Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[Skull Pilot]

Yes...after giving it some more thought, I think it is better to wait until all the bigots aren't bigots any longer. Then gay people can have equal rights. It shouldn't take very long. We can change hearts and minds by allowing bigots to be bigots. Let's leave them alone! The more we ignore their bigotry, the faster they will come around to supporting gay rights.

If a guy is a bigot why on earth would you want to patronize his store?

Find another person who wants your business and values you as a customer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't get the big deal.

If a business doesn't want my money I'll find another that does.

I won't lose a minute's sleep over it either.

when every business refuses your money then what???

That will never happen.

 

[Iceweasel]

HOW do you determine what a person's sexual orientation is? By appearance?

Would you serve this guy?

Hell no. He's been dead for how long? But you inadvertently stumbled on a salient point. Sexual preferences are not a race or a gender and isn't observable unless one makes it an issue.

 

[P@triot]

First of all a business does not have the right to deny service to ANYONE they want. Civil rights acts took care of that bit of business. So the question then becomes do the beliefs of a person override the civil rights of another. Well as has been ruled in several places a Muslim can refuse to service someone if it concerns alcohol, even the transportation in a Taxi. So yes we have decided that religious beliefs can lead to refusing service. Well then the question becomes can a religious belief cause a person to refuse service due to race, color or creed and the answer is a definite NO. It is not a matter of if the person can just go down the road and receive the service they want, it is a matter or equal treatment. So if you are white, black, yellow, a woman or a man, you should expect to enter a place of business and receive equal service to any other person.

NOW does that extend to a person's chosen life style? Even if we accept that being gay is normal and not a choice certainly the choice of getting married is a choice. It is my opinion that a person can refuse service that goes against their religious beliefs and not just that the person is white, black, yellow, male or female. It is also my opinion that being gay is not equal to being white, black, yellow, a woman or a man. For the government to then FORCE a person to go against those beliefs is, in my opinion, exactly what the 1st amendment is all about. Exactly why they say that a Muslim can refuse service to someone carrying alcohol.

The fact is that the first amendment's intent, in my opinion, is to prevent the government from ruling against religious beliefs or interfering in the exercise of. I many not agree with a lot of religious beliefs but in America you have the freedom, spelled out in the Constitution, to believe that crystals heal, that Allah is great and that support of gay marriage is a sin. Like it or not.

"Civil Rights" applies to the public sector - not the private sector. I absolutely have the right to deny service to anyone any time I want in my bakery. Period.

Our government cannot discriminate (nor should they be able to). Our bakeries absolutely can. That is a privately owned business operating on private property.

look idiot if you sell to the public you aren't private ...its that simple ... pull your head out of your fucking dumb ass ... you're making a fool of your self

Says the fuck'n moron who just said "no liberals are tryin to take your guns" (and then I posted video of liberals demanding that all guns be confiscated and banned)

Look junior, selling to the public does not take away your status as a private company on private property. You are truly taking stupid to a whole new level...

 

[P@triot]

I don't get the big deal.

If a business doesn't want my money I'll find another that does.

I won't lose a minute's sleep over it either.

when every business refuses your money then what???

Then you START YOUR OWN business, you lazy incompetent fuck...

You're laziness and incompetence does not entitle you to force me to work for you loser

 

[Katzndogz]

Homosexuality is being transformed from a behavior into a race. That's one for the psychiatrists!

 

[P@triot]

It amazes me how stupid you are... the law says and this is nothing new you can refuse to serve some one if they are causing trouble in your business thats it ... being gay isn't causing trouble in your business ... being black isn't causing you trouble in your business ... being mexican isn't causing trouble in your business ... if you choose to refuse service to any of these reason then you are violating the law and you can be held responsible for your actions... the fact that you don't like gays people, or black people, or mexicans, doesn't give you the right to refuse service to them period ... being liberal has nothing to do with these rights ... being and american has everything to do with these rights ... I live in colorado and this guy should have been nailed to the cross for violating their rights to be served and now its going to cost him a lot of money I hope it cost him so much money that it causes him to close shop ... we don't need people like this in the UNited States of America doing business

So tell me junior, am I forced to allow gay people into my house to have sex? I mean, as long as they aren't "causing trouble", I can't deny them access in your fucked up, illiterate, disturbed mind.

are you really this stupid??? really ??? if this statement above doesn't say stupid all over it I don't know what does ... your home is your home... when it becomes a bed and breakfast thats serves the public then yes they can fuck to their littler hearts desire ... but until you become a public business, you don't have to let any one fuck in your house ... if this isn't the most stupid statement I've heard to date, I don't know what is ... for some reason you have no idea what's the difference between publican and what's private ... your home is private and you can force anyone out of it you want .. if it becomes a business that serves the public they you have no choice. you have to follow the law of doing business to the public ...

