Bull Ring OldLady: Can laws distinguish discrimination against PEOPLE unequally vs. Select SERVICES refused

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by emilynghiem, Jun 6, 2019.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story

    Court upholds ruling against Florist refusing service at same sex wedding

    OldLady offered to address and defend points related to the above issue (which I posted as a thread under Law and Justice on further disputes over same sex wedding services vs. discrimination against people)

    A. My point is there is a difference between "discriminating against PEOPLE unequally"
    (which I agree is in violation of accommodation laws)

    B. vs. choosing or refusing certain services at the discretion of the business or service provider
    (which I do NOT agree is the same as discriminating against the person)

    I believe MAKING this distinction would better solve problems in all such cases of disputes.

    I also believe in seeking alternative solutions to prevent legal actions and expenses, including:

    1. Enlisting the services of a subcontractor or other staff who don't have the same conflicts with the beliefs of the customer (similar to hiring a bilingual translator or interpreter to help in cases of language barriers)
    2. Signing "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration in user agreements (where customers and businesses agree to resolve disputes amicably by mediation and consensus, or in cases of conflicts that cannot be resolved agree to refrain from conducting business together to avoid legal actions and expenses)
    3. Providing goods and materials to the customers on site and letting them take responsibility from there.
    4. For renting facilities, agreements for the customers to take responsibility for hiring staff for providing services on site, including covering insurance for damages to the property, and licensing agreements on terms or releases for use of the site for images or publicity (similar to agreement to use property for movie shoots)

    Since these specifications would be helpful to ALL businesses to prevent or resolve ANY dispute from escalating, I would recommend this anyway.

    I address this thread to OldLady or to others who want to help explain to me
    why cases of disputes over beliefs about marriage should be treated as
    "discrimination against people" IF it's the SERVICES and ACTIVITIES that the
    business doesn't agree to support, endorse, engage or participate in.


    I equate this with photographers who don't want to film an adult party with drinking.
    Or set designers and movie producers who don't like a storyline and don't want to
    be involved in or associated with production of it.


    Why isn't the discretion and free choice of the business owner
    TREATED EQUALLY as the beliefs, values and choice of the customer?

    Isn't it just as bad or worse to force a business to provide or create a message against
    their beliefs and free choice, as it is to "force" a customer to take business elsewhere?

    Why is the belief of the customer more important than the beliefs of the business owner?
    Isn't the customer also discriminating by trying to force the business owner to comply with their beliefs?

    If it's wrong for the business to do this to the customer,
    why isn't it equally wrong for the customer to impose that instead of going with a different business,
    and shouldn't they both decide equally they are incompatible and agree not to work together?

    That's what they do with movies and music - if the people disagree on creative direction,
    they part company and work with other people who agree with their interests and ideas!

    Why not take this approach to resolve issues with wedding services?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Damaged Eagle
    Offline

    Damaged Eagle You got lucky Babe Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    11,703
    Thanks Received:
    16,109
    Trophy Points:
    2,445
    Location:
    Good love is hard to find
    Ratings:
    +23,297
    upload_2019-6-6_17-22-2.jpeg

    *****SMILE*****



    :)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Third Party
    Offline

    Third Party Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2019
    Messages:
    7,445
    Thanks Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,715
    I can hear Yogi Berra in the background saying "good hitting always beats good pitching and vice versa".
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. Marion Morrison
    Offline

    Marion Morrison BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    50,759
    Thanks Received:
    8,477
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +51,328
    OldLady would be here but, I'm not sure she was up for a surprise debate challenge.
     
  5. anynameyouwish
    Online

    anynameyouwish Silver Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    2,819
    Thanks Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,851
    I am a lib-prog who detests conservatives and considers them to be dangerous loons. I respect a christians right to NOT do business according to their beliefs. My response would be to never do business with THAT business. I avoid any and all businesses that oppose my own beliefs. Additionally I spread the word amongst my friends and family in hopes that they, too, will avoid that business.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Marion Morrison
    Offline

    Marion Morrison BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    50,759
    Thanks Received:
    8,477
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +51,328
    You are valueless, next!
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,838
    Thanks Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,426
    Ha ha Damaged Eagle,
    Here:

    [​IMG]
    I want YOU to build me this STAIRCASE.
    If you refuse, I will SUE you three ways to Sunday.
    Don't come back on here until you produce what I demand.
    I have consumer's rights! You must accommodate me or else!
     
  8. Dogmaphobe
    Online

    Dogmaphobe Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Messages:
    12,688
    Thanks Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    1,095
    Location:
    Or uh gun
    Ratings:
    +16,891
    She has her hands pretty full, Marion.

    Between telling people what they can and cannot say, issuing ultimatums to those who disagree with her and announcing to everybody she has reported a certain poster so they all know she holds power here through proxy, she has a lot on her plate!
     
  9. Damaged Eagle
    Offline

    Damaged Eagle You got lucky Babe Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    11,703
    Thanks Received:
    16,109
    Trophy Points:
    2,445
    Location:
    Good love is hard to find
    Ratings:
    +23,297
    [​IMG]

    I understand the point of your OP. The response I gave was to indicate the Gordian Knot that has been attached to issues surrounding a persons social values and ethics and utilizing the government to enforce one persons view over anothers. It is one thing for the government to say that all people are equal due to skin color. It quite another thing for the government to say one persons cultural values and ethics supercede another persons cultural values and ethics. When this happens it becomes a Gordian Knot or Stair Maze where the government becomes lost in making arbitration satisfactory to appease both sides of the issue.

    *****SMILE*****



    :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. task0778
    Online

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,559
    Thanks Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +4,834
    It's a tough call to distinguish between 2 competing human rights, somebody's right to freedom of religion vs someone else's right to equal treatment. It's an easy call when one or the other is treated unfairly by the state courts, like in the case of the Colorado baker. Not so easy if both sides are treated in an unbiased manner. My own take is this: if you can find another baker or florist or photographer or whatever in your vicinity, then you ought not to make a federal case out of it, IF the business offers you the same basic services as everyone else but is denying you special services. I'm not a fan of using the law as a weapon to make a political point, if there are alternatives.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019

Share This Page