Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[Iceweasel]

To compare that to the plight that blacks faces is absolutely disgusting. They are not on the same level – not by a million miles.

Very true. It's an offensive comparison but from people with no shame that will use any tactic to get their way.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

A person comes in, orders a specialty cake, pays for it, comes back and picks it up. How does the baker know what kind of life that person leads? Perhaps that person worships satan but ordered a puppy cake for his kid. A gay couple comes in and orders a wedding cake, it is apparent they are gay. Your question is a bit ridiculous. And say that customer ordered a puppy cake and a devil worship cake ... doesn't the baker have the right to refuse to fill the devil order?

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about over this. A business has the right to refuse to do a job. Don't they? What does the reason matter?

Should a photographer have to take a job photographing tarantulas?

Should a house painter have to take a job painting an awkward house if they don't want to take it?

Should a baker have to bake a specialty cake that is explicit (say a cake for a bachelor/bachelorette party that is genitalia)?

Doesn't a business have the right to turn down work?

Well, no. According to the liberals (and current law) they do not have a right to refuse service.
The funny thing is that the right to refuse service is only restricted based on a few protected classes. Namely color creed and now sexual orientation.

The real question is whether or not sexual orientation actually belongs on that list. In the past, such restrictions were based on the fact that there was a grate societal ill in allowing people to be a certain kind of bigot. In the case of blacks for instance – the bigotry was extremely wide spread and common. It posed a direct threat to the ability for black men and women to succeed.

The same cannot be said for the ‘plight’ of gays. I have to ask myself then, why do gays need this protection/enforcement?

No shirt, no shoes, no service discriminates against the shirtless and the shoeless.

If I were an independent pet sitter and someone came to me with six great danes and I could not accommodate that job, wouldn't I have the right to refuse the job?

I simply don't get this whole gay "discrimination" thing because I'm not seeing it as discrimination, I'm seeing it as the business has the right to refuse jobs.

 

[dblack]

To compare that to the plight that blacks faces is absolutely disgusting. They are not on the same level – not by a million miles.

Very true. It's an offensive comparison but from people with no shame that will use any tactic to get their way.

It's the same principle. The same freedom is being violated.

 

[dblack]

It is worth mentioning that the bill in question actually does not say anything about gays, same sex couples or anything even remotely connected with gays. The media has been very remiss in the reporting of this particular move.

What the bill states is that you may refuse service based on your religious beliefs. There is no doubt that same sex couples were definitely in the thoughts of those proposing the bill but we should at least be clear about what the things actually states.

I find it rather asinine to compare this to the blacks and segregation as well. I notice that there have been numerous pictures of signs posted in this thread of whites only services/buildings but not a single straights only sign. Not one.

So, would an exact reading of this law protect people who's religious beliefs condemned them for associating with blacks? I've known people - sadly, my own grandfather - who believed this to be the case.

The reality of this type of discrimination is that it is extremely rare and that is why you don’t see any pictures posted – they don’t exist. The media trumps up the few places that actually did do something along these lines because there is a story to be sold there but we really are only talking about a few places in a sea of thousands.

Agreed. It's a political stunt at best. But it's a stunt leveraged on the fact that freedom of association is an important liberty and many people still resent it being violated, even for the 'best' of reasons.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's the same principle. The same freedom is being violated.

How so?

 

[Seawytch]

It's the same principle. The same freedom is being violated.

How so?

Better question, how is it not the same principle of discrimination?

 

[dblack]

It's the same principle. The same freedom is being violated.

How so?

In either case, we're solving a perceived social ill by violating the fundamental freedom of association. It's ultimately bad medicine.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is worth mentioning that the bill in question actually does not say anything about gays, same sex couples or anything even remotely connected with gays. The media has been very remiss in the reporting of this particular move.

What the bill states is that you may refuse service based on your religious beliefs. There is no doubt that same sex couples were definitely in the thoughts of those proposing the bill but we should at least be clear about what the things actually states.

I find it rather asinine to compare this to the blacks and segregation as well. I notice that there have been numerous pictures of signs posted in this thread of whites only services/buildings but not a single straights only sign. Not one.

So, would an exact reading of this law protect people who's religious beliefs condemned them for associating with blacks? I've known people - sadly, my own grandfather - who believed this to be the case.

Yes, it would. I believe that the protection from that discrimination is a federal law though and as such (according to current law) it would be struck under the supremacy clause.

I think that, technically, gays have not been made a ‘special protected class’ as of yet and therefore the law should stand under current interpretation for that case. I don’t think it will though. The courts are likely to strike it down if it even manages to become a law. It does not look like the governor is going to sign it anyway though. I worry more about the point that you brought up earlier – the use of this law to force your beliefs on your employer. I find that no better than the customer doing the same thing.

