I don't understand - why would any business want to limit their customer base?

[rjay]

As of late there has been legislation put forward (unsuccessfully for the most part) to allow Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to members of the LGBT community.

I am no bible scholar by any means, but even if to be gay is to be a sinner, does that mean they do not want to serve any sinners?

Below are a few bible quotes about things considered to be an 'abomination' :

Proverbs 16:5 - (quote 1)
Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.

Deuteronomy 24:4 - (quote 2)
Then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord.

Proverbs 6:16-19 - (quote 3)
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - (quote 4)
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Leviticus 18:22 - (quote 5)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

For consistency sake it seems these businesses should not want to serve:

- everyone who is arrogant in heart, this will undoubtedly include a few Christain businessman, as mentioned in quote 1
- anyone who has reconciled with their spouse, as mentioned in quote 2.
- people with haughty eyes, a lying tongue or any one else covered by quote 3
- lady farmers who are surely covered by quote 4
- and of course gays

Any thoughts?

 

[americanwoman]

You're going to have to fill out a questionnaire to pick up a box of cookies.

What does it matter they are going to be used for a lesbian tryst, with a hooker on a Sunday, away from my spouse while dressed up as him? Just take my $2.50 and give me some snicker doodles!

 

[justabubba]

As of late there has been legislation put forward (unsuccessfully for the most part) to allow Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to members of the LGBT community.

I am no bible scholar by any means, but even if to be gay is to be a sinner, does that mean they do not want to serve any sinners?

Below are a few bible quotes about things considered to be an 'abomination' :



For consistency sake it seems these businesses should not want to serve:

- everyone who is arrogant in heart, this will undoubtedly include a few Christain businessman, as mentioned in quote 1
- anyone who has reconciled with their spouse, as mentioned in quote 2.
- people with haughty eyes, a lying tongue or any one else covered by quote 3
- lady farmers who are surely covered by quote 4
- and of course gays

Any thoughts?

so, would it also be OK to be able to exclude blacks from your customer base as a publicly operated entity

how about a business refusing to sell to those with mental deficiencies. similarly ok?

and if not, how are those different than being able to vend to those having a specific sexual persuasion

 

[ttwtt78640]

Businesses do that all of the time. Why would a dancehall/bar book only either country or hip-hop bands? Why would a restaurant elect not serve those with small children? Why would a drug store no longer sell tobacco products? If the business gets as much (or more) revenue by catering to a subset of the public then they often choose to specialize. Obviously, "gay" bars realize that they will attract a different crowd but that is not a bad thing if the place is packed.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

As of late there has been legislation put forward (unsuccessfully for the most part) to allow Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to members of the LGBT community.

I am no bible scholar by any means, but even if to be gay is to be a sinner, does that mean they do not want to serve any sinners?

Below are a few bible quotes about things considered to be an 'abomination' :



For consistency sake it seems these businesses should not want to serve:

- everyone who is arrogant in heart, this will undoubtedly include a few Christain businessman, as mentioned in quote 1
- anyone who has reconciled with their spouse, as mentioned in quote 2.
- people with haughty eyes, a lying tongue or any one else covered by quote 3
- lady farmers who are surely covered by quote 4
- and of course gays

Any thoughts?

Yes - I have thoughts. #1: Thank you for not putting this in the religion forum. #2: You see: Chritianity is a religion of choice and selected interpretation and application. some choose to follow things to the written word, some don't. Whatever feels "right" - and if they don't feel that accepting people who are gay is "right" then they'll find the religious reason to support their view.

Because when I was growing up we were taught - at the least - tolerance and then *to pray* for everyone who was "wrong" not to treat them like 2nd class humans and shun them from society.

It seems that many others were taught to use religion as a bully pulpit.

 

[Gipper]

People should have the right to discriminate. If they accept the fact that it will hurt them economically, so be it.

Frankly I'll take your money any way I can. I don't care if you're black, gay, a woman, Democrat, or your spaceship crashed here from the 4th moon of Ryjal-7. You got the green, you got the goods.

It's a testament to why belief sucks. But hey - can't tell people how to think or what to believe.

Actually, thanks to this kind of legislature, yes you can.

 

[Gardener]

I happen to own a business that deals with the public, and the simple diagnostic I use is to distinguish between that which is voluntary and that which is innate. If a person came in wearing KKK robes, for instance, I would refuse service, since such actions are entirely voluntary. Being gay isn't, and so I do not discriminate even if I happened to adhere to this arbitrary and dogmatic prejudice.

Unfortunately, a great many people lack the intelligence necessary to distinguish in this same way so cloud the issue with all their idiocy about "religious rights" and whatnot.

