• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbols?

Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbols?


  • Total voters
    72
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

he's not in control of how others feel about what he posts and doesn't post and there will always be SOMEONE pissed either way...I can take offense to the walls in the shop being green, i can take offense to there being walls at all, i mean there is no end to that

i'm sorry man but this is an accusation you often levy at liberals - PC = punishing someone based on how others feel about their words. If anything, i should be agreeing with you. The problem is that you can see here most liberals support a shop owner's free speech. We do not support discrimination however. I frankly do not care if someone dislikes me, only that i have equal rights

What if the posters were in support of "traditional" marriage. Does that change anything?
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Right, I asked the question, but when what's trotted out as justification for "no" is completely not compelling or a factor at all in other circumstances, my question becomes why is it so out of bounds to think that the same rationale could be applied to both?

That's because you think there's some sort of equivalence between displaying a religious symbol and denying service to someone. You're wrong about that.

Surprisingly, the law considers different things to be different things
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

No, I think a private business should display what they want. I've been into plenty of restaurants, coffee shops ans other businesses that display all sorts of religious objects, from paintings to figurines. Nothing wrong with that. But if a corporation or other business is receiving state or federal funding of some kind, then you have a problem.

What if it's a business licensed by the local government to do business?
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

That's because you think there's some sort of equivalence between displaying a religious symbol and denying service to someone. You're wrong about that.

Surprisingly, the law considers different things to be different things

Ok, but then what you're saying is basically that the difference is "because we say so" and has nothing to do with the constitution.
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Would it be reasonable to forfeit the right of business owners to display religious symbols once a business opens it's doors to the public?

Poll on the way.

Are they selling those religious symbols? Are they refusing to sell their products based on the patron's age, gender, religion, ethnicity or nation of origin?
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

What if it's a business licensed by the local government to do business?

A permit and funding are two different things. You have to have a license to be in business. Funding from the government is using the people's money under our laws to be in business, which in my view someone could make an argument over.
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Ok, but then what you're saying is basically that the difference is "because we say so" and has nothing to do with the constitution.

If you have to say "what you're saying is basically", then you're probably making something up.

I never said its' "because we say so". Anyone with half a brain can see that displaying a religious symbol is different than denying service to someone. One way to tell they're not the same thing is that you have to use different words to describe the two
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

lol who voted yes? I really must know

click on the number four in the poll

cryptic, fredmertz, Jet57. One yes vote claimed he voted the wrong way
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Ok, but then what you're saying is basically that the difference is "because we say so" and has nothing to do with the constitution.

dude is speech protected by the constitution? YES

is opening a business to the public and then denying service to certain groups protected by the constitution? NO
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

dude is speech protected by the constitution? YES

is opening a business to the public and then denying service to certain groups protected by the constitution? NO

:confused:

How is it not?
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

click on the number four in the poll

cryptic, fredmertz, Jet57. One yes vote claimed he voted the wrong way

Actually, Cryptic and fredmertz have posted saying they clicked the wrong answer
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

But it could be offensive to someone such that they don't want to go there any more, isn't that just the same as denying service?

Public accommodation laws are not about causing offense, they're about serving all of the public without regard to certain classifications protected by law.

Maurice Bessinger had a sign up in his restaurants for at least a while that said some very bad things about how the law made him serve black people but he didn't have to like doing it. Yet his business survived decades past segregation.

Maurice Bessinger, BBQ baron and unrepentant racist, dies | Haire of the Dog | Charleston City Paper
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that. As long as the shop owner is in "control", his rights should be subjugated? He's fully in control of what he posts in his shop, isn't he?

First, there you go with the fraudulent debating as you shift the topic YET AGAIN. All of a sudden now we're back to "SHOULD"? I find it very interesting how you seem to shift from "could" and "should" interchangeably, as if the words mean the same thing.

Since you're having trouble wrapping your mind around it, let me walk you through in real simple terms...

First thing...in terms of "rights being subjugated"

Multiple people have rights.

Sometimes these rights intersect and conflict with each other.

When rights conflict with each other, it falls upon the law to determine which right/individual wins out.

Which right/individual wins out in a given situation is determined through various criteria, typically enshrined in law or legal precedence.

This is the ENTIRE BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.

This then leads to the next part

Second thing...in terms of control

Who's in control of knowingly causing a conflict to happen matters.

With a denial of service by a shop owner, that owner is causing the conflict. Their action, denying service based on [race/gender/sexual orientation/handicap], is what is causing the rights to come into conflict.

With a religious decoration offending someone, the person being offended is causing the conflict. Their action, the act of BEING OFFENDED, is what is causing the rights to come into conflict.

The customer in the first situation had no control over whether their [race/gender/sexual orientation/handicap] would offend the religious sensibilities of a shop keeper, and as such are not responsible for causing the conflict. It is the shop keeper that is taking the action that knowingly puts two peoples rights at odds.

