Colorado is after this guy.

[martybegan]

Decent people don't pander to mentally- and morally-defective sexual perverts.

Again, guy, please go into your job tomorrow and rant about how evil the gays are... My guess is HR won't share your views on how morally defective gay folks are.

No, you don't give up your rights, but you don't have to keep working there either. a business takes far more investment, and is an extension of oneself.

And if you are a business, and you don't want to have gay customers, you can get out of that business. See how that works?

Either you have a first Amendment right to be an asshole or you don't.

I don't hate anyone because of who or what they are, I despise people for the best reason, because of what they do and how they act.

Uh-huh... and you've spent the last few pages defending a homophobic asshole...

I am not arguing in absolutes, so don't try that shit.

Okay... so we are both in agreement that there are laws that override the right to believe in whatever bizarre superstitions demanded by an imaginary friend in the sky. So now the only real question here is, where do you draw the line between one's right to grovel before an imaginary sky pixie and what point there is a greater societal good to be protected.

Awesome. Progress.

I think stomping out homophobia is a greater good.

See how that works?

He's OK with gay customers, he just doesn't want to make a cake specifically for their wedding.

Unlike you I believe people have rights with regards to things I disagree with, i.e. I am not the narcissistic twat that you are.

Sorry, but a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for single event doesn't qualify as needing brute government force to create a "greater societal good"

Now if a whole localites bakers decided they didn't want to do it, then the government would have a case to get involved.

I still don't think the government would need to get involved. I think if every baker currently in town suddenly decided they didn't want to bake custom cakes for homosexuals, there would be someone in that town who would say, "Wow, there's a whole bunch of people out there with money to spend and no one serving them. What a great business opportunity", and open a bakery for that purpose. That actually happened in a lot of areas with "adult" novelty cakes for bachelorette parties and the like. People started thinking that would be cool and funny, and traditional bakers said, "I don't want to make crude, raunchy cake designs". Next thing you know, there were bakeries specializing in doing that sort of thing.

You would hope so, but to me that much collusion between a group of bakers smacks as a de facto law enforcing said discrimination, and to me that rises to the level of government action. I would think, however, as you said, the market would correct it, but to me the situation I noted creates the compelling government interest.

Now is the offense worth a $400k fine?

No. What should happen is the government should inform the community they are on to them, and give them the choice to end the collusion on this point.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Decent people don't pander to mentally- and morally-defective sexual perverts.

Again, guy, please go into your job tomorrow and rant about how evil the gays are... My guess is HR won't share your views on how morally defective gay folks are.

No, you don't give up your rights, but you don't have to keep working there either. a business takes far more investment, and is an extension of oneself.

And if you are a business, and you don't want to have gay customers, you can get out of that business. See how that works?

Either you have a first Amendment right to be an asshole or you don't.

I don't hate anyone because of who or what they are, I despise people for the best reason, because of what they do and how they act.

Uh-huh... and you've spent the last few pages defending a homophobic asshole...

I am not arguing in absolutes, so don't try that shit.

Okay... so we are both in agreement that there are laws that override the right to believe in whatever bizarre superstitions demanded by an imaginary friend in the sky. So now the only real question here is, where do you draw the line between one's right to grovel before an imaginary sky pixie and what point there is a greater societal good to be protected.

Awesome. Progress.

I think stomping out homophobia is a greater good.

See how that works?

He's OK with gay customers, he just doesn't want to make a cake specifically for their wedding.

Unlike you I believe people have rights with regards to things I disagree with, i.e. I am not the narcissistic twat that you are.

Sorry, but a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for single event doesn't qualify as needing brute government force to create a "greater societal good"

Now if a whole localites bakers decided they didn't want to do it, then the government would have a case to get involved.

/----/ Bravo.

 

[martybegan]

Decent people don't pander to mentally- and morally-defective sexual perverts.

Again, guy, please go into your job tomorrow and rant about how evil the gays are... My guess is HR won't share your views on how morally defective gay folks are.

No, you don't give up your rights, but you don't have to keep working there either. a business takes far more investment, and is an extension of oneself.

And if you are a business, and you don't want to have gay customers, you can get out of that business. See how that works?

Either you have a first Amendment right to be an asshole or you don't.

I don't hate anyone because of who or what they are, I despise people for the best reason, because of what they do and how they act.

Uh-huh... and you've spent the last few pages defending a homophobic asshole...

I am not arguing in absolutes, so don't try that shit.

Okay... so we are both in agreement that there are laws that override the right to believe in whatever bizarre superstitions demanded by an imaginary friend in the sky. So now the only real question here is, where do you draw the line between one's right to grovel before an imaginary sky pixie and what point there is a greater societal good to be protected.

Awesome. Progress.

I think stomping out homophobia is a greater good.

See how that works?

He's OK with gay customers, he just doesn't want to make a cake specifically for their wedding.

Unlike you I believe people have rights with regards to things I disagree with, i.e. I am not the narcissistic twat that you are.

Sorry, but a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for single event doesn't qualify as needing brute government force to create a "greater societal good"

Now if a whole localites bakers decided they didn't want to do it, then the government would have a case to get involved.

/----/ Bravo.
View attachment 212277

Lol, that might actually run afoul of the American's with Disabilities Act.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A business is an extension of a person. You don't lose your rights simply because you want to sell something. On the other hand when you work for someone else you are trading your labor for their $$. They get to decide the views of their business, the employee doesn't.

So you give up your rights if you go to work, but not if you own a business? That's... um... crazy.

The pot thing is going to go away soon, and they should be able to do it.
If a State wants to allow polgamy let them do it as long as the legislature votes it in. Plus people can be in plural relationships, they just can't get a marriage license for it.