 

[Gipper]

I happen to own a business that deals with the public, and the simple diagnostic I use is to distinguish between that which is voluntary and that which is innate. If a person came in wearing KKK robes, for instance, I would refuse service, since such actions are entirely voluntary. Being gay isn't, and so I do not discriminate even if I happened to adhere to this arbitrary and dogmatic prejudice.

Unfortunately, a great many people lack the intelligence necessary to distinguish in this same way so cloud the issue with all their idiocy about "religious rights" and whatnot.

I'd still do business with the Klansman if he took off the pajamas. If not, I'd point to the "No shirt, no shoes, no sh*theads" sign in the window.

And yeah, that sign is real.

 

[Logicman]

If they sued and forced my hand, I'd bake them a cake that smelled like Fess Parker.

 

[Dittohead not!]

As of late there has been legislation put forward (unsuccessfully for the most part) to allow Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to members of the LGBT community.

I am no bible scholar by any means, but even if to be gay is to be a sinner, does that mean they do not want to serve any sinners?

Below are a few bible quotes about things considered to be an 'abomination' :



For consistency sake it seems these businesses should not want to serve:

- everyone who is arrogant in heart, this will undoubtedly include a few Christain businessman, as mentioned in quote 1
- anyone who has reconciled with their spouse, as mentioned in quote 2.
- people with haughty eyes, a lying tongue or any one else covered by quote 3
- lady farmers who are surely covered by quote 4
- and of course gays

Any thoughts?

Of course. They should refuse service to adulterers, fornicators, liars, those who take the name of the lord in vain, hypocrites, and anyone who is not pure in heart.

The half dozen or so potential customers they have left wouldn't have to share space with sinners.

 

[DVSentinel]

As of late there has been legislation put forward (unsuccessfully for the most part) to allow Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to members of the LGBT community.

I am no bible scholar by any means, but even if to be gay is to be a sinner, does that mean they do not want to serve any sinners?

Below are a few bible quotes about things considered to be an 'abomination' :



For consistency sake it seems these businesses should not want to serve:

- everyone who is arrogant in heart, this will undoubtedly include a few Christain businessman, as mentioned in quote 1
- anyone who has reconciled with their spouse, as mentioned in quote 2.
- people with haughty eyes, a lying tongue or any one else covered by quote 3
- lady farmers who are surely covered by quote 4
- and of course gays

Any thoughts?

Simple. Homosexuals make up less than 10% of the human population. By publicly denying support of their cause, a business may draw in a greater number of other customers. Such a thing may not happen in some areas, but that kind of open support will greatly increase the number of customers in other areas.

Whether a business stays in business is entirely based upon it's profitability. The government should never be stepping in to force anyone who owns a business to accept any customers they don't want. Public attitude will make many businesses that discriminate unprofitable or decrease their profitability. It is unnecessary for the government to take action.

Back in the days of segregation, it was not necessary for the government to actually take action against privately owned businesses. It was necessary for the government to ensure that no government agency participated in or supported discrimination.

The government should never be allowed to discriminate, but individuals should always be allowed to express their own beliefs and be allowed to act upon them.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yes - I have thoughts. #1: Thank you for not putting this in the religion forum. #2: You see: Chritianity is a religion of choice and selected interpretation and application. some choose to follow things to the written word, some don't. Whatever feels "right" - and if they don't feel that accepting people who are gay is "right" then they'll find the religious reason to support their view.

Because when I was growing up we were taught - at the least - tolerance and then *to pray* for everyone who was "wrong" not to treat them like 2nd class humans and shun them from society.

It seems that many others were taught to use religion as a bully pulpit.

Hear, hear... Damn well said.

 

[joko104]

Not everyone is singularly motivated by money.

 

[joko104]

Would it be illegal discrimination for a prostitute to refuse to have same gender sex? It would seem obvious that it would be.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Would it be illegal discrimination for a prostitute to refuse to have same gender sex? It would seem obvious that it would be.

Somehow, I don't think either the prostitutes or their pimps care what is legal and what is not.

 

[Fletch]

As of late there has been legislation put forward (unsuccessfully for the most part) to allow Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to members of the LGBT community.

I am no bible scholar by any means, but even if to be gay is to be a sinner, does that mean they do not want to serve any sinners?

Below are a few bible quotes about things considered to be an 'abomination' :



For consistency sake it seems these businesses should not want to serve:

- everyone who is arrogant in heart, this will undoubtedly include a few Christain businessman, as mentioned in quote 1
- anyone who has reconciled with their spouse, as mentioned in quote 2.
- people with haughty eyes, a lying tongue or any one else covered by quote 3
- lady farmers who are surely covered by quote 4
- and of course gays

Any thoughts?

