Breaking: Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing

[PaintMyHouse]

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law. Mixed marriages used to be against the law. Serving or transportation of alcohol used to be prohibited. Times change. Get rid of a traffic light and the law becomes moot. Instead use traffic circles like in London. No more need for the law. Simple.

Hate lights, love roundabouts.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nope. They may have been able to make Webster's or Merriam's more PC, but the truth is phobia is based either on fear or hatred, usually one that is irrational. Christians were taught from birth that homosexuality is wrong for a reason. I tend to believe that folks hate Christians because of a phobia against being judged or discriminated against.

Laughing.....so a traffic ticket and systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians/the denial of fundamental civil rights is the same thing? That's your latest argument.

No wonder your ilk have lost 44 of 46 cases. You're not exactly bringing your 'A' game at this point.

My ilk?

You mean people that believe in following the law?

Guilty as charged.

that's funny... given you don't understand the law.

Have you ever read this law you figure I don't understand?

which law would that be? the one that can't force a supreme court justice to recuse herself?

or the fact that same sex marriage is a constitutional issue?

you might want to start with those concepts.

Bet you don't even know if it's states that decided it or federal.

 

[mudwhistle]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

So...if you went to a Muslim run store and he refused to sure YOU what he normally serves others because of YOUR belief? or YOUR gender? or YOUR race? or YOUR whatever......you would "know better" than to demand that he follow the law?

So....you'd just roll over and take it then. That's you. That's your weakness.

Agreed. Nobody wants to press the issue against Muslims. Only against Christians.

 

[Skylar]

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law.

A lack of legal recognition isn't the same as a crime. You can't tell the difference.

A rational person could.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

So...if you went to a Muslim run store and he refused to sure YOU what he normally serves others because of YOUR belief? or YOUR gender? or YOUR race? or YOUR whatever......you would "know better" than to demand that he follow the law?

So....you'd just roll over and take it then. That's you. That's your weakness.

Agreed. Nobody wants to press the issue against Muslims. Only against Christians.

There are no exceptions. Bake the stupid cake. TY.

 

[Skylar]

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

So...if you went to a Muslim run store and he refused to sure YOU what he normally serves others because of YOUR belief? or YOUR gender? or YOUR race? or YOUR whatever......you would "know better" than to demand that he follow the law?

So....you'd just roll over and take it then. That's you. That's your weakness.

Agreed. Nobody wants to press the issue against Muslims. Only against Christians.

Says who?

 

[Syriusly]

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

So...if you went to a Muslim run store and he refused to sure YOU what he normally serves others because of YOUR belief? or YOUR gender? or YOUR race? or YOUR whatever......you would "know better" than to demand that he follow the law?

So....you'd just roll over and take it then. That's you. That's your weakness.

Agreed. Nobody wants to press the issue against Muslims. Only against Christians.

Okay- so you are too scared to demand your rights if the shop keeper is Muslim.

And that is your right- you are not required to be brave.

But any Christian or Jew or Buddhist who was braver than you could and would.

 

[Syriusly]

Not so much homosexuals, but activists. Zealots. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have. is the pendulum swings far enough a pie in the face or a death threat will seem tame compared to what they really want to do. I have no problem with your typical gay. Never have.

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law. Mixed marriages used to be against the law. Serving or transportation of alcohol used to be prohibited. Times change. Get rid of a traffic light and the law becomes moot. Instead use traffic circles like in London. No more need for the law. Simple.

If the law is wrong- change the law.

Just like homosexual couples are doing with marriage laws right now.

 

[Syriusly]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

Once again- you just show who you are- when you compare 'fucking nazi's'- who were instrumental in the murder of millions- with homosexuals who dare to actually demand that the law be followed.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law.

A lack of legal recognition isn't the same as a crime. You can't tell the difference.

A rational person could.

Actually I can. It's clear you don't understand my point....retard. You are so busy with the minutia you can't see the overall picture.

 

[Skylar]

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law.

A lack of legal recognition isn't the same as a crime. You can't tell the difference.

A rational person could.

Actually I can.

You really can't. As you're equating the two. And they're not the same thing.

It's clear you don't understand my point....retard. You are so busy with the minutia you can't see the overall picture.

Or....your point is just pseudo-legal gibberish. And a crime isn't the same thing as the lack of legal recognition.

 

[mudwhistle]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to tromp all over someone else's beliefs.

Yep, fucking Nazis.

Once again- you just show who you are- when you compare 'fucking nazi's'- who were instrumental in the murder of millions- with homosexuals who dare to actually demand that the law be followed.

