Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against Republicans and Christians?

[MrNiceGuy]

How about paying customers?

Sure.

Seems some folks are threatened by Commies or Gays or MAGAs or Klansmen or Proudboys, etc. We don't seem to be getting much of anywhere.

I agree, but some folks like to make everything political.

 

[ClaraD]

The courts will probably allow businesses to discriminate against gays. Although I'm not gay, I'm kind of okay with it as long as businesses can also discriminate against suspected Republicans and Christians. If I was a business owner, I'd never hire a Republican at the very least, because I wouldn't want my gay employees to potentially get into conflicts with members of a legit hate group. Similarly, if I was a customer or client, I wouldn't want to do business with someone who discriminated against marginalized groups.

What are your thoughts?

religious affiliation is protected...your political affiliation is not. I didn't answer your survey due to that ....You cannot refuse to hire someone because they are of a certain religion....

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Guesses?

Sometimes. I suppose if you saw someone come in wearing a nun's habit or a priest's uniform, or if someone wears a crucifix, you might put two and two together. Similarly, a yarmulke and a star of David is kind of a give away. Sometimes people might come out and say stuff, like "have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior?" Or, some other guy might say "Have you heard of the American Atheists organization? Can we leave our flyers here?"

 

[MrNiceGuy]

religious affiliation is protected...your political affiliation is not. I didn't answer your survey due to that ....You cannot refuse to hire someone because they are of a certain religion....

Now, political affiliation gets a bit dicey when you start looking at the kind of election laws the Democrats like. Wouldn't a concerted effort by, say, Wells Fargo, to not give loans, accounts or credit cards to Democrats constitute a "thing of value" given to the Republican Party? Register as a Republican or we don't give you a home loan? Kosher?

 

[ClaraD]

Now, political affiliation gets a bit dicey when you start looking at the kind of election laws the Democrats like. Wouldn't a concerted effort by, say, Wells Fargo, to not give loans, accounts or credit cards to Democrats constitute a "thing of value" given to the Republican Party? Register as a Republican or we don't give you a home loan? Kosher?

there are no protections for political affiliation. It isn't a protected group.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

there are no protections for political affiliation. It isn't a protected group.

Not under public accomodations law, so a customer would not be able to sue for violation of the civil rights act, yes, correct. But what about election law? Wouldn't it be "dark money" for a company to essentially become an arm of the Democrat or Republican party, only doing business if people are in the right party? What if all credit card companies said that nobody who identifies as a Socialist could have a credit card?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Such would be a service, so it's not any real difference than say, paying for the services of H&R Block.

Given the historical accuracy of the tax returns complied by H&R Block, it's fair to say that you are going to get ...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course not, which is why I asked about if I had misunderstood that you were springboarding in agreement with additional information. I've done that and had it misunderstood before myself.

Not knowing what I was thinking when I made the original post, I rather suspect that "additional information" was the intent.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Guesses?

Naahhh.

Evrewun jusknoz how ta tell "Them Peepel" at a glans.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

religious affiliation is protected...your political affiliation is not. I didn't answer your survey due to that ....You cannot refuse to hire someone because they are of a certain religion....

If "A" belongs to a "religion" which has, as a basic tenet, "Thou shalt not have dealings with anyone who belongs to a religion that does not believe that _[fill in the blank]_." and if the laws of the country state that "A" is not allowed "discriminate on religious grounds", do the laws of the country not "infringe" on the constitutional right of "A" to the "free exercise" of their religion?

If "A" belongs to a "religion" which has, as a basic tenet, "Thou shalt not have dealings with an 'unclean woman' and defines 'unclean woman' as a female during the latter phase of their menstrual cycle and if the laws of the country state that "A" is not allowed "discriminate on religious grounds", do the laws of the country not "infringe" on the constitutional right of "A" to the "free exercise" of their religion?

 

[Indydave]

if they are allowed to discriminate against Christians and Repubs then why not Muslims and democrats...........and then we get to the real question......can they discriminate against black Americans

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

there are no protections for political affiliation. It isn't a protected group.

So it would be "constitutional" for Congress to pass a law prohibiting any support for the _[fill in the blank] party, deeming that any votes cast for a candidate purporting to support that party as "support for the _[fill in the blank] party (hence cast illegally), with such votes to be discarded and not counted at all - right?

 

[Indydave]

if you own a business open to the republic for 99% of everyone who walks through your door you have little way of knowing that they a Christian or a repub

 

[Lycanthrope]

I voted yes, only so that the persecution/martyr fantasies so many on the right wank to might have some basis in reality.

 

[ClaraD]

So it would be "constitutional" for Congress to pass a law prohibiting any support for the _[fill in the blank] party, deeming that any votes cast for a candidate purporting to support that party as "support for the _[fill in the blank] party (hence cast illegally), with such votes to be discarded and not counted at all - right?