P.S. if anyone has a fucked up, illiterate, disturbed mind. that would be you, sonny !!!! when you lear the difference between public and private then you can comprehend what the laws are about ...

They aren't a "public business" you illiterate little buffoon. They are a private business on private property.

How dumb are you to call this private bakery a "public business"? It is not owned by the public. You're either the dumbest bitch alive or desperate to defend an indefensible position.

 

[Howey]

The gay community and the liberals have lost their little Nazi minds. A privately owned business has the right to refuse to conduct business with anybody they want. Period. It's not even open for debate.

Further still, the 1st Amendment affords you the right to practice your religious belief. And the little liberal/gay Nazi community is working so hard to trample on that right as well.

All I can say is that I hope these companies deliver the most dreadful products and services when they are unconstitutionally forced to by the liberal Nazi's. If you're a bakery and you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, I hope you put 70lbs of salt in the cake and make the frosting primarily out of vinegar so that they vomit when they eat it. Then maybe word will spread in their little gay circles that your bakery isn't any good and you can be left the hell alone to conduct your private business as you see fit.

*Note - desperate Nazi liberals will try to spin this as "homophobia" because they need to justify their anti-constitutional Nazi beliefs. However, it is not. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I do care about however is when they unconstitutionally force someone to do their bidding because they think being gay makes them special and entitled.

It's an agenda of reeducation

Oh, fuck off you ball sucking teabagger.

I recently saw this sign at your local meth head convenience store. Where do you go now to buy your crack pipes?

 

[Freewill]

There are special federal laws for businesses that offer food, lodging, gasoline and entertainment and disabilities. I don't agree with them and they violate the Constitution.

As has been shown the laws are pretty clear on who you can not refuse service. Like it or not all businesses use public services. Such as police, roads, fired departments etc. Now it has been decided by the states, like it or not, in amendments to the constitution that discrimination due to race, color and creed is not acceptable. Me liking it or not doesn't really matter. As far as I know these amendments have been challenged in court.

And no, because of this law if a black woman came into buy a cake you would be in violation of the law to refuse service. There is no religious belief I know of that teaches segregation except maybe the democrat platform. (can't help myself)

What would be your reasoning for denying service to a woman, man, black, white or other on those conditions alone?

Like I said before, there are reasons food, lodging, gasoline, etc. are specifically mentioned in accommodation laws. If you were correct there would be no such mention. Cake may not be good food but it is considered food last I checked.

This cake thing is only one subject. What if a Christian or Muslim college refused an openly gay person? What if a Christian, or Muslim, who owned a motel refused service to openly gay couple? What if a Muslim decided that he didn't want to carry a fare that had alcohol?

But we are getting side tracked a little. To serve a person food does not mean you are sanctifying their choice of life style. Nor does selling gas do the same. BUT, making a cake more or less is accepting that to which can be against a person's sincerely held religious belief, like them or not. Isn't that really what the wedding cake is all about? Kind of the center piece of the celebration. To argue from the absurd it would hardly be different then if a neo-Nazi requested a cake with Hitler's image and with words putting down Jews. Would it be acceptable for any baker to refuse such a commission?

I certainly would say yes because the baker's belief would be different then that of the neo-Nazi. Is there anyone on this board who will argue differently? (comparison between Nazis and gays is absurd and only used for discussion)

What is curious is that those who argue in behalf of the gay couple do it with such vitriol language. I don't think they realize that their argument for is no different then the argument against.

 

[Freewill]

So tell me junior, am I forced to allow gay people into my house to have sex? I mean, as long as they aren't "causing trouble", I can't deny them access in your fucked up, illiterate, disturbed mind.

are you really this stupid??? really ??? if this statement above doesn't say stupid all over it I don't know what does ... your home is your home... when it becomes a bed and breakfast thats serves the public then yes they can fuck to their littler hearts desire ... but until you become a public business, you don't have to let any one fuck in your house ... if this isn't the most stupid statement I've heard to date, I don't know what is ... for some reason you have no idea what's the difference between publican and what's private ... your home is private and you can force anyone out of it you want .. if it becomes a business that serves the public they you have no choice. you have to follow the law of doing business to the public ...

