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.
Not paying attention to somebody is not discrimination.
If I think someone's opinion and behavior about religion is sinful, should I be able to discriminate against them?
If it involves an essential need and service like housing, water, medical, food, transportation, no, you should not be allowed to discrimination because those services should be available to all people.
OTOH, a wedding cake is not an essential need or service. It's a luxury.
what about the Muslim Uber driver who refuses to take passengers with service dogs, because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim Uber driver who refuses to take passengers who are Jews because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol because her religion "prevents her from doing so" ?
what about the Muslim real estate developer who refuses to sell homes in a housing development to anyone except Muslims because his religion "prevents him from doing so" ?
Muslim cab drivers who refused to take service dogs had a choice, have tem as passengers or not have their jobs. At least in two cases in the US that has been the case. Also applied to airport cabbies refusing to drive passengers with duty free booze. Do your job or get a different job. Didn't the flight attendant get either resigned or let go? A Muslim real estate developer who will only sell to Muslims? Not sure if I am aware of this case but pretty sure that is illegal. Same as it would be for a Jewish one to only sell to Jews. As far as Uber drivers go, they to should not be allowed to discriminate on those bases.
There should be no religious exceptions for service animals.
If it involves an essential need and service like housing, water, medical, food, transportation, no, you should not be allowed to discrimination because those services should be available to all people.
OTOH, a wedding cake is not an essential need or service. It's a luxury.
States already allow discrimination against gays for housing jobs, buying groceries. It seems that under each State law you can either discriminate against gays for everything or for nothing,
Who gets to define what is a luxury? If it is just the basic foods and a nominal shelter and emergency medical care and all the rest are luxuries then we are back to the world of whites only lunch counters. If it is up to either the seller or the buyer no solution to the problem.if it's p to the government is that really any different than each state deciding if discrimination agaist gays is legal or not. And does one allow for discrimination on luxury items against blacks and the handicapped or only based on religious grounds?
8 know your views and your stance and though I disagree, this post is only to address your proposed solution. Where I live a snow shovel is not a luxury, An umbrella is a useless item. I think your proposal might just make more lawyers rich.
Muslim cab drivers who refused to take service dogs had a choice, have tem as passengers or not have their jobs. At least in two cases in the US that has been the case. Also applied to airport cabbies refusing to drive passengers with duty free booze. Do your job or get a different job. Didn't the flight attendant get either resigned or let go? A Muslim real estate developer who will only sell to Muslims? Not sure if I am aware of this case but pretty sure that is illegal. Same as it would be for a Jewish one to only sell to Jews. As far as Uber drivers go, they to should not be allowed to discriminate on those bases.
There should be no religious exceptions for service animals.
"This will be a community of 49 spacious brand new homes (Villas) for Ahmadi Muslims with a dedicated mosque within walking distance," read a website this year advertising the community. That language was later removed, replaced with an update that touted an "audio feed from the adjacent mosque" for the daily call to prayer — before that language also was removed.
"The plan to market to Muslims proved successful, Younus said, and 22 units were sold within months after a lottery was held among Ahmadis who wished to buy them. Some elected officials and residents, however, complained, saying the planned community violated fair-housing laws. Others questioned whether their town should open its arms to a neighborhood initially designed for Muslims.
"Real estate agent Gina Pimentel filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last month, claiming she couldn't get information about the River Run units because Younus was "unlawfully privately marketing and selling only to Ahmadi Muslims." "
"This will be a community of 49 spacious brand new homes (Villas) for Ahmadi Muslims with a dedicated mosque within walking distance," read a website this year advertising the community. That language was later removed, replaced with an update that touted an "audio feed from the adjacent mosque" for the daily call to prayer — before that language also was removed.
"The plan to market to Muslims proved successful, Younus said, and 22 units were sold within months after a lottery was held among Ahmadis who wished to buy them. Some elected officials and residents, however, complained, saying the planned community violated fair-housing laws. Others questioned whether their town should open its arms to a neighborhood initially designed for Muslims.
"Real estate agent Gina Pimentel filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last month, claiming she couldn't get information about the River Run units because Younus was "unlawfully privately marketing and selling only to Ahmadi Muslims." "
So a person did that and a complaint has been filed. Hope the developer loses the case.
The real question now is can one support the baker and not the real estate developer?
So a person did that and a complaint has been filed. Hope the developer loses the case.
The real question now is can one support the baker and not the real estate developer?
Did the baker ONLY sell to Christians? I'm sure he was happy to bake cakes for all religions. In any event, it's not as if the couple in question couldn't have simply gone to another baker. They went to him to target him.
Social justice to support a sinful lifestyle is not justice or progress. No business owner should have to be forced to engage on any level involving an immoral ceremony.
If I recall correctly, "Christians" are not a legally protected class the way "sexuality" is in SOME places. AND those "Christians" were there to spread their message of hate.
There, now you can accuse ME of supporting him. But you should probably mention that I support the right of a shopowner to decline custom work.
If it involves an essential need and service like housing, water, medical, food, transportation, no, you should not be allowed to discrimination because those services should be available to all people.
OTOH, a wedding cake is not an essential need or service. It's a luxury.
The law applies whether you are are providing essential services like removing garbage or unnecessary ones like selling it.
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.
