Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
About ten minutes ago, I actually was going to make a mention aboutI disagree.But the point is, you cannot refuse to serve whatever you cook to someone based on your dislike of their skin color. Nor should a photographer deny his product to someone for the same reasons.
You cannot deny food or service to the general public in public accommodation venues. The food is general and does not discriminate. It's food. Or a bed to the weary traveler.
Art and artists are different. I do not think you can compel someone to create a painting or force someone to take a picture or write about something they find morally offensive./
You'd also have a tough time forcing them not to spit in the food they're preparing against their will.
Gazoontite.That's a stretch babe.
Yes, it can be, but you cannot be compelled to cook a certain type of dish. I guess we could take this to a discussion of is there gay food? lol.
Tofu
Here's a shocking concept. How about we all get past trying to force our will on others?
How do you feel about abortion, drug laws, prostitution, gambling?
Again no one is even suggesting forcing artists to create art concerning a subject offensive to them. But refusing to perform a paid service on the basis of something for which the client is protected against by law is unlawful and unethical.I disagree.But the point is, you cannot refuse to serve whatever you cook to someone based on your dislike of their skin color. Nor should a photographer deny his product to someone for the same reasons.That's a stretch babe.
Yes, it can be, but you cannot be compelled to cook a certain type of dish. I guess we could take this to a discussion of is there gay food? lol.
You cannot deny food or service to the general public in public accommodation venues. The food is general and does not discriminate. It's food. Or a bed to the weary traveler.
Art and artists are different. I do not think you can compel someone to create a painting or force someone to take a picture or write about something they find morally offensive./
Nor are they the property of their parents. They are human beings, not pets.Our Children are not the Property of the State.
The concept of sin is rather moronic.Anyone can make up any lawful reason for refusing a commission. Only a moron would give a reason that is illegal.
Or someone who believes it is a sin to lie.
No, I didn't mean your comments.
I believe you are correct there were post that said that, but if you are referring to mine, that was not what I said. I said in a perfect world it would happen that way, unfortunately, I do not believe we live in a perfect world. Although, I prefer that this be left up to the customers of racists business, I don't believe those customers would properly discipline the ignorant morons.
Immie
I don't actually agree with what you are saying though...even though it is true enough. I'm not a big fan of making laws just to keep people from being offended. In this case, however, I believe that an individual's right to enter any public place is above a business owner's so-called right to prevent them from doing so. So offense shouldn't enter the equation.
But there are those that think laws should protect people (business owners) from being offended by someone's presence.
I agree with this, except I don't think you need additional legislation to prevent the discrimination we've been discussing. The constitution already forbids it.No, I didn't mean your comments.I believe you are correct there were post that said that, but if you are referring to mine, that was not what I said. I said in a perfect world it would happen that way, unfortunately, I do not believe we live in a perfect world. Although, I prefer that this be left up to the customers of racists business, I don't believe those customers would properly discipline the ignorant morons.
Immie
I don't actually agree with what you are saying though...even though it is true enough. I'm not a big fan of making laws just to keep people from being offended. In this case, however, I believe that an individual's right to enter any public place is above a business owner's so-called right to prevent them from doing so. So offense shouldn't enter the equation.
But there are those that think laws should protect people (business owners) from being offended by someone's presence.
I would agree with you in cases of race, gender, creed, sexual preference etc. but I do not agree with you when it comes to other things. For instance, I do not believe that the government should tell a private place of business that they cannot allow OR forbid smoking (which is still legal last I checked) on its premises. Private business should be allowed to tell people with no shoes on that they cannot come in to get service.
When it comes to race, gender, creed etc, I have no problem legislating against such discrimination, but when you are talking about either allowing or forbidding anything else that is legal, I think the government should mind its own business.
Immie
Again no one is even suggesting forcing artists to create art concerning a subject offensive to them. But refusing to perform a paid service on the basis of something for which the client is protected against by law is unlawful and unethical.I disagree.But the point is, you cannot refuse to serve whatever you cook to someone based on your dislike of their skin color. Nor should a photographer deny his product to someone for the same reasons.
