Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[Cecilie1200]

People can be stupid in public, but discrimination should not be sanctioned, codified or encourage by any written laws.

discrimination isn't being sanctioned. Choice is being allowed. There is a huge difference between allowing people to be free and endorsing every behavior they do.

Discrimination IS being sanctioned by this bill. Doing business with ANYONE does not equate to endorsing that persons behavior. This is a bill right out of Putin's Russia.

Which just goes to show us how little you know about the world outside your own little American leftist box.

It's interesting how you say that passing a bill saying, "Make your own decisions" is endorsing those decisions, but catering a wedding isn't endorsing that wedding. And you don't even see how absurd - so absurd that it goes right past being ironic - that dichotomy is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How does a business decide if someone is gay?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Again, that'll be for them to decide, won't it?

If you ever get off welfare and work for a business, perhaps this question will be relevant to you.

 

[KevinWestern]

discrimination isn't being sanctioned. Choice is being allowed. There is a huge difference between allowing people to be free and endorsing every behavior they do.

I've noted that I can go either way on the law itself, because I generally like less rules as opposed to more.

However, to play devil's advocate "choice is being allowed" also applies to a business choosing to serve "Whites Only" - right? Couldn't this slope be a slippery one?

On a side note, with all of the million other things we should be worrying about, I'm sad to see this bill is on the top of the priority list for some lawmakers.

 

[Iceweasel]

However, to play devil's advocate "choice is being allowed" also applies to a business choosing to serve "Whites Only" - right? Couldn't this slope be a slippery one?

On a side note, with all of the million other things we should be worrying about, I'm sad to see this bill is on the top of the priority list for some lawmakers.

Those lawmakers may be doing their constituents will, which is why they were elected. Whatever the case, race, gender and religions are given protection in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If it dissapeared I doubt things would change much because there was a time when it was too difficult for minorities to get a break and access is pretty much a given now.

I don't thinks it's fair for homosexuals to attach themselves to it either because there's no such protected classification for sexuality and getting your cake or invitations somewhere else isn't exactly in the same league.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think the courts will strike this down under the same "Public Accommodation" arguments used during the Civil Rights movement.

 

[KevinWestern]

However, to play devil's advocate "choice is being allowed" also applies to a business choosing to serve "Whites Only" - right? Couldn't this slope be a slippery one?

On a side note, with all of the million other things we should be worrying about, I'm sad to see this bill is on the top of the priority list for some lawmakers.

Those lawmakers may be doing their constituents will, which is why they were elected. Whatever the case, race, gender and religions are given protection in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If it dissapeared I doubt things would change much because there was a time when it was too difficult for minorities to get a break and access is pretty much a given now.

I don't thinks it's fair for homosexuals to attach themselves to it either because there's no such protected classification for sexuality and getting your cake or invitations somewhere else isn't exactly in the same league.

But hopefully you can understand my concern here. I understand if a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding - I get it - but what about the bar owner that won't serve gay customers? What about the ice cream shop that turns down a gay family and won't serve them cones?

You know? To me, that's just not my idea of "heading" in the right direction. It seems like a can of worms..

 

[Moonglow]

If the law passes how will companies know who is gay and who is not?

I suppose it'll be up to them to decide how they choose which business to accept and which to refuse, won't it? And that just goes against the grain for you, doesn't it, the whole idea of letting people decide something for themselves?

I've never told you what to do, so your assumption is stupid at best....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Wondering if someone could explain this to me...

You don't hear many stories of a Christian business owner refusing to serve someone who uses the Lord's name in vein, or someone who works on Sunday (by choice), or someone who commits adultery, or someone who worships idols, or someone who gambles/drinks a lot, or someone who doesn't honor his/her parents, etc, but you DO hear stories of Christian business owners refusing to serve a gay customers.

Why just this ONE sin, lol? Why are all the other sins ignored?

I think that's a fair question....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/u...-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?_r=0

I guess ignoring the fact that the people refused service for gay weddings, not gays in general. Are you saying people don't have the right to prefer traditional marriage or the choice not to participate in nontraditional ceremonies?

To clarify, I support a business's right to refuse service to anyone they want. I'm generally a person who wants less government involvement in our lives.

The OP question was why do Christians single gay people out? Why don't they also refuse to serve people who work on Sunday (by choice) - for instance - or a guy who says "Jesus Christ" in vein all of the time, or a guy who gambles and is divorced, or a guy who's known to worship idols, or a guy who doesn't honor his parents, etc?

Why do they single out the gays as the customer of choice to refuse, as if they are the only humans on the planet who sin?

Do they refuse service to Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Atheists?

ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Doesn't sound like a successful business model to me.

 

[KevinWestern]

I guess ignoring the fact that the people refused service for gay weddings, not gays in general. Are you saying people don't have the right to prefer traditional marriage or the choice not to participate in nontraditional ceremonies?

