Phoenix judge: NO, your business can't refuse to serve Same Sex Couples (bible, Christianity)
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.
That is the sort of thing people say when the inconvenience is in the theoretical realm. Try something like arriving at an small city airport in an unfamiliar locale where there is just one car rental agency. You have a reservation but when you go to pick up your car you are rejected by the only clerk on duty because you fail some religious test he or she has in mind. Now you are stranded far from home with no transportation and a business meeting to get to in an hour.
Now give us that speech about the rights of others.
In the libertarian world there are no small city airports. The Essential Air Service - which subsidizes airline routes into such airports - would not exist. Would airports even exist? I don't know. The magical power of the 'free market' would supposedly make them flourish at wonderfully low prices everywhere. But here in the real world, there's a reason that only one airport in the United States served by an airline - BKG, Branson - is privately owned. Of course, that reason is that reality and libertarian theory are two different things.
Which is precisely why I live in a town that has no police department, no court, and the FD is all volunteer. My taxes are much lower than the rate I paid when I lived in a town that had those things.
Seriously - no court system? What happens when two people disagree on a legal matter? Pistols at dawn?
That is the sort of thing people say when the inconvenience is in the theoretical realm. Try something like arriving at an small city airport in an unfamiliar locale where there is just one car rental agency. You have a reservation but when you go to pick up your car you are rejected by the only clerk on duty because you fail some religious test he or she has in mind. .
It is obviously your own fault for not choosing to be a white protestant male. Duh.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the patchwork of state statutes that have arbitrarily given special protected status to various groups and ideas, but not others.
Is it your wish to remove the protection from those who currently enjoy it, or expand the protections to cover the "others" you are championing? If the latter, who? If the former, then you would revert to legal discrimination against blacks, against gays, against Latin Americans, against women...is that a good idea according to you?
And is "arbitrarily" accurate? Are not all of the groups mentioned in the act, ones which have in the past experienced exclusion and discrimination? Arbitrarily would mean selections based on someone's whim or private agenda. I don't think extending civil rights to African Americans was a matter of someone's whim, do you? I think it was because for six decades, African Americans were subject to discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the South. That was arbitrary?
Seriously - no court system? What happens when two people disagree on a legal matter? Pistols at dawn?
Things are fairly calm and quiet here, and rarely escalate to shooting each other (though a large percentage of the population is armed). Serious matters would be dealt with at the County or State level. The only shooting I know of in the last 8 years, was done by a sheriff's deputy last year, when attacked by a woman with an improvised weapon (described as a home-made 'flail'- railroad spikes attached to a metal handle with lengths of rope or chain).
As for the question that was asked earlier, about "Where do you draw the line?"...it's a good question, to which I do not have a pat answer. I *am* considering the question, though, and what might constitute a workable answer.
Is it your wish to remove the protection from those who currently enjoy it, or expand the protections to cover the "others" you are championing? If the latter, who? If the former, then you would revert to legal discrimination against blacks, against gays, against Latin Americans, against women...is that a good idea according to you?
And is "arbitrarily" accurate? Are not all of the groups mentioned in the act, ones which have in the past experienced exclusion and discrimination? Arbitrarily would mean selections based on someone's whim or private agenda. I don't think extending civil rights to African Americans was a matter of someone's whim, do you? I think it was because for six decades, African Americans were subject to discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the South. That was arbitrary?
It is the former. I don't think the government should tell private businesses which classes of people they can discriminate against. The penalty should come from the public. The government isn't wise enough to be our parents, nor should it's mandate extend into governing whom a private business person chooses to do business with, in my opinion. So while I don't think it's right for a business to discriminate against the short or the ugly, I do think they should have that right. Similarly, I wouldn't shop at a store that discriminates against African Americans or gays, but I don't think it should be the store owners right.
We are not talking about ALL civil rights, only title VII which prevents private citizens from practicing certain types of discrimination, but not others. Certainly that has nothing to do with voting rights or anything to do with the interactions between the government and citizens. There should be no illogical discrimination when the government acts.
There are lots of groups that suffer from exclusion and discrimination - but only a few make it onto the protected list. Should a private business be allowed to discriminate against two brothers getting married? Should a store owner be forced to bake the brothers their wedding cake? In many states, the answer is you can discriminate based on the fact that they are related, but not based on their orientation. But what is the underlying principal for why the discrimination is allowed against their familial status but not their sexual orientation? I say it is the arbitrary, based solely on which groups are fashionable to have sympathy for, but without any basis in logic.
We are not talking about ALL civil rights, only title VII which prevents private citizens from practicing certain types of discrimination, but not others.
Ahem. Read again.
Quote:
Definitions SEC. 2000e. [Section 701]
For the purposes of this subchapter-
(a) The term “person” includes one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-*stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under Title 11 [originally, bankruptcy ], or receivers.
(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of Title 5 [United States Code])
and
Quote:
Unlawful Employment Practices
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Serious question for Vizio, jeff and anyone else who supports the "right" of a business to discriminate against gay people:
How would you feel if the situation was reversed? If some business owner were to say to a prospective customer "Sorry, we don't serve Christians. It goes against our moral sense." ???
Would you say the proprietor was within their rights? Do you feel this wouldn't be a case of bigotry and discrimination? Think there's some constitutional law giving the business owner such a right?
Would you endorse the right of a business owner to refuse to serve Christians?
I suspect if you heard of this happening all you'd be doing is whining to high heaven about the persecution and bigotry against Christians it entailed.
I'm sorry there must be a miscommunication here. I don't understand your reply.
There are several important civil rights included in the civil rights act that I do support. It is only title vii, which restricts the rights of private citizen employers that I object to, if that makes it any clearer.
Serious question for Vizio, jeff and anyone else who supports the "right" of a business to discriminate against gay people:
How would you feel if the situation was reversed? If some business owner were to say to a prospective customer "Sorry, we don't serve Christians. It goes against our moral sense." ???
Would you say the proprietor was within their rights? Do you feel this wouldn't be a case of bigotry and discrimination? Think there's some constitutional law giving the business owner such a right?
Would you endorse the right of a business owner to refuse to serve Christians?
I suspect if you heard of this happening all you'd be doing is whining to high heaven about the persecution and bigotry against Christians it entailed.
I would, though I'm not a Christian.
In fact, a business CAN discriminate against "people that oppose gay marriage," in every state that I am aware of. But in several states that CAN NOT discriminate against gay people that want to get married.
Bare in mind, I support gay marriage, but oppose the government forcing private citizens to endorse or support gay marriage if those citizens don't agree.
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.
