Christian Mingle and other dating sites MUST allow same sex matches

[justabubba]

Are you really going to claim that selling stock somehow warranting treats business like government? :lol: There is a difference between allowing people to own stock and being part of government.

i did not say that
i responded to your notion that only individual persons could own interest in a privately held company
hopefully, you now recognize your presentation to be a wrong one

Btw, there is no requirement in anti-discrimination law that speaks towards the company in question selling stock.

no, there is not

you made the wrong assertion about only individuals being able to have interests in privately held entities. i responded only to show you how incorrect you were in that presentation

it was your presentation that has diverted these posts away from the thread topic

 

[Renae]

Not I! But I do know people who met online (although none on a dating site) who have had marvelously happy real-time relationships.

My wife and I met through a dating site. More silliness than serious about it but still

 

[justabubba]

I can't speak for the dead either, but it strikes me that those who fought and died for such rights would be appalled that their work is leading to legal fights for cakes and dating sites.

i believe you are framing it in a different way than they might

this is another effort to eliminate discrimination against those who constitute a minority population thru no fault/choice of their own

 

[ARealConservative]

a business can be privately held and still operate in the public sphere

how does a private business operate in a private sphere?

 

[justabubba]

So does this mean that Facebook has to stop taking down political ideas that they don't agree with? Groups like the KKK and other hate groups often get their pages deleted from Facebook.

please share with us in what protected class the KKK would be found

 

[TheGoverness]

This is ridiculous. I am all for gays being able to marry and everything else. But the website doesn't have to cater to people that it doesn't want to. Insane.

Yep. If the website outright states that it's catering to a certain demographic, then I don't really have a problem with it at all.

 

[ludin]

not discriminate against the Constitutionally protected groups

or do you disagree with the US Constitution

Good thing no one was discriminating.
not offering a service you want is not discriminating. It is simply not offering that service.

You can't sue someone for offering a service
that they don't offer.

 

[justabubba]

Is the property owned and operated by private individuals? Yes. What does that mean? It means it's NOT a public space. You're allowed on the property because the owner said you are, not because you have some right to be there.

if the private company did not venture out into the public sphere to market and sell its goods, it would not be in violation of anti-discrimination law

 

[Henrin]

i did not say that
i responded to your notion that only individual persons could own interest in a privately held company
hopefully, you now recognize your presentation to be a wrong one




no, there is not

you made the wrong assertion about only individuals being able to have interests in privately held entities. i responded only to show you how incorrect you were in that presentation

it was your presentation that has diverted these posts away from the thread topic

People that buy stock are private individuals, you know.

 

[ludin]

please share with us in what protected class the KKK would be found

Members if the kkk are white. Therefore they are discriminating against their race.

 

[justabubba]

Deciding to allow people to enter my property before I make a decision to decline doesn't somehow mean anyone has a right to my labor, my property, or my association.

if you open your enterprise to the public, then you are compelled to open it to all of the public, including those members of protected classes

 

[Henrin]

if the private company did not venture out into the public sphere to market and sell its goods, it would not be in violation of anti-discrimination law

You never did tell me what part of the constitution bars businesses or private individuals from discriminating.

 

[justabubba]

So you are okay with the government legislating that a private company be forced to create code for their own website?

give me more information about what is causing such 'forcing' to write code

 

[ajn678]

please share with us in what protected class the KKK would be found

This has nothing to do with protected class situations. This is a website being forced to cater to a group that it doesn't want to. Even this is way different than businesses not being allowed to turn away people based on rage or orientation. Its like telling a website dedicated to BLM that they need to start partitioning sections of their website for KKK members.

 

[Henrin]

if you open your enterprise to the public, then you are compelled to open it to all of the public, including those members of protected classes

Yes, that's the law. Thanks captain obvious.

 

[ajn678]

give me more information about what is causing such 'forcing' to write code

The company is being forced to add features that the site currently doesn't have. You have to write code for that. It isn't as simple as letting someone into a physical store.

 

[AGENT J]

Members if the kkk are white. Therefore they are discriminating against their race.

While I dont agree with this case, I dont agree with the silliness and dishonesty bubba is posting what you said here is factually untrue and not accurate in anyway whatsoever LMAO Its almost like you try to make the most factually wrong statements.

Discriminating against the KKK is not discrimination against race. I mean . . . wow . . . just wow

 

[Henrin]

give me more information about what is causing such 'forcing' to write code

How do you think a website is going to add an entire new demographic to their website? Maybe by writing code. Duh.

 

[ajn678]

While I dont agree with this case, I dont agree with the silliness and dishonesty bubba is posting what you said here is factually untrue and not accurate in anyway whatsoever LMAO Its almost like you try to make the most factually wrong statements.

Discriminating against the KKK is not discrimination against race. I mean . . . wow . . . just wow

Not true...KKK members cannot be discriminated against. Mental illness cannot be something that someone discriminated against.

 

[AGENT J]

Not true...KKK members cannot be discriminated against. Mental illness cannot be something that someone discriminated against.

LMAO good one

 

[justabubba]

And why can't a business allow anyone on their property and then decide to decline individual people?

it can. notice the no shirts, no shoes, no service signs. prospective shirtless and shoeless people have no protected right to shop there
but when you post a sign saying 'no negroes allowed' you have violated anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination against protect classes; in this example the "negroes" who otherwise would not be allowed to do business with you

For that matter, why can't they open their business to everyone but certain groups?

i was born prior to 1964, and saw first-hand how blacks were discriminated against. legally
your post tells us you would want to take our nation back to pre-1964 America where blacks could be openly and legally discriminated against
i do not want that. i saw it. we do not want to return to such times

Why is their right to association somehow not permitting those possibilities?

they relinquish their right to selective association when they open their doors to the public
the choice was theirs to make. restrict trade to a defined clientele or open the doors to the public
in this case, the defendant opened its virtual door to the public, and thus cannot discriminate against protected classes to would-be customers

this seems so obvious. i am stunned that so many do not get that which should be so obvious

 

[justabubba]

Good thing no one was discriminating.
not offering a service you want is not discriminating. It is simply not offering that service.

You can't sue someone for offering a service
that they don't offer.

if the enterprise was not discriminating, how did it lose the case?

 

[Henrin]

it can. notice the no shirts, no shoes, no service signs. prospective shirtless and shoeless people have no protected right to shop there
but when you post a sign saying 'no negroes allowed' you have violated anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination against protect classes; in this example the "negroes" who otherwise would not be allowed to do business with you

Once again you say something obvious.

i was born prior to 1964, and saw first-hand how blacks were discriminated against. legally

So what?

your post tells us you would want to take our nation back to pre-1964 America where blacks could be openly and legally discriminated against

Yeah, and your point is what? Why should peoples rights be ignored by the state? Cultural problems shouldn't lead to the state violating the rights of the people.

i do not want that. i saw it. we do not want to return to such times

Who said we would?

they relinquish their right to selective association when they open their doors to the public

Bull****.

the choice was theirs to make. restrict trade to a defined clientele or open the doors to the public
in this case, the defendant opened its virtual door to the public, and thus cannot discriminate against protected classes to would-be customers

Do you even realize how that choice violates their rights?

 

[justabubba]

People that buy stock are private individuals, you know.

and non-individuals, such as corporations can buy stock
which then tells us your assertion that only private individuals owns privately held companies was wrong

 

[justabubba]

Members if the kkk are white. Therefore they are discriminating against their race.

prove that all KKK members are white