This is what happens when you try and legislate morality and ethics though – the outcome is pretty much always a lot messier than the altruistic people behind the law seem to understand. Where is the line drawn? If it were up to the liberals here I don’t think there would be one. The business owner cedes his rights it seems as soon as he has the audacity to open a business and become successful. For shame…

 

[Iceweasel]

Better question, how is it not the same principle of discrimination?

No, the better question is how is it the same? It isn't. Homosexuality isn't even a person, let alone a race, gender or religion. If you get the Constitution altered to include homosexuals you'd have a point.

It's the same principle. The same freedom is being violated.

How so?

In either case, we're solving a perceived social ill by violating the fundamental freedom of association. It's ultimately bad medicine.

It is, and it isn't percieved if it's your store being bombarded with lawsuits or fines.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's the same principle. The same freedom is being violated.

How so?

In either case, we're solving a perceived social ill by violating the fundamental freedom of association. It's ultimately bad medicine.

In general yes but I am not sure how we would have addressed the segregation after slavery. There was a very real and present danger of creating an underclass in this nation that would have eventually tore the country apart.

I am not confident that this would have simply ‘solved itself.’

I don’t like the idea of forcing anyone to serve another. It is counter to freedom. However, I also cannot stomach the idea that we can allow a tyranny of the majority over a small minority which is exactly what was going on because of how pervasive the problem was.

I think the stark difference in the gay rights movement makes such protection highly dubious though. Now we are mandating for nothing other than mandating.

 

[johnwk]

Why on earth in a freedom loving nation would anyone promote the force of government being used to impinge upon the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

Why do so many capitulate to our nation's homosexual crowd which constantly seeks to use government force to impose themselves upon others?


JWK



A legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

 

[dblack]

How so?

In either case, we're solving a perceived social ill by violating the fundamental freedom of association. It's ultimately bad medicine.

In general yes but I am not sure how we would have addressed the segregation after slavery. There was a very real and present danger of creating an underclass in this nation that would have eventually tore the country apart.

I am not confident that this would have simply ‘solved itself.’

We'll never know for sure, I suppose. Regardless, the efficacy of the policy doesn't prevent us from recognizing its downside. And it doesn't mean we must remain saddled with it as an inviolable precedent. We 'solved' many problems historically in ways we now consider reprehensible.

 

[bodecea]

To compare that to the plight that blacks faces is absolutely disgusting. They are not on the same level – not by a million miles.

Very true. It's an offensive comparison but from people with no shame that will use any tactic to get their way.

So...civil rights are not civil rights?

 

[dblack]

Why on earth in a freedom loving nation would anyone promote the force of government being used to impinge upon the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

Why do so many capitulate to our nation's homosexual crowd which constantly seeks to use government force to impose themselves upon others?

I'm not so sure they do. I think a few do, and they're happily supported by those looking for any reason at all to expand their power to control society.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's the same principle. The same freedom is being violated.

How so?

In either case, we're solving a perceived social ill by violating the fundamental freedom of association. It's ultimately bad medicine.

This bad medicine has worked just fine, for decades now.

 

[dblack]

How so?

In either case, we're solving a perceived social ill by violating the fundamental freedom of association. It's ultimately bad medicine.

This bad medicine has worked just fine, for decades now.

It would seem it's starting to fray a bit.

 

[KevinWestern]

To compare that to the plight that blacks faces is absolutely disgusting. They are not on the same level – not by a million miles.

Very true. It's an offensive comparison but from people with no shame that will use any tactic to get their way.

I think a bar refusing to serve a gay customer is something very similar to a bar refusing to serve a black customer.

Neither can be justified on the grounds of exercising one's "religious freedom", either.

This is what I'm most concerned about when talking about this new bill.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think a bar refusing to serve a gay customer is something very similar to a bar refusing to serve a black customer.

Neither can be justified on the grounds of exercising one's "religious freedom", either.

This is what I'm most concerned about when talking about this new bill.

It shouldn't need to be justified, period.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think a bar refusing to serve a gay customer is something very similar to a bar refusing to serve a black customer.

Neither can be justified on the grounds of exercising one's "religious freedom", either.

This is what I'm most concerned about when talking about this new bill.

It shouldn't need to be justified, period.

I think a business should have to justify why they chose to not serve a black customer who has money, is being courteous, etc...

Don't you?

 

[Iceweasel]

I think a business should have to justify why they chose to not serve a black customer who has money, is being courteous, etc...

Don't you?

No. Nor a black bar owner refusing a white.