SC Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs (Iran, legal)

[Mangokiwi]

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

That case was in the mid-60's. What's your point?

God that was like 50 years ago. Who is bringing this old old case up as if it's relevant right now?

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by Mangokiwi

God that was like 50 years ago. Who is bringing this old old case up as if it's relevant right now?

How is a case about someone claiming the "religious right" to discriminate (piggy park) not relevant to a case where someone is claiming the "religious right" to discriminate (bakers, florists, photographers)?

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by Mangokiwi

God that was like 50 years ago. Who is bringing this old old case up as if it's relevant right now?

Mouthpiece Maddow.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by Mangokiwi

God that was like 50 years ago. Who is bringing this old old case up as if it's relevant right now?

Because it is in fact relevant. It demonstrates that discrimination via religious beliefs was wrong then, and its wrong now.

Additionally there ARE religions that have discriminated against blacks in the past. This is ugly stuff.

[whogo]

The point is that 50 years ago the same religious claims being used to deny gays service today was used to justify denying blacks service.

[shadowne]

Originally Posted by tillman7

In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

Do you even bother to read your own links? This is from before most of us were born but go ahead and use it towards your agenda.

[whogo]

What is the Pope's stand on gay marriage versus intraracial marriage?

[newtoks]

Originally Posted by whogo

The point is that 50 years ago the same religious claims being used to deny gays service today was used to justify denying blacks service.

And the book that people cite as instructing them to deny these services is more than 2,000 years old. How is it still relevant?

[Redraven]

IMO, a business owner, ANY business owner, has the absolute right to determine who he or she will or will not do business with.
The ABSOLUTE RIGHT!
On the other hand, a consumer, ANY consumer, has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to decide and determine where he or she will or will NOT spend his or her money.
The ABSOLUTE RIGHT!
Yes, it should be just that simple.

[Mangokiwi]

Originally Posted by jjrose

How is a case about someone claiming the "religious right" to discriminate (piggy park) not relevant to a case where someone is claiming the "religious right" to discriminate (bakers, florists, photographers)?

Duh, this took place during segregation in the deep South. This is hardly 2015 Indiana, gay rights.