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.
Right-wingers make up all manner of nonsense trying to justify what they want freedom of religion to mean. Come to grips with it, people: It does not mean what you want it to mean. You just wish it did - that's all.
Take it up with Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
So if it's for a gay wedding I can't say no, but if a guy comes in with tattoo's on his face and I don't care for him, I can say no?
Unclear. Is Mr. Face Tattoo face attempting to buy something you carry and sell routinely to non face tattooed persons? Or is he insisting you begin to carry some item that is only of interest to person's sporting a face tattoo and is indignant when you refuse to comply?
If the first, you have to serve him just as you would a customer without a cool face tattoo. If the second, you are well within your rights to send him on his way and suggest he suss out another business better suited to his needs.
"Sorry, I can't get to that order at this time, busy". The only thing the law can do is stop people from being blunt.
That's certainly a way to go, but if the customer finds out you took orders for the same item within the same time frame from other customers while refusing his/her business and wants to pursue a lawsuit you might, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, have some 'splainin to do.
Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers
The only time I would expect to recognize a customer as gay, would be Halloween, in a costume. Any other occasion would be the customers option to assume his own identity which is none of my business. You want to come into my shop, then with you as a customer, we are not going to engage in a sexual tête-à -tête. If your request is on my list of 'business options' then we'll do business. If not then you've found the wrong place to flaunt your privacies.
I disagree with the law and the laws that this law addresses. But that doesn't answer my question.
Your question, should the government be the morality police?
What does that mean?
You don't think the government should pass laws against acts that are considered immoral by a consensus of the society? Murder should be okay? Burglary should be okay? Rape should be okay?
You're talking about where we set the boundaries, how we balance the laws prohibiting behaviors we consider immoral against the freedom of the individual that is one of the precepts of our society and of our government. And the answer is that where we set the boundaries, where we draw the line, is not something written in stone. As a society, we debate where those boundaries are. And that's EXACTLY what we're doing with these laws, with the discussions on this thread, with the people posting on media sites, with the people arguing this issue in bars and over the dinner table. As a society, we are debating and deciding where one person's freedom ends and another's begins. That isn't an easy decision, and it shouldn't be an easy decision. It should be heated and passionate, people should be angry and upset. But in the end, a balancing point, or a range of balancing points, will be determined. Hinging on how we distinguish between people and businesses, between religion and choice, between common goods for sale and more personal services.
Unclear. Is Mr. Face Tattoo face attempting to buy something you carry and sell routinely to non face tattooed persons? Or is he insisting you begin to carry some item that is only of interest to person's sporting a face tattoo and is indignant when you refuse to comply?
Just a regular cake.
Quote:
If the first, you have to serve him just as you would a customer with out a cool face tattoo. If the second, you are well within your rights to send him on his way and suggest he suss out another business better suited to his needs.
Do you see the difference in those 2 scenarios?
I doubt it's that clear. If it was, there wouldn't have to be laws to include sexual orientation.
As a non-Christian all of this discussion about religious dogmas is irrelevant to me.
Although I am not a Christian, I am an American citizen. I expect the laws of the US to be divorced from religious dogmas as per the Constitution of the United States.
Perhaps this discussion is better discussed in the Religion Forum?
Your question, should the government be the morality police?
What does that mean?
You don't think the government should pass laws against acts that are considered immoral by a consensus of the society? Murder should be okay? Burglary should be okay? Rape should be okay?
You seemed to have answered your own question for me. Physically harming someone is different than offending them.
Quote:
You're talking about where we set the boundaries, how we balance the laws prohibiting behaviors we consider immoral against the freedom of the individual that is one of the precepts of our society and of our government. And the answer is that where we set the boundaries, where we draw the line, is not something written in stone. As a society, we debate where those boundaries are. And that's EXACTLY what we're doing with these laws, with the discussions on this thread, with the people posting on media sites, with the people arguing this issue in bars and over the dinner table. As a society, we are debating and deciding where one person's freedom ends and another's begins. That isn't an easy decision, and it shouldn't be an easy decision. It should be heated and passionate, people should be angry and upset. But in the end, a balancing point, or a range of balancing points, will be determined. Hinging on how we distinguish between people and businesses, between religion and choice, between common goods for sale and more personal services.
Why are you unable to decide that yourself? If I do not like the service a business provides I absolutely do not have to use their services.
Besides, as I note above, the can still refuse to do business with you, they just can't be blunt about it. Wouldn't it be better to simply know up front?
As a non-Christian all of this discussion about religious dogmas is irrelevant to me.
Although I am not a Christian, I am an American citizen. I expect the laws of the US to be divorced from religious dogmas as per the Constitution of the United States.
Perhaps this discussion is better discussed in the Religion Forum?
It's about far more than religion. It's about the proper role of the government.
What I replied to said it was an issue of morality.
I see it as an issue of whether or not the government should be the one deciding stuff like this.
So if it's for a gay wedding I can't say no, but if a guy comes in with tattoo's on his face and I don't care for him, I can say no?
I think that ethically, you should serve her/him - I'm not sure what tattoos would have to do with that.
Before you bring it up, business owners can and do refuse service to people whose actual *behavior in the store* is objectionable. But refuse them even if they are ordinarily civil and have the money? I think when you do that, you are telling a fellow citizen that s/he is not as good as you, and that is breaking our social contract.
BTW, I think it should go w/out saying, I'm certain you know this, the government would only get involved if your spurned customer made a complaint. But s/he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, because tattooed people are not a protected class.
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.