P.S. if anyone has a fucked up, illiterate, disturbed mind. that would be you, sonny !!!! when you lear the difference between public and private then you can comprehend what the laws are about ...

They aren't a "public business" you illiterate little buffoon. They are a private business on private property.

How dumb are you to call this private bakery a "public business"? It is not owned by the public. You're either the dumbest bitch alive or desperate to defend an indefensible position.

Is there such a thing as public restaurants or motels? Just asking.

 

[P@triot]

And that's just it chief - the baker never promised to bake a cake for gay people. If he had, I would absolutely support forcing him to as he would have broken a contract. But he didn't. Would you like to try again?

He promised to bake Wedding Cakes. That's an implied contract with the public.

He promised no such thing and has no such "implied" contract with the public. Each potential customer is a private agreement which either party can refuse to enter into. If this baker has an "implied contract with the public", then that means the public (ie every single person) must purchase at least one cake from him (a contract is agreement between two parties - and you just said the other party is the public). Oops...

But I guess when you don't have an argument, lying is all you are left with.

Now, if you don't like the Public Accommedation Laws, you should go to the state legislature and demand 'I should have the right to discriminate against fags and dykes and coons and Hebes because that's what the Founding Fathers would have wanted!"

I don't have to go to the state legislature junior - the U.S. Constitution protects me from them (and libtards such as yourself).

 

[P@triot]

are you really this stupid??? really ??? if this statement above doesn't say stupid all over it I don't know what does ... your home is your home... when it becomes a bed and breakfast thats serves the public then yes they can fuck to their littler hearts desire ... but until you become a public business, you don't have to let any one fuck in your house ... if this isn't the most stupid statement I've heard to date, I don't know what is ... for some reason you have no idea what's the difference between publican and what's private ... your home is private and you can force anyone out of it you want .. if it becomes a business that serves the public they you have no choice. you have to follow the law of doing business to the public ...

P.S. if anyone has a fucked up, illiterate, disturbed mind. that would be you, sonny !!!! when you lear the difference between public and private then you can comprehend what the laws are about ...

They aren't a "public business" you illiterate little buffoon. They are a private business on private property.

How dumb are you to call this private bakery a "public business"? It is not owned by the public. You're either the dumbest bitch alive or desperate to defend an indefensible position.

Is there such a thing as public restaurants or motels? Just asking.

Not that I'm aware of, but there certainly could be. Dumbocrats have demanded that the government run everything. So I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a liberal shit-hole such as Detroit or San Francisco has government run restaurants or motels.

 

[Freewill]

Can a billboard sign company refuse to post a neo-Nazi sign, for any reason?

 

[Freewill]

They aren't a "public business" you illiterate little buffoon. They are a private business on private property.

How dumb are you to call this private bakery a "public business"? It is not owned by the public. You're either the dumbest bitch alive or desperate to defend an indefensible position.

Is there such a thing as public restaurants or motels? Just asking.

Not that I'm aware of, but there certainly could be. Dumbocrats have demanded that the government run everything. So I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a liberal shit-hole such as Detroit or San Francisco has government run restaurants or motels.

My point is that the argument between public and private ownership does not seem to apply in this discussion.

 

[P@triot]

Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?
No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?
Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

First of all, it doesn't say SEXUAL ORIENTATION genius...

Second, that "law" violates the U.S. Constitution (and is thus null and void). The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the highest law in the land and it trumps any and all state and local laws.

now the dick weed thinks he's a constitutional lawyer

In other words, junior here had never heard of the Supremacy Clause before my post. Shocking that this illiterate buffoon has never read the document which affords him his right to be lazy, illiterate, and pop-off at the mouth from a place of ignorance...

 

[Kondor3]

...Well, that was a different America, before we were discussing how the Constitution was written by rich white slave owners and how the country needed to be fundamentally changed. So that's gone, sorry...

And that is why the Homosexual Community and their End-Justifies-the-Means Progressive-ism-at-Any-Cost supporter-base is going to be in for a very nasty surprise, the next time that the Left takes its hands off the wheel of the Ship of State.

The Left has already lost the House for a while, in the 2010 mid-terms; the Right retained the House in 2012, and will retain it again in 2014; thanks to ObamaCare, the Bergdahl Incident, the Benghazi Incident, and the like, as well as a seriously under-performing economy, a weakened military, the VA scandal, and a paradigm shift in US foreign policy towards pussification. Chances are good that the Right will also retain the House in 2016, barring any unforeseen developments.

