- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In that post, I explicitly mentioned that there are exceptions, and in another I noted it included exceptions for expressive organizations
Try to keep up.
1.) and that observation would be wrong . . there is a choice . . a choice not to go into business and think you are allowed to break the law.
It's clear the business community did oppose this garbage, but unfortunately the reality when dealing with nutjob conservatives, every major boycott will have the effect of many thousands of phone calls. They show little evidence of giving the first damn about (especially outside) public opinion, but they will usually listen to their sugar daddies and business supporters.
Wrong.
I can't be bothered to read every one of your posts. I was responding to your statement in one of them, and that statement was not accurate.
Good grief, give me an example of a business that in no way can have a dress code. If entire shopping malls can have them, I bet any business can have them if they so choose.
Ie, This business must allow Sangha to enter while wearing skinhead / waffen SS wear* and must serve him.
Confess it, you are wrong on this matter. Dont worry, I wont tell too anybody, well not too many people. Confession is good for the soul. I"ll take yours now.... .
*not that you actually wear the stuff.
We reserve the right to refuse service.
The sign's message is clear and simple, but the truth is that a business can't reserve a wholesale right to refuse service.
As places of public accommodation, private businesses are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. These statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation.
And others, well they outlaw even arbitrary discrimination.
For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination. This includes biases based on physical attributes, political beliefs, and geographical origin.
Courts also tend not to favor arbitrary discrimination. In the past, judges have used consumer protection, unfair business practice, and tort laws to punish such practices.
None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.
I'd agree that the customer shouldn't make a difference to the service provider. Their money spends the same as everyone else's, and the same work and materials goes into the service or product produced.View attachment 67182392
Product lines are differentiated by differences in - well - the product. Above is one of the wedding cakes in the Masterpiece Cakes catalog.
1. What part of this cake identifies this as a "same sex marriage cake" in contrast to a "different sex marriage cake" as opposed to just a "wedding cake"?
2. What part of this cake is different when purchased by same-sex couples in contrast to different-sex couples:A. Is it the recipe?
B. Is it the materials?
C. Is it the decoration (notice this cake does not employ toppers or text)?
Or is the difference not in fact in the cake, the difference being the customers that purchase such a cake.
>>>>
Now there, it would seem that the request has gone beyond the offered product / services, but I can also see where that'd be grounds that would have to be argued, the weakest link there being 'you customize nearly everyone else's cake with scripts, don't you?'For me, this is a a grey area. Gays must be allowed to order a generic wedding cake just like a birthday cake. Owner should not need to make it a same sex cake per se:
owner: Here is your generic wedding cake. No, I am not going to put a "two grooms" center piece on it. No, I am not going to write "Adam and Steve, united in marriage on it".
Not so. New Jersey law made the Boy Scouts a public accommodation, and yet it was free to revoke scoutmaster Dale's membership because it did not want to accommodate homosexuals. Massachusetts law made the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Boston a public accommodation, and yet the parade's organizers were free to refuse to include an Irish-American homosexual group in the parade. In both cases, the homosexuals were excluded because the private persons in charge of the public accommodation didn't want them.
States cannot broaden the definition of "public accommodation" to include every imaginable organization or business, and then force those organizations and businesses to enter into contracts with everyone who wants to have dealings with them. The Christian owners of the Hitching Post, for example, did not want to let homosexuals use the wedding chapel they ran as a business--and they didn't have to.
The proponents of the homosexual agenda have taken an old common-law provision meant to keep travelers from freezing to death because innkeepers denied them lodgings, and tried to make it into a weapon to bully private persons in all sorts of commercial endeavors into contracting to provide homosexuals various goods and services against their will.
Ask a Black minister or any Black with a lick of sense if they think there's difference.
Right....I disagree the Homosexual plight has anything to do with the civil rights movement. Guess I'm a bigot.
What of it?
The statement was if any such policy was published, it was "First I am not intimately familiar with hospital policy but I do not remember seeing a question about sexual preference on the information sheet either at the emergency room nor at my doctors or surgeons office."
Questions are asked and information derived. Which is what I responded to.
>>>>
There's more than just a bit of irony in these situations. The business owner says that he doesn't agree with a person's choices so he chooses not to do business with that person. That person (the one from the tolerance crowd mind you) responds by saying that he does not agree with the business owner's choices so he is going to use the full force of the law to inflict harm on the business owner.Shame on the State of Indiana, especially their bigoted Governor and legislature. You would think that in 2015 we would be beyond this type of hatred and bigotry. This simply shows that for all the progress that America has made, we are still a long ways away from being a country that treats everyone fairly and equally. The bigots will lose.....but the battle remains.
That of course is the goal, to force Christians (mostly) out of the marketplace unless they conform to the homosexual agenda.
2.) This is what passes for tolerance these days. Conform or be harmed
1.)Assuming that the contract for services has to be voluntarily entered by both parties, it would seem reasonable that either party could refuse.
Could be the seller's price is too high for the buyer, or the quality of the cakes not meeting expectations, or the seller doesn't have the capacity to fulfill the obligations of the contract, time, flour, staffing, etc.
Health Department requirements.
'We don't offer same sex marriage cakes. It's not a product offering in our product line.' ?
yeah, but if you call instead of boycott, you will actually be targeting the assholes who did this. if you boycott instead of call, people like me get fired. who are you mad at, me or them?
1.) no matter your opinions we are all protected groups . . all of us. if you disagree describe a person who is not protected . . .you will fail
2.) in reality already proved it with examples, if you disagree give me a person i cant refuse service to and ill show you how
3.) i dont believe the bakers were ever fined BUT if they were the fact you are missing they were NEVER fined for not serving a "protected" group since that is NOT a crime.
SO obviously you are factually wrong and have been for pages but you simply dont understand the topic enough to know that. fact remains there is ZERO laws forcing service to groups in this case.
since im honest, objective and topically educated on this subject i would have ZERO fear of refusing you service because i know its not against the law. You are wrong againfact remains i can "refuse service" to anybody i want and there are no laws forcing me to say yes
There's more than just a bit of irony in these situations. The business owner says that he doesn't agree with a person's choices so he chooses not to do business with that person. That person (the one from the tolerance crowd mind you) responds by saying that he does not agree with the business owner's choices so he is going to use the full force of the law to inflict harm on the business owner.
Tolerance is certainly a complex (and obviously hypocritical) issue
The market will sort out whether or not this was a good idea in both directions, so time will tell.
someone like a baker, or photographer or wedding planner providing a service that feels that they cannot service their God and homosexuals at the same time with enough conviction to actually take a principled stand
There is no harm done, other than hurt feelings, but hurt feelings is not material harm
Wake up call to the militant gays among us.
not everyone will bend to your will, there are people out there with the guts to take stand, and many will join them.
Don't like these laws? Tough, you made it necessary by your overreaching, militant approach to force everyone to accept you.
Tim-
Tim-
Moreover, in practice, whites and Asians are often "legally" discriminated against
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?