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.
I would back the DOJ if the Supreme Court rules the wrong way and the DOJ and Trump refused to enforce the asinine ruling. The Dems, if they had the Presidency, wouldn't think twice about doing it if the shoe were on the other foot. At any rate, it's time we used the opportunity of controlling the three branches and the state legislatures to undo 100 years of Progressive tyranny.
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of the stuff from Roe vs. Wade, Oberfeld, Obamacare, etc is no more constitutionally binding up We the People than if Russia, Canada, or North Korea wrote them and demanded that we follow them, so I don't view them as Constitutional and refuse to accept their coup government as valid.
I made that point before, but my question was - If a chef is an artist, could he refuse to serve food to a married gay couple because doing so violates his religious beliefs? If so where does it end? What if a small rural town with one restaurant, one bakery and a few other stores all decided to deny service to gays, could they do so by claiming that their products are artistic endeavors and serving gays violates their religious beliefs.
Fact is that no matter what direction the tree falls the same question would need to be answered but from the discrimination side.
What if a small rural town with one restaurant, one bakery, and a few other stores all decide post ruling they cannot accept the dilemma of ethics over service and close? Where does that leave everyone in that town?
What would happen is there would be a whole bunch of lawsuits that would ultimately resolve the legal bar for expressive content, above which service could be denied for 1st Amendment reasons (not just religion), below which it could not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
Of course they can, as long as they refuse it to all customers, that's sort of like asking if you can require a vegan restaurant to serve you a steak.
False comparison, vegan restaurants won't be carrying steak. Kosher Deli's carry cheese and meats. The only thing that prevents a Kosher deli placing that slice of cheese on the pastrami is the owners religion. Isn't that prejudiced to require that all other religions conform to Judaic dietary rites? If we permit Kosher deli's to continue this practice (refuse a service based on religious doctrine) then why are they exempt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I don't care if a business decides to deny service to particular people but I want them to be forced to say it loud and say it proud. Post a very large sign in their window and on any advertising materials listing exactly who they will and won't serve so that I can do everything in my power to put them out of business.
In some places you can't place such a sign, it would be considered a public order offense. How do you deal with that? Many places have human rights ordinances or statutes that prohibit such signs or intents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCW 49.60.215
(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.
(2) This section does not apply to food establishments, as defined in RCW 49.60.218, with respect to the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. Food establishments are subject to RCW 49.60.218 with respect to trained dog guides and service animals.
Such a sign would violate this, it would be considered an unfair practice, WA state isn't the only state with such laws. Even if a business person could refuse service (because of violation of personal ethics) then the law as it stands in WA still would not permit the placement of a sign, because it would be an "act which directly or indirectly results in a distinction, restriction or discrimination".
...False comparison, vegan restaurants won't be carrying steak. Kosher Deli's carry cheese and meats. The only thing that prevents a Kosher deli placing that slice of cheese on the pastrami is the owners religion. Isn't that prejudiced to require that all other religions conform to Judaic dietary rites? If we permit Kosher deli's to continue this practice (refuse a service based on religious doctrine) then why are they exempt?. ...
Where I come from, Kosher delis are 'permitted' as are Christian book stores & the like.
Why not 'permit' Christian business owners to 'let the buyer beware' by calling their businesses 'Christian'?
That'd make way more sense than forcing the quasi-religious & entirely loopy-libertarian-(il)logic on non-believers.
In some places you can't place such a sign, it would be considered a public order offense. How do you deal with that? Many places have human rights ordinances or statutes that prohibit such signs or intents. Such a sign would violate this, it would be considered an unfair practice, WA state isn't the only state with such laws. Even if a business person could refuse service (because of violation of personal ethics) then the law as it stands in WA still would not permit the placement of a sign, because it would be an "act which directly or indirectly results in a distinction, restriction or discrimination".
From a reading of the law it sounds like the sign would only be prohibited if the underlying conduct was prohibited, maybe you are reading it differently than I am?
From a reading of the law it sounds like the sign would only be prohibited if the underlying conduct was prohibited, maybe you are reading it differently than I am?
Apparently.
Just placing the sign indirectly creates a distinction, restriction or discrimination. Consider a sign that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service". If you have no shirt or shoes would you enter? If not why not? What if the owners have zero restrictions on how their customers are dressed (i.e. there is no actual distinction, restriction or discrimination), how many people would not enter because of such a sign?
Therefore the act of placing that sign is itself an act that "directly or indirectly results in a distinction, restriction or discrimination" regardless of whether or not service is restricted, therefore it is considered as an unfair practice under WA State law.
Where I come from, Kosher delis are 'permitted' as are Christian book stores & the like.
Why not 'permit' Christian business owners to 'let the buyer beware' by calling their businesses 'Christian'?
That'd make way more sense than forcing the quasi-religious & entirely loopy-libertarian-(il)logic on non-believers.
Yes Kosher Deli's are permitted, even though they are technically discriminatory. Just because you discriminate against everyone not of your religion, does not make you non-discriminatory, just promiscuous with your discrimination, as a Christian could I get a pastrami and swiss? No, as a Scientologist could I get a pastrami and swiss? No, as a Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster follower, could I get a pastrami and swiss? No. Why not? The deli sells pastrami, it sells cheese.
Nothing stopping businesses who religiously identify, to include some indications as to what religion they identify with. Though I would object to forcing those businesses to have to indicate their religious affiliation. Last time people were forced to identify their religious affiliation it involved yellow Stars of David and didn't end well.
I don't know who you think is forcing who to do what? I'm forcing no one to do anything, someone who wants cheese on a pastrami can go to a non-Kosher Deli. It's actually the "against" side of the bakers case that are for forcing the Kosher Deli to serve the cheese on pastrami.
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.
