A right to discriminate.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Try it, C A, and you will lose thousands in money.

You have to show good cause, and you won't be able to do so.

 

[Concerned American]

You have to show good cause, and you won't be able to do so.

Sure, like the baker, the florist and now a website designer who the SCOTUS sided with. Race and sex are not the only reasons for refusing service as I listed above. Sorry that you don't like it but there isn't much that don't hurt you snowflakes' feelings. BTW, I ran upon a tire shop in CA that was run by a person of Mexican descent. When I asked for service--he sent me to quote, "the gringo shop down the street." OK by me, I spent my money down there. Was I entitled to bring a civil rights suit against him? After all, he used a racial pejorative to refuse me service based on my race. See how that works.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sure, like the baker, the florist and now a website designer who the SCOTUS sided with. Race and sex are not the only reasons for refusing service as I listed above. Sorry that you don't like it but there isn't much that don't hurt you snowflakes' feelings. BTW, I ran upon a tire shop in CA that was run by a person of Mexican descent. When I asked for service--he sent me to quote, "the gringo shop down the street." OK by me, I spent my money down there. Was I entitled to bring a civil rights suit against him? After all, he used a racial pejorative to refuse me service based on my race. See how that works.

Try it and see what happens.

 

[IM2]

Someone should tell Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan that you cannot defeat racism with racism. As for reparations--as soon as these potential recipients can point to the plantation that they were abused on and the owner of same. That is where reparations should come from. Not from the descendants of poor immigrants that arrived in the US after the Civil War.

Someone needs to tell you that your comment was idiotic. Whites were not discriminated against by AA. And in this case a white racist used Asians withhout one Asian testifying that they were discriminated against. This was a decision made by 5 racists and one Uncle Tom.

 

[Dekster]

The website business apparently doesn't discriminate against gays as customers. It just didn't want to be forced to do same sex wedding sites if it decided to do opposite sex wedding sites. Likewise, the AA case didn't say that they couldn't consider race, only that they couldn't give blanket advantage to everyone who checked the "black/African American" box. There is nuance to these two rulings that have been lost in the hyperbole from both sides.

 

[Blaster]

Democrats favor blacks because that is the only way they can hold on to power. Without the black vote Democrats are the minority party.

 

[Coyote]

A person should not have to leave an area because no one will do business with him for reasons that do not have to do with his personal behavior.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But if I own a restaurant, store, or whatever and I don't want someone in there then I should be able to not let them in. It's my company, my business and it's my decision to turn down someone's money and risk upsetting people and losing a lot more money.

Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision that the Govt should be able to force you to give time off as a religious accommodation to an employee?

 

[Pete7469]

Democrats favor blacks because that is the only way they can hold on to power. Without the black vote Democrats are the minority party.

Don't forget the civil war vets

 

[Pete7469]

A person should not have to leave an area because no one will do business with him for reasons that do not have to do with his personal behavior.

That's just it. There isn't a single mother f****r out there willing to destroy their own business, reputation or risk their own safety by discriminating against people based on superficial things like race.

If you otherwise disgust people with a slovenly look, dress like a street thug with prison tats, or otherwise repulse people, then you probably ought to go hang with people more your style.

 

[Pete7469]

It was only against the law to discriminate against Leftists.

For example, you were not allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay marriage, but you would be refused to make a cake with a confederate flag on it.

And we saw people refusing to serve conservatives at restaurants, but they could not refuse to serve blacks, who vote Leftist 99.9% of the time.

That is what the Left is most pissed about.

Lord knows I wouldn't have a pinko-commie trading with me if I ever opened a gun store.

 

[Concerned American]

A person should not have to leave an area because no one will do business with him for reasons that do not have to do with his personal behavior.

What happened to your stance (on Twitter) that they are a private company and they can have rules that fit their agenda to censor posters? This is no different. Kind of like going to a restaurant. If establishment X sells Chinese, you don't expect to get Italian. If a web designer has moral objections to your content, you go to an establishment that doesn't have those objections. Easy. Especially since you don't have to leave the comfort of your living room to contract with a web designer.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you offer a public service or product, you should have to serve every lawful customer

 

[Coyote]

What happened to your stance (on Twitter) that they are a private company and they can have rules that fit their agenda to censor posters? This is no different. Kind of like going to a restaurant. If establishment X sells Chinese, you don't expect to get Italian. If a web designer has moral objections to your content, you go to an establishment that doesn't have those objections. Easy. Especially since you don't have to leave the comfort of your living room to contract with a web designer.

