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.
If there is a recent case that you have heard of, then please do start a thread about it.
Apple sells to people and in countries who/which execute homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. Hope you don't have an iPhone, iPad, or Mac, otherwise you're an opportunistic hypocrite, much like the Dem 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
I have an inkling that people who are championing this law have not thought about how it might actually apply to them, as customers. I think they vehemently disagree with gay marriage and support whatever they think may give validity to their views in the public arena. But, I also think if the tables are turned and groups they also dislike, like say Muslims, start using it to support their practices, that they may not be so supportive.
Maybe but as I said, I've not seen any support of Muslim discrimination.
Quote:
I agree. One would hope that's enough to make anti discrimination laws unnecessary. However, some business do take advantage of being businesses, in the form of SBA loans, small business grants, tax breaks, and other advantages furnished by the government. Does that then make their ability to discriminate a fuzzy area because they effectively use public resources? Apart from the argument that said business should be allowed freely to serve whomever they choose, because the market would decide, should they be allowed to discriminate against someone who for all intents unwittingly helped fund the business in the first place?
That is an argument for government discrimination. That is forbidden by the Constitution.
Most of these cases stem not from a store where someone walks in and just says "I want to buy this", it has been cases where the person would be part of the gay marriage ceremony, like the photographer in New Mexico. Forcing someone to participate in an event they object to is just wrong on so many levels.
I can agree with allowing room for a business owner to turn down a service for a customer if it means you have to become a part of the activity you object to.
For example, if you belong to PETA and advertise as a photographer who specializes in sporting events, hobbies, outdoor and nature activities, you should be able to turn down a job to film a customer's wolf hunt. Or if the person wants you to film his KKK event, and you are a Jew, or a person of color, or a Catholic.
If a gay couple wants you to film an activity which you tell them offends you, you'd think the customer would go elsewhere since you clearly would not do a good job.
Is there a difference between turning down work because an activity offends you, or because the customer is of a specific religion, race or ethnicity which offends you?
Maybe it's drawing too fine a line for some people, but to me there is a difference between being offended by an activity, such as a wolf hunt or a gay wedding, and being offended by the customer's race, ethnicity, religion or sexual persuasion. I can see turning down a job because you do not want to be an active participant in an activity which offends you, but not because who or what the customer is offends you.
Simply refusing to serve a customer because of who they are, e.g., gay, is no different then turning them down because you don't approve of their religion or race.
Apple sells to people and in countries who/which execute homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. Hope you don't have an iPhone, iPad, or Mac, otherwise you're an opportunistic hypocrite, much like the Dem 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Apple is also a publicly traded company that makes its choices based on the amount of growth it can make.
Private businesses should be allowed the FREEDOM to refuse service to anyone they choose.
Yes, they should have the freedom. Nor should they get upset that other businesses and individuals boycott them because of their exercise of that freedom. See, everybody has freedom!
Apple is also a publicly traded company that makes its choices based on the amount of growth it can make.
So why no massive protest against Apple, which sells products to those who execute homosexuals just for being homosexual? Where's the outrage? Why no boycott? Why the extreme liberal hypocrisy in Apple's case? Why is it OK for Apple to endorse the execution of homosexuals by specifically doing business with such people/governments, but it's not OK for others to merely turn business away when there are plenty of other choices for those turned away?
Which is worse? Execution... death? Or having to buy from another business?
Last edited by InformedConsent; 03-31-2015 at 08:16 AM..
Yes, they should have the freedom. Nor should they get upset that other businesses and individuals boycott them because of their exercise of that freedom. See, everybody has freedom!
No, they just want to shove delicious cake into everyone's mouth . By your logic that means if they bake a cake for a Wiccan cover they are okay with pagan rites and if they bake a cake for someone getting remarried then they are okay with divorce. Like I said before, it's amazing how many so called Christians cherry pick the sins they are too morally outraged over to be a part of.
...and who is being morally outraged over a Christian's right to decide what he believes?
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.
.