Not all Nazis tossed Hyme into an oven shitforbrains. Some of them used fear and intimidation to force other Germans to adhere to the fascist policies. Germans subjecting other Germans by using fear tactics and making examples of people. In this case, threatening to sue people is thuggish and uncivilized especially if it isn't necessary. Nope, you Nazis goons are out to get some fucking payback for the Spanish Inquisition, or whatever the heck you feel suits you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law.

A lack of legal recognition isn't the same as a crime. You can't tell the difference.

A rational person could.

Actually I can.

You really can't. As you're equating the two. And they're not the same thing.

It's clear you don't understand my point....retard. You are so busy with the minutia you can't see the overall picture.

Or....your point is just pseudo-legal gibberish. And a crime isn't the same thing as the lack of legal recognition.

No fucking shit.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yet you see no difference between Nazi's who put Jews in concentration camps and homosexuals who ask that State law be enforced.

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law. Mixed marriages used to be against the law. Serving or transportation of alcohol used to be prohibited. Times change. Get rid of a traffic light and the law becomes moot. Instead use traffic circles like in London. No more need for the law. Simple.

If the law is wrong- change the law.

Just like homosexual couples are doing with marriage laws right now.

Bingo!

You must have been top of your class.

I think that was my God damned point about 4 hours ago. Lol!!!

 

[Syriusly]

BTW, I don't think people are so much for gay marriage but feel that if they are against it they could get sued. t.

You can think any crap you want to think.

People are not getting sued because they are 'against gay marriage' they are getting sued for breaking public accomodation laws.

You could tell everyone you know that you hate blacks or you hate Jews or you hate homosexuals and you won't get sued for expressing your private opinion.

But if you run a business and refuse to sell waffles to blacks or Jews or homosexuals- or refuse to sell flowers for an African American wedding or a Jewish wedding or a homosexual wedding- and State law prohibits that kind of discrimination- then you should be concerned about being sued.

Once again, this is not my opinion. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate.

I suppose you're going to insist on pork being served at the reception. Why not go after a Muslim caterer?

No business is being asked to serve- or do something the business does not do.

If a caterer only serves kosher food for instance- the caterer is not violating any law for refusing to serve a food it does not serve.

If a Muslim caterer refused to cater a Christian wedding because the wedding is Christian- he would be in violation also.

Yet gays are the ones making an issue of it. A Christian knows better than to demand that a Muslim serve him against his religious beliefs.
.

Ethiopian Christian may sue for discrimination by Somali Muslim managers. A federal court denied summary judgment, allowing a religious discrimination case by a fired Ethiopian Christian. The court found sufficient foundation to proceed to trial on allegations that in the two years after Somali Muslim managers were hired at a parking facility, the toll booth attendant workforce went from 50% to 90% Muslim; supervisors were rewarded for firing Ethiopian Christians; the plaintiff was forbidden to read his Bible on break or slow times, while Muslims were allowed prayer breaks and could display their religious materials in their toll booths. A Muslim ex-supervisor testified that the Somali managers offered cash bonuses to any supervisor who fired an Ethiopian Christian. Delelegne v. Kinney Systems, Inc. (D. Mass., 2004).

 

[Syriusly]

Wasn't he the same one that equated a traffic ticket with having one's fundamental right to marry being stripped from them?

Apparently not all analogies are created equally.

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law. Mixed marriages used to be against the law. Serving or transportation of alcohol used to be prohibited. Times change. Get rid of a traffic light and the law becomes moot. Instead use traffic circles like in London. No more need for the law. Simple.

If the law is wrong- change the law.

Just like homosexual couples are doing with marriage laws right now.

Bingo!

You must have been top of your class.

I think that was my God damned point about 4 hours ago. Lol!!!

Have you ever had a point?

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting article I stumbled across:
Mail Bag Competing Personal Freedoms and Public Accommodation Laws

As it stands now, and has for a very long time, you do not have the right to refuse service to anyone. Your business does not have the right to refuse service to anyone. This has been true for more than 70 years in the United States. I’m not sure what alternate universe people are living in where they put up a sign that somehow makes them believe they are exempt from this well-established rule.

These so-called public accommodation laws are meant to protect individual freedom and liberty. They are the only way a large market based system can operate efficiently in a non-homogenous, pluralistic society such as the United States, which is a global melting pot.


The public accommodation rules state that when you engage in a business, the business activity is only permitted if you enter the market place willing to sell your product or service to anyone that meets the equally applied standards (e.g., a restaurant requiring a suit and tie) and that is able and willing to pay. That’s it. It’s about an equal economic exchange. If they pay, they are treated just like any other customer.