Twitter cannot discriminate by refusing to provide an account for someone because of race, gender, religion etc. That is different than setting rules for the content unless the rules are different or applied unequally based on the above.

 

[dblack]

After lamenting the end of race-based admissions, liberal justices fret new ruling will legalize LGBT discrimination

The Supreme Court’s liberal justices have claimed that the court’s conservative decisions on race-based admissions in higher education and free expression will legalize discrimination in America. In […]

www.bizpacreview.com

I found this ruling to be relief from some of the regressive tyranny we have faced in the modern era, but it doesn't go far enough.

In my view, it doesn't even go in the right direction. Roberts is actually re-affirming the premise of all the protected-classes, public-accommodations nonsense. The Court hasn't declared AA, and the laws that require it, to be unconstitutional. Weirdly, instead, the decision claimed that Harvard violated the 14th amendment. This may, or may not, have the effect of eliminating AA programs. But it doesn't strike down the laws that drive all this insanity. It bolsters them.

As an individual you should have an absolute right to avoid any contact with any sort of person you choose to keep away from you. You damn sure should not be forced to trade goods/services, provide employment, allow someone on your property or even communicate with them if you don't want to.

I don't care why either. It could be just because you're a racist jackass and don't want to do business with most people in the country who would be just as eager to not give you money or even be associated with you because of the embarrassment. The government has absolutely no authority to demand how you run a business. As long as you are not otherwise doing anyone else harm, then government can **** off. Discriminating against potential clients harms the business owner more than the person who has to seek their service elsewhere, and if NO ONE will provide it, maybe you need to live in a region where you're more accepted.

Exactly. And, of course, anyone who stands up for this principle is labeled a racist (and sadly, many of them are), but that does take away from the importance of the argument. The government has an obligation to treat everyone equally. The rest of us are under no such obligation.

The depressing irony is that a government tasked with making sure we all treat each other equally, must abandon it's mission to treat everyone equally under the law. We can't have both. Either the government is going around treating everyone unequally, in the name of achieving "equity", or it treats us all equally and doesn't worry about the whether the outcomes are "equitable' or not.

 

[dblack]

No, you should not. If you own a bar, you serve beer to everyone behaving themselves. That's the American way.

"Should" (and "should not") is not the same as "should have the right to". It sure seems like we used to remember that as a nation. But now we've forgotten. Today, people seem to think that "legal" means "wholesome, healthy and endorsed by government", and, further, that anything not wholesome and healthy should be illegal.

 

[TNHarley]

After lamenting the end of race-based admissions, liberal justices fret new ruling will legalize LGBT discrimination

The Supreme Court’s liberal justices have claimed that the court’s conservative decisions on race-based admissions in higher education and free expression will legalize discrimination in America. In […]

www.bizpacreview.com

I found this ruling to be relief from some of the regressive tyranny we have faced in the modern era, but it doesn't go far enough. As an individual you should have an absolute right to avoid any contact with any sort of person you choose to keep away from you. You damn sure should not be forced to trade goods/services, provide employment, allow someone on your property or even communicate with them if you don't want to.

I don't care why either. It could be just because you're a racist jackass and don't want to do business with most people in the country who would be just as eager to not give you money or even be associated with you because of the embarrassment. The government has absolutely no authority to demand how you run a business. As long as you are not otherwise doing anyone else harm, then government can **** off. Discriminating against potential clients harms the business owner more than the person who has to seek their service elsewhere, and if NO ONE will provide it, maybe you need to live in a region where you're more accepted.

Whats funny is, those moonbats are justifying the govt discriminating.
Should the people be free to discriminate, or the govt? One of them is going to happen. Thats just reality.

 

[AMart]

Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 get tossed?

Democrats would love that.

 

[dblack]

Democrats would love that.

I doubt that. I'd be happy to see it go, however.

 

[Ralph Norton]

If you offer a public service or product, you should have to serve every lawful customer

If you are offering products or services (that are identical for everyone i.e. snow removal) then yes.
If, as in this case, you are looking to hire someone to design something for you who doesn't want to do it, why would you insist that they do rather than go to someone else?
Do you think you would get their best effort?