You cannot deny food or service to the general public in public accommodation venues. The food is general and does not discriminate. It's food. Or a bed to the weary traveler.
Art and artists are different. I do not think you can compel someone to create a painting or force someone to take a picture or write about something they find morally offensive./
I'm an artist myself. Once you accept cash or anything in exchange for your art, you are in business. You have to pay taxes on it too and if you employ assistants, you must comply with employment regulations as well. Being a artist doesn't put you above the law and common decency, though many of my egotistical comrades often think it does.
Of course they do. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp? But if thew wedding cake bakery is found guilty of refusing to provide services to a client based on illegal discrimination then they risk the consequences. Just as any employer may fire an employee for whatever reason they want. No law forces an employer to hire or keep an employee they do not want. But if the reasons for firing or not hiring that employee are found to be based on illegal discrimination or for retaliation for making a complaint against that employer to the EOC, then that employer will also have to face the consequences. I don't know if this sort of thing carries a prison sentence but no doubt hefty fines and possible loss of operation license are involved.Again no one is even suggesting forcing artists to create art concerning a subject offensive to them. But refusing to perform a paid service on the basis of something for which the client is protected against by law is unlawful and unethical.I disagree.
You cannot deny food or service to the general public in public accommodation venues. The food is general and does not discriminate. It's food. Or a bed to the weary traveler.
Art and artists are different. I do not think you can compel someone to create a painting or force someone to take a picture or write about something they find morally offensive./
I'm an artist myself. Once you accept cash or anything in exchange for your art, you are in business. You have to pay taxes on it too and if you employ assistants, you must comply with employment regulations as well. Being a artist doesn't put you above the law and common decency, though many of my egotistical comrades often think it does.
Just for arguments sake. A bakery will be classed as a "restaurant" . Take bakery specializing in wedding cakes . I would consider wedding cakes "art"
Does this wedding cake bakery have the right to refuse to produce its art on what ever grounds it chooses?
Smoking is only legal in certain places. It's ironic that you support laws that require people were shooes in certain public places. Laws which were enacted to protect public health, just as anti-smoking laws do.. For instance, I do not believe that the government should tell a private place of business that they cannot allow OR forbid smoking (which is still legal last I checked) on its premises. Private business should be allowed to tell people with no shoes on that they cannot come in to get service.
Nor are they the property of their parents. They are human beings, not pets.Our Children are not the Property of the State.
Again no one is even suggesting forcing artists to create art concerning a subject offensive to them. But refusing to perform a paid service on the basis of something for which the client is protected against by law is unlawful and unethical.I disagree.
You cannot deny food or service to the general public in public accommodation venues. The food is general and does not discriminate. It's food. Or a bed to the weary traveler.
Art and artists are different. I do not think you can compel someone to create a painting or force someone to take a picture or write about something they find morally offensive./
I'm an artist myself. Once you accept cash or anything in exchange for your art, you are in business. You have to pay taxes on it too and if you employ assistants, you must comply with employment regulations as well. Being a artist doesn't put you above the law and common decency, though many of my egotistical comrades often think it does.
Just for arguments sake. A bakery will be classed as a "restaurant" . Take bakery specializing in wedding cakes . I would consider wedding cakes "art"
Does this wedding cake bakery have the right to refuse to produce its art on what ever grounds it chooses?
Ugly!!!
No need to make threats. I don't know your daughter. But if she were to come to me for in ending a pregnancy you were forcing her to carry to term, I do whatever I could for the poor thing.Nor are they the property of their parents. They are human beings, not pets.Our Children are not the Property of the State.
The relationship between parents and children is privileged. Do you have a problem with that? Parents are liable for the actions of their children, their dependents. Are you saying that a school that cannot legally prescribe aspirin to a sick child has privilege in determining and coordinating an abortion procedure for a minor without parental knowledge or consent? Were the child to die in the procedure, or become unable to have future children of their own, as a result of complications in the procedure, who do you hold responsible? If You were the direct cause of something like that, effecting my daughter, there is no place on earth you would feel safe. The audacity of the Elite determining for the rest of us, in cases like this is criminally insane.
