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.
Agreed. And that should be THEIR choice. A business owner should be able to run their business how they want since they assume all the risk...
So you think that business owners shouldn't have to follow the law?
Is it only anti discrimination laws, or do environmental law, safety laws, health department laws get disregarded to?
A business owner should be able to run their business how they want since they assume all the risk...
Without any kind of oversight?
If this bakery had refused to bake a cake for a Jewish couple, would you still say they should be able to run their own business how they want?
What about refusing service to an interracial couple?
How about if they had an aversion to, say, people who weighed more than 200 pounds? Should they be able to refuse service based on that?
How about to somebody in a wheelchair? Due to an on-the-job accident, I am missing part of my right hand; what if the bakery was offended by what my hand looks like? Should they be able to refuse to sell me a cupcake because of it?
How is the owners being stupid enough to throw away business the responsibility of liberals? The truth is narrow minded tunnel vision killed another business and deservedly so.
People who don't compromise their principles are not narrow minded.
Should a black owned business be forced to serve obvious skinheads?
Should a Jewish owned business be forced to serve neo-nazi's?
Agreed. And that should be THEIR choice. A business owner should be able to run their business how they want since they assume all the risk...
I agree 100%. Now understand, if one took that position to an unhealthy extreme, then African-Americans would encounter difficulty getting a decent bite to eat & other such udder nonsense. That an environment was created where they could eat & not be subject to harassment, ostracizing & discrimination, that such was done away with was a GOOD thing.
HOWEVER, to me this is different. First, gay activities are a CHOICE. Even if, and that's an IF, gays are "born that way," so what--I was born not potty-trained. Does that mean I should still be peeing in my pants at 44 years of age? I was born eating baby cereal & eating spaghetti with my hands, does that mean I should still be eating spaghetti with my bare hands etc? I was born (apparently) very attracted to women. Being a heterosexual, when I see an attractive woman, especially in a bikini or mini-skirt or a spaghetti-strap tank-top, every molecule in me wants so badly to perform the "horizontal limbo" until I collapse from exhaustion. It's all I can do to not just out & out stare with a long extended gaze in their direction and even make-up excuses to "bump into them" at grocery stores etc.
HOWEVER, being a married man, I know that proper behavior is that I am only allowed to be intimate with my wife, only her, period. I have to CONTROL those urges and re-direct them appropriately, and recognize that no matter how much I have an urge to mount every attractive woman I see, to do so would be morally wrong. You have to control those urges, even if I was born attracted to every woman I see.
Second, to me there's a difference in someone being denied food in an establishment where many others are eating, having to do without a basic need & feel accepted, and being sneered at and harassed, versus being "denied" a relatively frivolous fancy-extra such as as wedding cake, and to be told no in a NICE WAY and to still have plenty of other equally compelling options. It's not like this gay couple was going to have a hard time finding another place, or like this person was rude to them or ugly or that they were subjected to ostracizing anything even 5/10ths of a per cent like that of the African-Americans some 50-odd years ago.
As an example, I know of a women's only fitness gym close-by, I don't go down there throwing a fit, because (a) they are doing that so women who feel intimidated working out in front of other men who may be gazing can feel more comfortable and (b) there are a zillion other workout facilities around that will happily let me work-out in a co-ed environment surrounded by men & women, and they're equally good outfits at similar rates. If there weren't so many other options and/or if their facilities felt short or their rates were dramatically higher, I might have an argument--as it is, I don't. I do the right thing and leave them the freaking heck alone.
I don't rant & rave about such places, and neither should the gays have ranted about this one place.
Then why didn't the business take it to the supreme court and get it struck down?
What ever happened to the chant about state rights?
THAT is the part of the Civil Rights Act that Rand Paul(and Ron) disagrees with.
A business should be allowed to operate the way the OWNER chooses. Again, the OWNER assumes ALL risks/liabilities of being in business. If they fail through their policies, they can't go running to the govt for a bailout. But they should be able to make those choices. Right now, Owners are being discriminated against from making those choices. THEY pay the bills and rent or own the property and pay the oppropriate taxes. THEY pay their employees wages.
If they govt wants to tell them how to run their business, then the govt should pay their expenses.
The business creates employment and pays taxes, and then are punished by laws like this.
THAT is the part of the Civil Rights Act that Rand Paul(and Ron) disagrees with.
A business should be allowed to operate the way the OWNER chooses. Again, the OWNER assumes ALL risks/liabilities of being in business. If they fail through their policies, they can't go running to the govt for a bailout. But they should be able to make those choices. Right now, Owners are being discriminated against from making those choices. THEY pay the bills and rent or own the property and pay the oppropriate taxes. THEY pay their employees wages.
If they govt wants to tell them how to run their business, then the govt should pay their expenses.
The business creates employment and pays taxes, and then are punished by laws like this.
Aw, yes.....
If I remember correctly, one (or both) of the Pauls thinks it's ok for a business to refuse service based on the color of someone's skin.
So what ? You're assuming here. Maybe they will gross more because they don't have rent ?
For sure.
It's amusing that some people don't know that "closing" and "moving" are two totally different things. The entire thread title is nothing but a lie. The bakery appears to still be open, but let's not let facts get in the way of stupidity.
Just what I thought, the people voted with their wallets and the Cons blame the liberals for a business making a bad decision. You guys always seem to be quick to blame the other side rather than the owner take responsibility for their own actions.
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.