The shop keeper in the second situation had no control over whether their [decorations/font/words/symbols/etc] would offended the sensibilities of a customer, and as such are not responsible for causing the conflict. It is the customer that is taking the action (being offended) that knowingly puts two peoples rights at odds.

This is taken into consideration when measuring who's rights should win out in a situation.

--------------

To the ridiculous question of "He's fully in control of what he posts in his shop"...yes. Yes he is. What he is not fully in control of is what OFFENDS people.

He could put nothing in his shop and that could still "offend" someone who feels that sparsely decorated places are uninteresting and boring and thus they won't ever shop at such a place. While it's possible to take actions to minimize one's chance of offending someone based on a basic understanding of the customer's one is likely to have enter their store and basic understanding of their views, it is ultimately impossible to guarantee that one will not offend someone. Because ultimately the act of being offended is controlled entirely by the person who is BEING OFFENDED. The only instance where there is even a chance of an exception to this is with things that are so roundly recognized by the whole of society as existing for the purpose of presenting an offensive message (IE, telling someone "**** you mother****er" or "flipping the bird" in most cases). And even then, it is still ultimately on the other person as to whether or not the "offensive" act actually DOES "offend" them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Ok, but then what you're saying is basically that the difference is "because we say so" and has nothing to do with the constitution.

Yes, "because we say so" is the answer....if you're stubbornly and dishonestly ignoring, and playing willfully ignorant to, the reasons multiple people are giving you for why it SHOULD (your god damn question that you continue to veer from and then embrace whenever it suits your dishonest needs) happen for some and not for others.

Just like the reason Murder has a heavier punishment than robbery is "because we say so".

Just like those with a felony can't vote but those with a misdemeanor can, "because we say so".

Just like the NSA can spy on foreign nationals but not on US citizens, "because we say so".

Because apparently in your world, if the same argument could be used for two things in even the BROADEST FASHION POSSIBLE, then it absolutely should be used for both or else the ONLY reason for the difference is "because we say so" :roll:

It's becoming clear your posts in this thread have by and large been a pathetic display of fraudulent confusion that make a mockery of "debate" or even "discussion". There's not a shred of honesty in them or, at best, not an ounce of an attempt to honestly and objectively read the answers people have (foolishly, it's now became clear) bothered to give.

Society see's value in providing governmental protection against discrimination on the basis of certain classifications that are believed to be integral to their existence, of which they have little to no control over; things such as gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, and handicap. Due to this, civil rights laws were created on the state and federal level and are broad in scope.

Society does not see value in providing governmental protection against being offended in most cases, and thus laws dealing with offense are rare and generally specific in scope.

Could society change at some point and pass different laws? Absolutely. SHOULD THEY (the question you actually asked)? God damn no, because you can't help if you're black or if you were born in England. Or whether your being homosexual or jewish is integral to your very existence and identity as an individual. Where as being OFFENDED is a fleeting emotional response that is nearly entirely outside of anyones hands but your own. And, despite your continued attempts to play the role of confused bystandered, that is a HUGE DIFFERENCE.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Only non-Christian symbols should be banned.
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

No, especially if the store sells religious symbols. :mrgreen:
They'd have to be hidden in a back room. Sort of a "religious head shop", if you will. :2razz:
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

I'm seeing "no" but I'm not seeing an argument as to why. Isn't the argument that business owners forfeit certain rights once they open a business and there is no right to operate their business according to their own moral code?
I think I see what you're trying to do here, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. One is denying service to a specific group, the other has nothing to do with service at all. The religious tie-in is wholly coincidental.
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

So all four of the "yes" voters have said that they clicked the wrong button. This may be the first time there's been a 100% consensus on anything here at DP!
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

So all four of the "yes" voters have said that they clicked the wrong button. This may be the first time there's been a 100% consensus on anything here at DP!

I've seen it a few times before.

Always related to 1A related discussions.
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Would it be reasonable to forfeit the right of business owners to display religious symbols once a business opens it's doors to the public?
Not in the US.

There is no problem with displaying religious items in a public accommodation. What they cannot do is refuse service on the basis of the religion of the prospective customer.

E.g. a Christian bookstore can undoubtedly display as many crosses as it wants. What it cannot do is refuse to sell a book to a Hindu, based exclusively on their religion.
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

Would it be reasonable to forfeit the right of business owners to display religious symbols once a business opens it's doors to the public?

Poll on the way.
Accidentally voted yes.Misread it as should it be legal for a business open to the public to display religious symbols?
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

A business owner is still a citizen, entitled to all of the rights that entails, including freedom of expression, freedom of speech, etc. Such legislation would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. In short, no, absolutely not.
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

So.... is this thread just a failed attempt to garner sympathy for people who discriminate or am I missing something?
 
Re: Should it be illegal for a business open to the public to display religious symbo

A business is private property. If they provide a service to the public and the public has access to them, it changes nothing. No one is forcing you to enter, and religious symbols are not inherently dangerous in any way, shape or form.

The reason why smart businesses don't use religious symbols is because they have an economic incentive not to. They don't want to alienate customers.
 
Back
Top Bottom