Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[The T]

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?

For what purpose? It's a private establishment, PRIVATE property.

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

For what purpose? It's a private establishment, PRIVATE property.

Hey I side with small government in most cases when it comes to business, but I'm perfectly happy with a law that says a businesses can't arbitrarily deny someone service because of their race.

Just one of those things that comes down to a matter of opinion, and (fortunately for me) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sides more with my view.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

I think in both cases they would be violating Federal law if they were refusing service arbitrarily.

 

[The T]

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?

For what purpose? It's a private establishment, PRIVATE property.

Hey I side with small government in most cases when it comes to business, but I'm perfectly happy with a law that says a businesses can't arbitrarily deny someone service because of their race.

Just one of those things that comes down to a matter of opinion, and (fortunately for me) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sides more with my view.

Is GAY a race? I didn't think so.

 

[KevinWestern]

For what purpose? It's a private establishment, PRIVATE property.

Hey I side with small government in most cases when it comes to business, but I'm perfectly happy with a law that says a businesses can't arbitrarily deny someone service because of their race.

Just one of those things that comes down to a matter of opinion, and (fortunately for me) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sides more with my view.

Is GAY a race? I didn't think so.

Never claimed that. Also never claimed that gays were protected under the Civil Rights Act the same way race is.

However, most courts will not allow a business to refuse service based on extremely arbitrary traits such as a person who's wearing "a blue watch". There's been many cases that have sided with customers who have sued for scenarios similar to that..

I would imagine a restaurant refusing to serve a gay couple - because they're gay - would fall under the category of an "extremely arbitrary" reason and if I had to bet money it would be on the gay couple to win the case (if they were to sue). Again, a gay couple making out (ie excessive PDA), or wearing skimpy clothing, etc - that's a different scenario, because the refusal would no longer be as arbitrary.




.

 

[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.

I think in both cases they would be violating Federal law if they were refusing service arbitrarily.

Yep. But you asked for my opinion. Also a white guy getting denied into a black bar probably won't get followed up on.

 

[Iceweasel]

Never claimed that. Also never claimed that gays were protected under the Civil Rights Act the same way race is.

However, most courts will not allow a business to refuse service based on extremely arbitrary traits such as a person who's wearing "a blue watch". There's been many cases that have sided with customers who have sued for scenarios similar to that..

You've got me curious. Do you have an example?

I would imagine a restaurant refusing to serve a gay couple - because they're gay - would fall under the category of an "extremely arbitrary" reason and if I had to bet money it would be on the gay couple to win the case (if they were to sue). Again, a gay couple making out (ie excessive PDA), or wearing skimpy clothing, etc - that's a different scenario, because the refusal would no longer be as arbitrary.

Where do you get this 'arbitrary' clause?

 

[Seawytch]

Never claimed that. Also never claimed that gays were protected under the Civil Rights Act the same way race is.

However, most courts will not allow a business to refuse service based on extremely arbitrary traits such as a person who's wearing "a blue watch". There's been many cases that have sided with customers who have sued for scenarios similar to that..

You've got me curious. Do you have an example?

I would imagine a restaurant refusing to serve a gay couple - because they're gay - would fall under the category of an "extremely arbitrary" reason and if I had to bet money it would be on the gay couple to win the case (if they were to sue). Again, a gay couple making out (ie excessive PDA), or wearing skimpy clothing, etc - that's a different scenario, because the refusal would no longer be as arbitrary.

Where do you get this 'arbitrary' clause?

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

 

[KevinWestern]

Never claimed that. Also never claimed that gays were protected under the Civil Rights Act the same way race is.

However, most courts will not allow a business to refuse service based on extremely arbitrary traits such as a person who's wearing "a blue watch". There's been many cases that have sided with customers who have sued for scenarios similar to that..

You've got me curious. Do you have an example?

I would imagine a restaurant refusing to serve a gay couple - because they're gay - would fall under the category of an "extremely arbitrary" reason and if I had to bet money it would be on the gay couple to win the case (if they were to sue). Again, a gay couple making out (ie excessive PDA), or wearing skimpy clothing, etc - that's a different scenario, because the refusal would no longer be as arbitrary.

Where do you get this 'arbitrary' clause?

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

Whoops, actually I was mistaken.

