a cake but the gay couple have to go out of there way to get the same thing. I just don't think that's fair.
Now if the gay couple were to ask for something that would be considered offensive on the cake then I would say the business owner has the right to refuse that but not the basic service of providing the cake.
A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone he/she chooses. It is his business and money .
I understand the sentiment, but when it comes to essential services, where real harm can be done by inaction, I have to disagree. An example would be an ambulance service.
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.