No, because we are a multi party system. They could amend the Constitution to permit it...but as it is right now that would violate the law. However, a private business can say no fascists, no Republicans or whatever...and it isn't a violation of law...they cannot prohibit based on protected classes, race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, family status, sex, etc.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, because we are a multi party system.

There is absolutely no mention of either "political parties" or a "multi-party system" in the constitution of the United States of America.

They could amend the Constitution to permit it...but as it is right now that would violate the law.

Actually it wouldn't - unless, of course, you admit that not all of "The Law" is codified in the statutes.

However, a private business can say no fascists, no Republicans or whatever...and it isn't a violation of law...

Quite correct. Unless of course you consider violation of the fiduciary duty owed by the directors to the shareholders to return the maximum amount of profit to be a violation of law.

they cannot prohibit based on protected classes, race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, family status, sex, etc.

That is yet to be seen as the courts appear to be saying that SOME classes may discriminate against SOME other "protected" classes because not allowing them to do so would "infringe on their constitutional rights:.

 

[ClaraD]

There is absolutely no mention of either "political parties" or a "multi-party system" in the constitution of the United States of America.

Actually it wouldn't - unless, of course, you admit that not all of "The Law" is codified in the statutes.

Quite correct. Unless of course you consider violation of the fiduciary duty owed by the directors to the shareholders to return the maximum amount of profit to be a violation of law.

That is yet to be seen as the courts appear to be saying that SOME classes may discriminate against SOME other "protected" classes because not allowing them to do so would "infringe on their constitutional rights:.

It would violate Due Process. Also, it is mentioned in the Constitution. It is called the Freedom of Association.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It would violate Due Process. Also, it is mentioned in the Constitution. It is called the Freedom of Association.

It would, indeed, violate what you think "Due Process" means.

However, "Due Process" means ONLY "that process which is statutorily provided for (which can include "judicial interpretation of what the actual words of the statute mean") and to statutorily provide that any votes which were cast for the [-u][fill in the blank][/u]_ party were deemed to be support for the _[fill in the blank] party (which was prohibited by law) and deemed that any votes cast for a candidate purporting to support that party as "support for the _[fill in the blank] party (hence cast illegally), were to be discarded and not counted at all then the "due process" would be to discard those votes and not count them at all.

After all, you can't have elections decided by "illegal votes" and there is no prohibition on anyone actually marking their ballot to show support for the candidate for the _[fill in the blank]_ party so the person's First Amendment right of freedom of speech hasn't been infringed. Remember there is no "constitutional right" to be listened to.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Every successful business employs a business plan and model to exclude potential customers... it is a great way to make money. LOL

Your legalese is wrong: "Selects a target audience"

 

[MrNiceGuy]

There is absolutely no mention of either "political parties" or a "multi-party system" in the constitution of the United States of America.

Yes, that's because a political party is just an assemblage of people, which is an individual and fundamental right under the Constitution, Amendment 1. And, if the government or the state was to somehow "provide for" political parties, then it would be an infringement on our freedom of association (or freedom not to associate).

That is yet to be seen as the courts appear to be saying that SOME classes may discriminate against SOME other "protected" classes because not allowing them to do so would "infringe on their constitutional rights:.

That is true, as the courts are struggling with freedom of religion being a protected class along with sexual orientation and such. Can a gay baker discriminate agaisnt a member of an extreme fundamentalist sect that believes the law should criminalize homosexuality? Can a devout, fundamentalist Muslim discriminate against gays, and apostates?

 

[choiceone]

How about paying customers?

Seems some folks are threatened by Commies or Gays or MAGAs or Klansmen or Proudboys, etc. We don't seem to be getting much of anywhere.

Look, I can see how some people feel threatened by communists and Klansmen and possibly Proudboys.

There are actual historical examples of communists who promulgated a standard doctrine of violent overthrow of capitalist governments and violent war to institute the next stage of historical progress, even though there are communist parties such as that in Japan which disavowed violence many decades ago.

Historically, the Klan wanted to force African Americans to leave the US and go back to Africa, as if those individuals, born in the US and always having lived here, belonged there.

It may be possible to make similar arguments about Proudboys. At least they are an official group.

Gays aren't an official group, and it's my understanding that MAGAs aren't, either. But for them to be threatening, they would have to be an official group with a political philosophy that was directed to controlling other people's bodies and minds with physical force or demanding that the government do that.

Who cares if people have different beliefs, as long as one of them isn't the use of physical and legal force to control your body and mind?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I am not in favor of discriminating against anyone, BUT if we are going to allow providers of services and products to decide who they are willing to sell to by how they identify then that should apply across the board for ALL groups.