Arbitrary Discrimination protection is generally a state-by-state legislative issue. I'm a person that's in favor of such a law.

 

[KevinWestern]

No. Nor a black bar owner refusing a white.

I think in both cases they would be violating Federal law if they were refusing service arbitrarily.

Yep. But you asked for my opinion. Also a white guy getting denied into a black bar probably won't get followed up on.

Probably not. But then again, probably doesn't happen all that often either.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

I snipped out a portion since you were too lazy to.

"Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of .

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved."

So it depends on the court. My guess is that the suits happen in liberal areas. Which also means it is not clear cut. Nor is homosexuality a race, color, religion, or national origin.

 

[The T]

Hey I side with small government in most cases when it comes to business, but I'm perfectly happy with a law that says a businesses can't arbitrarily deny someone service because of their race.

Just one of those things that comes down to a matter of opinion, and (fortunately for me) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sides more with my view.

Is GAY a race? I didn't think so.

Never claimed that. Also never claimed that gays were protected under the Civil Rights Act the same way race is.

However, most courts will not allow a business to refuse service based on extremely arbitrary traits such as a person who's wearing "a blue watch". There's been many cases that have sided with customers who have sued for scenarios similar to that..

I would imagine a restaurant refusing to serve a gay couple - because they're gay - would fall under the category of an "extremely arbitrary" reason and if I had to bet money it would be on the gay couple to win the case (if they were to sue). Again, a gay couple making out (ie excessive PDA), or wearing skimpy clothing, etc - that's a different scenario, because the refusal would no longer be as arbitrary.




.

It's the property owner's decision...solely. It's private property. PERIOD.

 

[KevinWestern]

So it depends on the court. My guess is that the suits happen in liberal areas. Which also means it is not clear cut. Nor is homosexuality a race, color, religion, or national origin.

No, it's not. But I would support a clause adding sexual preference to that list.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's the property owner's decision...solely. It's private property. PERIOD.

Agree, but I believe in 22 states (correct me if I'm wrong) it'd be illegal for that business owner to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

They could decide to kick the gays out, but will be subject to being sued, etc.

 

[KevinWestern]

So it depends on the court. My guess is that the suits happen in liberal areas. Which also means it is not clear cut. Nor is homosexuality a race, color, religion, or national origin.

No, but many states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation specifically.

 

[Iceweasel]

So it depends on the court. My guess is that the suits happen in liberal areas. Which also means it is not clear cut. Nor is homosexuality a race, color, religion, or national origin.

No, but many states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation specifically.

Which means that it isn't Constitutionally protected.

 

[Cecilie1200]

WTF is wrong with you people? You are totally obsessed with other people's private lives. If gays are fornicating in PUBLIC, then you have a right to open your pie hole. Otherwise you need to take care of your own, and keep your nose out of other people's business.

WTF is wrong with you people? That's a dishonest mischaracterization. The issue isn't what people do in private but when they force it onto others. We've been discussing this for days so it's impossible for you to not know that.

How can it possibly be someone's "private life" if they're doing it in a place that the leftists keep telling us is "public"? Their whole freaking argument is based on the idea that someone's privately owned business is "public property", but NOW they want to trot out that tired canard of "private lives".

Could you leftists out there at least learn to SPELL the word "consistency"? You can't seem to SHOW any, but even a little progress would be nice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It's only a "slippery slope" if you believe there are droves of business owners out there just DYING to toss minorities to the curb. I can only assume this delusion is at the heart of your constant "Blacks! Blacks! We're talking about gays, but BLACK PEOPLE!!!" shouts.

As it happens, though, you are mistaken if you believe that we all agree that it would be a bad thing for racists to not be forced to pretend to be otherwise. Personally, I like my ass clowns to be loud and proud so I know where they are. Stealth idiots have too much scope to screw things up before you recognize and stop them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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..

What about them, assuming these scores of apocryphal businesses even exist? Would you rather have them keep quiet and spit in the drinks?

By the way . . . Gay family? Really, dude?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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....

Oh, spare me. You're in here vociferously advocating in favor of laws that micromanage people's lives, and then you want to play innocent and say, "I'm not telling people what to do." You don't get to have it both ways, twerp. Even if I was as brain-damaged as you, I wouldn't buy that act.