The Left is hanging onto the Senate by the skin of its teeth, and may very well lose that, too, in the 2014 mid-terms, for the reasons outlined above, and general American dissatisfaction with the Failed Messiah. If they DO lose the Senate, as well, in the 2014 mid-terms, that will effectively button-hole the Supreme Community Organizer and firm-up his Lame Duck status for the remaining two years of his Consul-ship; assuming that he does not use the Legions to alter the political landscape, and assuming that the Legions continue to obey him.

By the time of the 2016 general election, America will have had eight years - a bellyful - of thinly-disguised socialist -caliber social engineering, imposed from above, and will have had a bellyful of Liberal-leaning judicial rulings and over-riding of State legislatures and local statute across the country.

By 2016, if the Republicans can get their heads out of their asses, and field a candidate who is ready for Prime Time, who is relatively un-touched by scandal and a shady past, who has a touch of charisma and crowd-charming himself, who has a cookie-cutter wife and children comprising a family that is also largely un-assailable, who manifests some religious belief without being maudlin about it, who has "done good things" on a lower level, who has some experience in governing on a lower level, who has some good ideas about different and better ways to move forward, and who can sell those ideas to the American People, then, the Republicans will take back the White House, as well.

If Republicans take back the White House in 2016, they will begin the Next Round with both the Executive and Legislative branches in their back pockets, and we may then see some very considerable effort directed at reversing some of the very unfortunate and disgusting legal progress that the Homosexual Community has forced upon the Nation in the past few years.

Or not.

In any event, we don't have much longer to wait, to learn whether such a thing is likely to materialize after January 20, 2017.

 

[P@triot]

Is there such a thing as public restaurants or motels? Just asking.

Not that I'm aware of, but there certainly could be. Dumbocrats have demanded that the government run everything. So I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a liberal shit-hole such as Detroit or San Francisco has government run restaurants or motels.

My point is that the argument between public and private ownership does not seem to apply in this discussion.

How do you figure when it is all that applies? The government cannot discriminate against citizens (nor should they be able to). But private citizens on private property can absolutely be as racist, as hateful, as discriminatory as they want.

I asked a simple question which the a Dumbocrats in this thread weren't able to answer - can you force me to allow homosexuals into my home to have sex on my bed? Yes or No?

 

[Mac1958]

If a guy is a bigot why on earth would you want to patronize his store?

Find another person who wants your business and values you as a customer.

They must punish.

They must issue "consequences".

Period.

.

 

[Peach]

Who knew that there are so many homophobic bakeries out there? I didn't.

What ever happened to the baker that wanted to increase the business and expand the customer base and provide the highest quality product or service to their paying clientele?

Bake a cake with salt and icing with vinegar. How fucking stupid.

A satisfied customer tells three people or so how satisfied they were with a company or service.

A dissatisfied customer tell how many how badly they were treated? 12? 15 people. Anybody that will listen?

That right there is how fucking smart Republicans who run small business's are. Piss off the good paying customers to satisfy some weird moral belief that gay people shouldn't be able to buy a cake from a publicly run business. And the business owner is willing to give up future business and risk a poor reputation...........for what? A moral victory.

Good god republicans are stupid.

No, dude, a dissatisfied customer goes on Yelp, Google Places, your company facebook page, and just about every place else they can find and tells people how much your service sucks.

I'm wondering if Rottie would be so understanding if someone said, "We don't serve Christians here."

I would not, that is certain.

 

[Freewill]

Not that I'm aware of, but there certainly could be. Dumbocrats have demanded that the government run everything. So I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a liberal shit-hole such as Detroit or San Francisco has government run restaurants or motels.

My point is that the argument between public and private ownership does not seem to apply in this discussion.

How do you figure when it is all that applies? The government cannot discriminate against citizens (nor should they be able to). But private citizens on private property can absolutely be as racist, as hateful, as discriminatory as they want.

I asked a simple question which the a Dumbocrats in this thread weren't able to answer - can you force me to allow homosexuals into my home to have sex on my bed? Yes or No?

Sorry, my friend, that is just not true. Your question for the liberals was absurd, in my opinion. But, in its absurdity it is merely setting the limits, in my opinion. In other words no liberal is going to say you MUST let gays into your bedroom. OK so at least some limit his set. So we work backwards from there and determine where the limits apply.

We are talking about accommodations offered to the public. Of course a person can be as racist as they want to be but that does allow them to discriminate. The distinction, in my opinion, is the difference between just refusing service, like selling gasoline which makes no statement either way, to FORCING acceptance by having a baker make a cake that he says is against his religious beliefs, like them or not.