- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Yep, you can exclude fatties or brunettes or uggos, just so long as you equally apply it.
I'm talking only about public accommodations and defending the fact that there is no right to be served guaranteed by the Constitution. Businesses are free to discriminate as they see fit, but (as with many aspects of business operation) this is subject to regulation. (Any "right to be served" is derived from law and can be rescinded.)I think you stated the reality of the matter. The government has set forth a list of "protected citizens" who are specifically identified as "those who can not be excluded" which is entirely different than the government providing a list of who "can be excluded". If the exclusion reason isn't covered in any of those lists, you can exclude until the day is done. You can't exclude someone because you disapprove of their sexual preferences in a mate, but you can exclude someone if you disapprove of their lifestyle choice of being a KKK member because the law only applies to "those you can not exclude".
It's so complex.
I'm talking only about public accommodations and defending the fact that there is no right to be served guaranteed by the Constitution. Businesses are free to discriminate as they see fit, but (as with many aspects of business operation) this is subject to regulation. (Any "right to be served" is derived from law and can be rescinded.)
Yes, exactly. The fact that under federal law a business can discriminate based on sex but not on race is not an equal protection issue, but merely a difference in how we've chosen to regulate public accommodations... which is how all of this discussion got started.That too. I don't recall anything in the Constitution that grants us the right to demand service from any business.
Yes, exactly. The fact that under federal law a business can discriminate based on sex but not on race is not an equal protection issue, but merely a difference in how we've chosen to regulate public accommodations... which is how all of this discussion got started.
I'm talking only about public accommodations and defending the fact that there is no right to be served guaranteed by the Constitution. Businesses are free to discriminate as they see fit, but (as with many aspects of business operation) this is subject to regulation. (Any "right to be served" is derived from law and can be rescinded.)
1. The Constitution isn't the only law on the books. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 governs business' inability to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act has been found constitutional, as well as the courts are in the midst of extending these protections to include sexual orientation.That too. I don't recall anything in the Constitution that grants us the right to demand service from any business.
1. The Constitution isn't the only law on the books. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 governs business' inability to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act has been found constitutional, as well as the courts are in the midst of extending these protections to include sexual orientation.
2. Most states have civil protections written into their own state constitutions that go beyond Federal laws.
Lol, I'm with you there. I had only intended to small clarification on how the law works.I think I'm confused about how all of this got into a discussion about SSM. I just realized I'm not in the thread I thought I was in, which is the one about the bakers and the wedding cake.
The issues you raise can be addressed in the Congress and the White House without hand-holding from the Supreme Court.
I think I'm confused about how all of this got into a discussion about SSM. I just realized I'm not in the thread I thought I was in, which is the one about the bakers and the wedding cake.
*sigh* Drunk again!
lol I know, all these threads seem to run together after awhile.
I think I'm confused about how all of this got into a discussion about SSM. I just realized I'm not in the thread I thought I was in, which is the one about the bakers and the wedding cake.
In all fairness, there are two entirely separate and unrelated stories about bakers who didn't want to make cakes for gay people. It's an oddly specific trend.
They can express their opinions. And if they really dont want to serve a particular demographic....do so. I think they should...then the public can clearly see and make their own buying decisions.
However there is a difference between expressing opinion and refusing service based on discrimination.
Refusing service is an expression of belief. And forbidding the expression is similar to forbidding people to say "Hail Hitler!". It is anti democratic. If you do not like somebody's expression of belief then demonstrate, scream at him. But do not give government the authority to prevent him expressing his view. That is absolutely irresponsible and stands in scary contrast to what had made the US exceptional in the past.
I fully support the business to exclaim, put up signs, etc of their opinions on issues. That might solve the problem right there.
How exactly do you mean?
"Put up signs" "Exclaim"
In other words, feel free to air their opinions publicly.
The constant cake discussion on here makes me crave cake.
The constant cake discussion on here makes me crave cake.
Or watch Ace of Cakes. Which is kind of gay...so...
I'll bring the cake you bring the ice cold milk to go with it.
:mrgreen:
>>>>
If a group of KKK came into my store, I'd ask them to leave.
Is that against the law? (I'm asking, I dont know of any law that protects them or their agenda...or what they'd try to claim)
>
Ice Cream anyone????
>>>>
>
Ice Cream anyone????
>>>>
At this point I would give up an hour in bed with Sean Connery for 15 minutes alone with that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?