To understand how these public accommodation laws protect you:


Scenario 1: Imagine you are a devout Christian traveling in Washington state. Your car breaks down and you come upon an inn in the middle of the night. You go to get a room but the owners are very conservative Muslims and do not want you staying under their roof if you refuse to say prayers with them. Under public accommodation laws, this is illegal. They are in the business of providing a place to sleep, in exchange for a set amount of money. They cannot refuse you as a customer. They cannot kick you out into the night. If they do, they are in violation of the law and you can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 2: Imagine your spouse leaves you. You didn’t want to get a divorce but were served with papers. You finally move on and get remarried. You go to an accountant who is a devout Catholic and believes your remarriage is a form of adultery. This accountant refuses to file your taxes as “Married” because it violates their definition of the sanctity of marriage. This is a violation of the public accommodation rules. The accountant is free to believe whatever he or she wants for his or her own personal life. They cannot require you to do the same. They are in the business of providing tax services, and you are able and willing to pay. If they turn you away, you can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 3: Imagine a Church owns a building that it rents out to the public. The Church business – in this case, a real estate operation – is subject to the public accommodation laws. The Church could not turn away a group of pagans that wanted to have a goat sacrifice in their hall if they rent the facility out to the general public instead of restricting it solely to members. Again, this is nothing new. If they turn the pagans away, they can be sued into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 4: Imagine you are a Southern Baptist. You believe the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. You go to a restaurant where the owners disagree with you and they recognize your face from a local news story. The owners refuse to serve you food and demand you leave. This is a violation of the public accommodation laws. You can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 5: Imagine you own a bed and breakfast. You don’t want non-married couples sleeping in the same room. You do not have the right to enforce that policy. You are in the business of renting facilities. An attempt to stop a couple from sleeping together is a violation of the public accommodation laws. They could sue you into oblivion. The state could also sue you, putting you out of business.

Only someone completely ignorant of how the law works would think otherwise. It doesn’t matter that you own the property – if you want a business license, there are certain rules and regulations with which you must comply. No exceptions. Again, this is nothing new.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again, for the reading impaired,....it was a comparison in legality.

Given that traffic violations are a crime.....and same sex marriage isn't, its only a demonstration that you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a reason why your ilk just keep losing: your position is just awful. Its poorly thought through. It uses lousy analogies. Its burdened with fallacious reasoning.

Not really. A law is a law. Mixed marriages used to be against the law. Serving or transportation of alcohol used to be prohibited. Times change. Get rid of a traffic light and the law becomes moot. Instead use traffic circles like in London. No more need for the law. Simple.

If the law is wrong- change the law.

Just like homosexual couples are doing with marriage laws right now.

Bingo!

You must have been top of your class.

I think that was my God damned point about 4 hours ago. Lol!!!

Have you ever had a point?

Yes. Some of us felt same-sex marriage was wrong because it wasn't recognized. Some people feel it's unnatural. I just think it's hilarious. More power to them.

Imagine when they lose their looks and they become like Rosie O'Donnell. My sister lost her partner to an illness and she's old and grey and finds it difficult to find anyone now. With only 4% of the population being gay, it's tough.

 

[mudwhistle]

Interesting article I stumbled across:
Mail Bag Competing Personal Freedoms and Public Accommodation Laws

As it stands now, and has for a very long time, you do not have the right to refuse service to anyone. Your business does not have the right to refuse service to anyone. This has been true for more than 70 years in the United States. I’m not sure what alternate universe people are living in where they put up a sign that somehow makes them believe they are exempt from this well-established rule.

These so-called public accommodation laws are meant to protect individual freedom and liberty. They are the only way a large market based system can operate efficiently in a non-homogenous, pluralistic society such as the United States, which is a global melting pot.


The public accommodation rules state that when you engage in a business, the business activity is only permitted if you enter the market place willing to sell your product or service to anyone that meets the equally applied standards (e.g., a restaurant requiring a suit and tie) and that is able and willing to pay. That’s it. It’s about an equal economic exchange. If they pay, they are treated just like any other customer.


To understand how these public accommodation laws protect you:


Scenario 1: Imagine you are a devout Christian traveling in Washington state. Your car breaks down and you come upon an inn in the middle of the night. You go to get a room but the owners are very conservative Muslims and do not want you staying under their roof if you refuse to say prayers with them. Under public accommodation laws, this is illegal. They are in the business of providing a place to sleep, in exchange for a set amount of money. They cannot refuse you as a customer. They cannot kick you out into the night. If they do, they are in violation of the law and you can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 2: Imagine your spouse leaves you. You didn’t want to get a divorce but were served with papers. You finally move on and get remarried. You go to an accountant who is a devout Catholic and believes your remarriage is a form of adultery. This accountant refuses to file your taxes as “Married” because it violates their definition of the sanctity of marriage. This is a violation of the public accommodation rules. The accountant is free to believe whatever he or she wants for his or her own personal life. They cannot require you to do the same. They are in the business of providing tax services, and you are able and willing to pay. If they turn you away, you can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 3: Imagine a Church owns a building that it rents out to the public. The Church business – in this case, a real estate operation – is subject to the public accommodation laws. The Church could not turn away a group of pagans that wanted to have a goat sacrifice in their hall if they rent the facility out to the general public instead of restricting it solely to members. Again, this is nothing new. If they turn the pagans away, they can be sued into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 4: Imagine you are a Southern Baptist. You believe the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. You go to a restaurant where the owners disagree with you and they recognize your face from a local news story. The owners refuse to serve you food and demand you leave. This is a violation of the public accommodation laws. You can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 5: Imagine you own a bed and breakfast. You don’t want non-married couples sleeping in the same room. You do not have the right to enforce that policy. You are in the business of renting facilities. An attempt to stop a couple from sleeping together is a violation of the public accommodation laws. They could sue you into oblivion. The state could also sue you, putting you out of business.

Only someone completely ignorant of how the law works would think otherwise. It doesn’t matter that you own the property – if you want a business license, there are certain rules and regulations with which you must comply. No exceptions. Again, this is nothing new.

So basically you guys created an issue that before wasn't even a consideration.

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting article I stumbled across:
Mail Bag Competing Personal Freedoms and Public Accommodation Laws

As it stands now, and has for a very long time, you do not have the right to refuse service to anyone. Your business does not have the right to refuse service to anyone. This has been true for more than 70 years in the United States. I’m not sure what alternate universe people are living in where they put up a sign that somehow makes them believe they are exempt from this well-established rule.

These so-called public accommodation laws are meant to protect individual freedom and liberty. They are the only way a large market based system can operate efficiently in a non-homogenous, pluralistic society such as the United States, which is a global melting pot.


The public accommodation rules state that when you engage in a business, the business activity is only permitted if you enter the market place willing to sell your product or service to anyone that meets the equally applied standards (e.g., a restaurant requiring a suit and tie) and that is able and willing to pay. That’s it. It’s about an equal economic exchange. If they pay, they are treated just like any other customer.


To understand how these public accommodation laws protect you:


Scenario 1: Imagine you are a devout Christian traveling in Washington state. Your car breaks down and you come upon an inn in the middle of the night. You go to get a room but the owners are very conservative Muslims and do not want you staying under their roof if you refuse to say prayers with them. Under public accommodation laws, this is illegal. They are in the business of providing a place to sleep, in exchange for a set amount of money. They cannot refuse you as a customer. They cannot kick you out into the night. If they do, they are in violation of the law and you can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 2: Imagine your spouse leaves you. You didn’t want to get a divorce but were served with papers. You finally move on and get remarried. You go to an accountant who is a devout Catholic and believes your remarriage is a form of adultery. This accountant refuses to file your taxes as “Married” because it violates their definition of the sanctity of marriage. This is a violation of the public accommodation rules. The accountant is free to believe whatever he or she wants for his or her own personal life. They cannot require you to do the same. They are in the business of providing tax services, and you are able and willing to pay. If they turn you away, you can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 3: Imagine a Church owns a building that it rents out to the public. The Church business – in this case, a real estate operation – is subject to the public accommodation laws. The Church could not turn away a group of pagans that wanted to have a goat sacrifice in their hall if they rent the facility out to the general public instead of restricting it solely to members. Again, this is nothing new. If they turn the pagans away, they can be sued into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 4: Imagine you are a Southern Baptist. You believe the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. You go to a restaurant where the owners disagree with you and they recognize your face from a local news story. The owners refuse to serve you food and demand you leave. This is a violation of the public accommodation laws. You can sue them into oblivion. The state can also sue them, putting them out of business.


Scenario 5: Imagine you own a bed and breakfast. You don’t want non-married couples sleeping in the same room. You do not have the right to enforce that policy. You are in the business of renting facilities. An attempt to stop a couple from sleeping together is a violation of the public accommodation laws. They could sue you into oblivion. The state could also sue you, putting you out of business.

Only someone completely ignorant of how the law works would think otherwise. It doesn’t matter that you own the property – if you want a business license, there are certain rules and regulations with which you must comply. No exceptions. Again, this is nothing new.

So basically you guys created an issue that before wasn't even a consideration.

'you guys' - you mean people who know that public accommodation laws have existed for decades?

And apply equally to everyone- including homosexuals when discrimination against sexual preference is in the law?

And support the rights of people to exercise their rights under the law?

Actually, that would date back to when I was a child- the Civil Rights Act.