To clarify, I support a business's right to refuse service to anyone they want. I'm generally a person who wants less government involvement in our lives.

The OP question was why do Christians single gay people out? Why don't they also refuse to serve people who work on Sunday (by choice) - for instance - or a guy who says "Jesus Christ" in vein all of the time, or a guy who gambles and is divorced, or a guy who's known to worship idols, or a guy who doesn't honor his parents, etc?

Why do they single out the gays as the customer of choice to refuse, as if they are the only humans on the planet who sin?

Do they refuse service to Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Atheists?

ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Doesn't sound like a successful business model to me.

Well, I think discriminating on religion is against the 14th Amendment, so not sure if they could do this.

But either way, I agree it's not the best business model in the world UNLESS you're in an area w/likeminded people who will commend your decision to not serve gays. It all seems very unnecessary & strange to me, though.

 

[Iceweasel]

But hopefully you can understand my concern here. I understand if a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding - I get it - but what about the bar owner that won't serve gay customers? What about the ice cream shop that turns down a gay family and won't serve them cones?

You know? To me, that's just not my idea of "heading" in the right direction. It seems like a can of worms..

Or a gay bar refusing a heterosexual couple. I'd like them to have that freedom of choice. I'm pro-choice in that regard. I don't know how a gay would be discriminated against by eyesight alone though. Or any other sexual persuasion.

 

[KNB]

Homosexuals and Lesbians should start their own national religion. They could use the Vatican as a model since there are already so many gay priests in fruity outfits.

Then as a religion, gay people could tell Christians to stop persecuting their religion. Freedom of religion, and all.

 

[nodoginnafight]

To clarify, I support a business's right to refuse service to anyone they want. I'm generally a person who wants less government involvement in our lives.

The OP question was why do Christians single gay people out? Why don't they also refuse to serve people who work on Sunday (by choice) - for instance - or a guy who says "Jesus Christ" in vein all of the time, or a guy who gambles and is divorced, or a guy who's known to worship idols, or a guy who doesn't honor his parents, etc?

Why do they single out the gays as the customer of choice to refuse, as if they are the only humans on the planet who sin?

Do they refuse service to Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Atheists?

ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Doesn't sound like a successful business model to me.

Well, I think discriminating on religion is against the 14th Amendment, so not sure if they could do this.

But either way, I agree it's not the best business model in the world UNLESS you're in an area w/likeminded people who will commend your decision to not serve gays. It all seems very unnecessary & strange to me, though.

So they are not refusing service based on religious principles?

At the core of this "religious intolerance" are a couple of very simple principles.
1) ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God
2) SOME try to assuage their guilty conscience by trying to pretend that some sins are worse that others even though the Bible teaches that all sin is equal in the eyes of God.

That's just pointing out the inconsistency with the teachings of Jesus. I'm a Christian but I believe in the separation of Church and State.

So, just from a legal standpoint, a believe the courts would not allow such a law to stand based on public accommodation precedents.

 

[KevinWestern]

Or a gay bar refusing a heterosexual couple. I'd like them to have that freedom of choice. I'm pro-choice in that regard. I don't know how a gay would be discriminated against by eyesight alone though. Or any other sexual persuasion.

Do gay bars refuse heterosexual couples? Not sure if that's a thing. You be hard pressed to find any sort of gay-operated business that would "refuse service" to straight people due to the fact that 95% of the population is straight.

And disagree with your sight comment; I think you CAN identify SOME gay people simply by they way they dress. Also what about word of mouth in small towns? Also what about a family with two moms and kids? That's pretty visible.


.

 

[OKTexas]

However, to play devil's advocate "choice is being allowed" also applies to a business choosing to serve "Whites Only" - right? Couldn't this slope be a slippery one?

On a side note, with all of the million other things we should be worrying about, I'm sad to see this bill is on the top of the priority list for some lawmakers.

Those lawmakers may be doing their constituents will, which is why they were elected. Whatever the case, race, gender and religions are given protection in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If it dissapeared I doubt things would change much because there was a time when it was too difficult for minorities to get a break and access is pretty much a given now.

I don't thinks it's fair for homosexuals to attach themselves to it either because there's no such protected classification for sexuality and getting your cake or invitations somewhere else isn't exactly in the same league.

But hopefully you can understand my concern here. I understand if a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding - I get it - but what about the bar owner that won't serve gay customers? What about the ice cream shop that turns down a gay family and won't serve them cones?

You know? To me, that's just not my idea of "heading" in the right direction. It seems like a can of worms..

Are you saying forcing servitude and association, at the point of a gun, isn't opening a can of worms?