So, if I am allowed not to sell a wedding cake to someone based on who they sleep with, I should be equally allowed not to sell that cake by what they believe and who they vote for.

If one is doubling down on bias and discrimination it should be allowed to all who care to pick up its s**ty stick to fling its excrement. Let the s**t show commence.

OR... we could all treat each other the way we'd like to be treated under similar circumstance... you know, that "Golden Rule Ethical Thinking" thing.

 

[CaughtInThe]

the NC Republican Super Majority took power, asked for a list of where all the blacks live, took that map and packed them all into a couple of districts (to win the rest).

now, what was the OP question?

 

[jpevans]

Look, I can see how some people feel threatened by communists and Klansmen and possibly Proudboys.

There are actual historical examples of communists who promulgated a standard doctrine of violent overthrow of capitalist governments and violent war to institute the next stage of historical progress, even though there are communist parties such as that in Japan which disavowed violence many decades ago.

Historically, the Klan wanted to force African Americans to leave the US and go back to Africa, as if those individuals, born in the US and always having lived here, belonged there.

It may be possible to make similar arguments about Proudboys. At least they are an official group.

Gays aren't an official group, and it's my understanding that MAGAs aren't, either. But for them to be threatening, they would have to be an official group with a political philosophy that was directed to controlling other people's bodies and minds with physical force or demanding that the government do that.

Who cares if people have different beliefs, as long as one of them isn't the use of physical and legal force to control your body and mind?

Everybody has their boogiemen.
MAGA & PB's stormed the U.S. Capital, they don't have to be dues paying, card carrying members. The U.S. Communist Party spearheaded the Union Movement back around the turn of the last century including racial equality in the workplace & supported woman's suffrage.

 

[choiceone]

If "A" belongs to a "religion" which has, as a basic tenet, "Thou shalt not have dealings with anyone who belongs to a religion that does not believe that _[fill in the blank]_." and if the laws of the country state that "A" is not allowed "discriminate on religious grounds", do the laws of the country not "infringe" on the constitutional right of "A" to the "free exercise" of their religion?

If "A" belongs to a "religion" which has, as a basic tenet, "Thou shalt not have dealings with an 'unclean woman' and defines 'unclean woman' as a female during the latter phase of their menstrual cycle and if the laws of the country state that "A" is not allowed "discriminate on religious grounds", do the laws of the country not "infringe" on the constitutional right of "A" to the "free exercise" of their religion?

The trouble here is seen most clearly in the second example. How can A know whether or not a woman is in the latter phase of her menstrual cycle in order to avoid her? He (and I'm making this realistic sexist assumption) can't know, because she has the 4th Amendment right to security of person, papers, etc., and so doesn't have to make this knowledge public. So the very practice of the religion has problems in this country, because the religion has to adapt to people having certain rights which prevent people from having knowledge they need about others to practice their religion.

Another case might be proffered. Some time ago, a woman in Florida was pulled over by a traffic cop. She was wearing a full burka or chaderi, which covered her face completely. She was told she couldn't drive that way because, in the event of a traffic cop needing to check her driver's license identity, her face would have to be available to visual inspection. I vaguely recall that she couldn't use her freedom of religion for defense, and the case is quite similar to those in France which led to a law against full face covering on religious grounds. Here, though, she had a right to be burka'd while walking, just not while engaged in driving, because that activity required a retractable government-issued license.

A more popular example would be the Christian anti-abortion people who can't stand it that pregnant persons can keep their pregnancy private. They have wanted to know whether there was an embryo or fetus inside a woman and force her to continue any pregnancy. Unfortunately for them, the 4th Amendment means that they can't force her or her doctor to reveal her pregnancy. This has given rise to a new post-Roe problem.

Missouri wants to prevent pregnant women from leaving Missouri to get abortions and has been trying to figure out how to prevent them. But it is basic to American freedom that any legally competent adult is free to leave the US and go to Canada, Mexico, or international waters or air space and free to go from one US state to another US state. (And legal adult parents have the right to take their kids abroad or to another state). The US or state government has no right to know why he or she is leaving, let alone interfere. Missouri's problem, like that of anti-abortion people in general, is that they can't stand it that pregnant women are allowed to be competent. They secretly want all pregnant people who want abortions to be declared incompetent so the state can use their bodies as if they have no conscious mind or reason at all.

Still remember that case in Texas where a pregnant woman was brain dead and therefore legally dead but the hospital kept her technically alive by artificially pumping blood in order to make her body continue to grow the fetus - against the expressed will of next of kin and every family member?

I'm sure this is about more than just freedom of religion, but the point is, you should be free to practice your own religion within your own person. It shouldn't guarantee you control over other people.