You really don't need a law for this. If you run a bakery or a photography studio and you have an objection to homosexuality (say) and they come in and want you to bake them a gay wedding cake or take pictures at their gay wedding, bake a crappy cake and take crappy pictures. If they want to ruin their own event by forcing someone to do something that individual objects to, then they run the risk of poor service. You might be able to force by legal action a baker or photographer to serve you but you have no legal right to a good result and they have no legal obligation to provide one.

 

[justabubba]

You really don't need a law for this. If you run a bakery or a photography studio and you have an objection to homosexuality (say) and they come in and want you to bake them a gay wedding cake or take pictures at their gay wedding, bake a crappy cake and take crappy pictures. If they want to ruin their own event by forcing someone to do something that individual objects to, then they run the risk of poor service. You might be able to force by legal action a baker or photographer to serve you but you have no legal right to a good result and they have no legal obligation to provide one.

or you could price your services so high that if you received the assignment you might actually look forward to fulfilling the order - for the money's sake

 

[Gipper]

Would it be illegal discrimination for a prostitute to refuse to have same gender sex? It would seem obvious that it would be.

That's why you pay them double.

 

[CLAX1911]

There is no religious belief that says you can't provide a good or service to a gay person.

This is another example of bigotry being sheltered under religion.

 

[Hard Truth]

If they sued and forced my hand, I'd bake them a cake that smelled like Fess Parker.

Please tell us the name and location of your business so we can avoid it and organize a boycott.

 

[Logicman]

Please tell us the name and location of your business so we can avoid it and organize a boycott.

Nope. You'll have to find out the hard way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If they sued and forced my hand, I'd bake them a cake that smelled like Fess Parker.

Please tell us the name and location of your business so we can avoid it and organize a boycott.

Why avoid it? I would think a better way to handle it would be to have gay customer after gay customer actually patron the business. Now the business would have to refund the price of the cake as being defective or if no satisfaction is rendered the baker could be taken to civil court for defective products. That's of course the cakes were safe to eat, if they were poisoned, we then those customers wold own the business after the suits and the baker would be in jail for attempted (at a minimum) public endangerment or (at the most) attempted murder.

Now on the other hand, the baker might refund the money - but how long can the baker afford the cost in terms of materials, time, and labor in producing known substandard product.

Now I would never condone such a coordinated effort to ruin a business, informing the pubic and letting them decide is a different matterl, but I wouldn't support a target effort like that. But if the baker intentially poisons cake for gay customers - then he reaps what he sows.



>>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As of late there has been legislation put forward (unsuccessfully for the most part) to allow Christian owned businesses the right to refuse service to members of the LGBT community.

Although the controversial bill sought to allow it, I'm not aware of any significant group that wanted to simply have no dealings at all with perverts. For the vast majority of possible business transactions, a customer's sex life has no relevance whatsoever.

What many merchants rightfully want, however, is a recognized right not to be compelled to participate in things that are immoral. For example, providing goods and services that are specifically in support of such sick things as the homosexual mockery of marriage.

From a purely mercenary point of view, perhaps you cannot understand why anyone would turn down any opportunity to make a legally profit. Of course, what you do not get is that some of us have moral and ethical values, and are unwilling to violate these values, for the sake of a financial gain.

It might be easier to understand if, instead of talking about a homosexuals' sick mockery of a wedding, we were talking about something else, such as perhaps a neo-Nazi convention, of which i assume even you would want no part. If you're a baker, and someone asks you to provide a Nazi-themed cake for such a gathering, emblazoned with images of swastikas and Jews being herded into gas chambers, would you accept that business? If you're a caterer, would you provide catering service to that gathering? If you're a printer, would you print up posters and T-shirts advertising and commemorating this event?

I assume that Naziism goes against every value that you think you hold, and that you'd want no part of it. Would you choose money over these values?


And what if, you chose not to support that event, and the event organizers were to sue you for discrimination? Should they have the power to force you to provide your services in support of their event, or be punished for failing to do so?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Of course. They should refuse service to adulterers…

This suggests a good example.

Suppose you run a dating service. Would you knowingly and willingly offer the use of your service to someone who is already married, and seeking to have an adulterous affair? I would not. In any other business, it's not my place to know what shortcomings any person has that are irrelevant to the business they seek to do with me, but in this case, we'd have someone specifically seeking to use my services to do something immoral, and I would not be willing to have any part in that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no religious belief that says you can't provide a good or service to a gay person.

This is another example of bigotry being sheltered under religion.

Nothing in my beliefs or morals prohibits me from doing business with a homosexual, from having one as a friend, or otherwise associating with one in any normal way.

However, my morals do prohibit me from participating in, or supporting any activity that violates my morals.

There's an important difference between merely selling a generic product or service to someone who happens to participate in immoral activities that have nothing to do with the transaction that I am having with that person; and selling goods or services that actively support or promote that other person's immoral activities.