 

[Iceweasel]

Do gay bars refuse heterosexual couples? Not sure if that's a thing. You be hard pressed to find any sort of gay-operated business that would "refuse service" to straight people due to the fact that 95% of the population is straight.

And disagree with your sight comment; I think you CAN identify SOME gay people simply by they way they dress. Also what about word of mouth in small towns? Also what about a family with two moms and kids? That's pretty visible.

I haven't been to any gay bars so I wouldn't know. The point was hypothetical though. Two women with kids means they're gay? Seriously?

You have a point about small towns though but has this been a problem?

 

[KevinWestern]

Those lawmakers may be doing their constituents will, which is why they were elected. Whatever the case, race, gender and religions are given protection in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If it dissapeared I doubt things would change much because there was a time when it was too difficult for minorities to get a break and access is pretty much a given now.

I don't thinks it's fair for homosexuals to attach themselves to it either because there's no such protected classification for sexuality and getting your cake or invitations somewhere else isn't exactly in the same league.

But hopefully you can understand my concern here. I understand if a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding - I get it - but what about the bar owner that won't serve gay customers? What about the ice cream shop that turns down a gay family and won't serve them cones?

You know? To me, that's just not my idea of "heading" in the right direction. It seems like a can of worms..

Are you saying forcing servitude and association, at the point of a gun, isn't opening a can of worms?

Did it open a can of worms when businesses could no longer have a "whites only" section? I don't think so.

I don't think this is a can of worms here...

 

[KevinWestern]

Do gay bars refuse heterosexual couples? Not sure if that's a thing. You be hard pressed to find any sort of gay-operated business that would "refuse service" to straight people due to the fact that 95% of the population is straight.

And disagree with your sight comment; I think you CAN identify SOME gay people simply by they way they dress. Also what about word of mouth in small towns? Also what about a family with two moms and kids? That's pretty visible.

I haven't been to any gay bars so I wouldn't know. The point was hypothetical though. Two women with kids means they're gay? Seriously?

You have a point about small towns though but has this been a problem?

Well, guess my point was that we prob wouldn't have a serious problem of gays turning down straight people, but we may have a serious problem of straight people turning down gays in some towns. Just trying to point out that the hypothetical example is not all that relevant (in my view).

And definitely agree in that two women with kids doesn't always = gay couple however there are definitely indicators that might tip off a clerk (like a hug, or a kiss, etc).

I'm just saying, when this law passes, what happens if you're like this one gay kid in a small town and you're no longer allowed in any of the bars, no longer allowed to buy groceries, etc, etc. I mean, is that like a WIN for the town and society in general?

I don't get why this law is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

 

[GreenBean]

Or a gay bar refusing a heterosexual couple. I'd like them to have that freedom of choice. I'm pro-choice in that regard. I don't know how a gay would be discriminated against by eyesight alone though. Or any other sexual persuasion.

Do gay bars refuse heterosexual couples? Not sure if that's a thing. You be hard pressed to find any sort of gay-operated business that would "refuse service" to straight people due to the fact that 95% of the population is straight.

And disagree with your sight comment; I think you CAN identify SOME gay people simply by they way they dress. Also what about word of mouth in small towns? Also what about a family with two moms and kids? That's pretty visible.


.

Would a hetero couple want to be in a Gay Bar ?

I once walked into one by mistake - in 30 seconds I was late for the door

 

[OKTexas]

But hopefully you can understand my concern here. I understand if a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding - I get it - but what about the bar owner that won't serve gay customers? What about the ice cream shop that turns down a gay family and won't serve them cones?

You know? To me, that's just not my idea of "heading" in the right direction. It seems like a can of worms..

Are you saying forcing servitude and association, at the point of a gun, isn't opening a can of worms?

Did it open a can of worms when businesses could no longer have a "whites only" section? I don't think so.

I don't think this is a can of worms here...

So you're cool with someone being put in jail for refusing to service a gay wedding? Think carefully before you say yes, because you're also saying yes to jailing blacks that refuse to service a KKK event, of a Jew who refuses to service a Nazi event, should I go on?

 

[KevinWestern]

Are you saying forcing servitude and association, at the point of a gun, isn't opening a can of worms?

Did it open a can of worms when businesses could no longer have a "whites only" section? I don't think so.

I don't think this is a can of worms here...

So you're cool with someone being put in jail for refusing to service a gay wedding? Think carefully before you say yes, because you're also saying yes to jailing blacks that refuse to service a KKK event, of a Jew who refuses to service a Nazi event, should I go on?

Jail? No, of course not.

But do you understand my slippery slope concern? How can we protect a person like a cake builder who doesn’t want to directly participate in a gay wedding while at the same time not open the doors to entire towns not serving gay people?

I don't understand how serving a gay guy a beer is "violating religious freedom", but I feel like this law is going to be abused to accommodate such a scenario.