And you can hate on the homos all you want... you just can't do it at work.

Child molestation is an actual crime against another person. that you use it as an example just shows how much of a twat you are.

But you are arguing that laws shouldn't apply as long as you have a sincere religious belief. Well, I'd say the Davidians were pretty sincere, wouldn't you?

No, when they were used against non PA transactions is when I have an issue with it.

PA laws were to fight systemic discrimination in actual point of sale transactions and things like hotel rooms.

PA laws were meant to keep businesses from discriminating against people. They are doing a fine job of it.

No, you don't give up your rights, but you don't have to keep working there either. a business takes far more investment, and is an extension of oneself.

I don't hate anyone because of who or what they are, I despise people for the best reason, because of what they do and how they act.

I am not arguing in absolutes, so don't try that shit.

Accepting a job at another person's business is a trade. You are voluntarily trading a certain amount of your autonomy in service to someone else's goals in exchange for their money. People don't usually think about it in those terms, but that's what's happening. When you are weighing the decision to accept the job, asking yourself if the money you're being offered is worth enough for what you're going to be asked to do, that is exactly what you are weighing.

One of the chief reasons people give for starting their own business is that they want to be their own boss, and they want the freedom to make their own decisions without someone else telling them what to do. Now we've got a bunch of control freak chuckleheads wanting to come in and say, "Nope. You're not in charge, you're not making the decisions, WE are going to be your boss and tell you who you have to be and how you have to do things."

The worst thing about it is they don't realize how extreme of a position they are taking.

I won't talk for anyone else, but I do see a use for PA laws when it comes to actual PA's. when you allow a person onto your property for point of sale transactions you open yourself to regulation of your commerce by the government. However contracted services that are not critical, not time sensitive, and easily obtainable elsewhere should not be held to the PA standard.

The example I often use is that of a hotel. The owner should not be able to deny a paying customer a room based on them being black, gay, muslim, purple, whatever.

However they should be able to deny the use of one of their ballrooms or conference rooms to a SSM wedding, or a Satanist conference, or even a Bible thumper conference.

Personally, I don't agree with PA laws at all, but particularly in cases of contracted services.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Decent people don't pander to mentally- and morally-defective sexual perverts.

Again, guy, please go into your job tomorrow and rant about how evil the gays are... My guess is HR won't share your views on how morally defective gay folks are.

No, you don't give up your rights, but you don't have to keep working there either. a business takes far more investment, and is an extension of oneself.

And if you are a business, and you don't want to have gay customers, you can get out of that business. See how that works?

Either you have a first Amendment right to be an asshole or you don't.

I don't hate anyone because of who or what they are, I despise people for the best reason, because of what they do and how they act.

Uh-huh... and you've spent the last few pages defending a homophobic asshole...

I am not arguing in absolutes, so don't try that shit.

Okay... so we are both in agreement that there are laws that override the right to believe in whatever bizarre superstitions demanded by an imaginary friend in the sky. So now the only real question here is, where do you draw the line between one's right to grovel before an imaginary sky pixie and what point there is a greater societal good to be protected.

Awesome. Progress.

I think stomping out homophobia is a greater good.

See how that works?

He's OK with gay customers, he just doesn't want to make a cake specifically for their wedding.

Unlike you I believe people have rights with regards to things I disagree with, i.e. I am not the narcissistic twat that you are.

Sorry, but a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for single event doesn't qualify as needing brute government force to create a "greater societal good"

Now if a whole localites bakers decided they didn't want to do it, then the government would have a case to get involved.

I still don't think the government would need to get involved. I think if every baker currently in town suddenly decided they didn't want to bake custom cakes for homosexuals, there would be someone in that town who would say, "Wow, there's a whole bunch of people out there with money to spend and no one serving them. What a great business opportunity", and open a bakery for that purpose. That actually happened in a lot of areas with "adult" novelty cakes for bachelorette parties and the like. People started thinking that would be cool and funny, and traditional bakers said, "I don't want to make crude, raunchy cake designs". Next thing you know, there were bakeries specializing in doing that sort of thing.

You would hope so, but to me that much collusion between a group of bakers smacks as a de facto law enforcing said discrimination, and to me that rises to the level of government action. I would think, however, as you said, the market would correct it, but to me the situation I noted creates the compelling government interest.

Now is the offense worth a $400k fine?

No. What should happen is the government should inform the community they are on to them, and give them the choice to end the collusion on this point.

I don't know that it would require collusion. It would really only require an extremely small town with only a couple of bakeries owned by people with similar attitudes. Although honestly, I think even those conditions would be vanishingly difficult to find these days.

Not that I much care, so long as it doesn't extend outside of what they personally do in their own businesses. Now, if they decided to hinder someone else from opening a bakery that did serve the segment of the public they wouldn't serve, THAT would be a compelling government interest to intervene, although I would have to say that the only way they could effectively make that happen is through the government, anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

He's OK with gay customers, he just doesn't want to make a cake specifically for their wedding.

I'm sure if he could get away with more, he'd do more. Keep in mind, he's in trouble again NOW because he reneged on a cake for a Tranny Birthday.

Unlike you I believe people have rights with regards to things I disagree with, i.e. I am not the narcissistic twat that you are.

Naw, man Narcissism is believing the laws shouldn't apply to you because a Magic Man in the Sky told you to do something.

So what we have here is a conflict of rights. The right of someone to abuse his customers for his superstitions vs. the rights of others to get good service.

IN that case, the rights should err towards the consumer, not the business. Caveat Vendor, bitches.

Sorry, but a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for single event doesn't qualify as needing brute government force to create a "greater societal good"

Sure it does. Homophobia is such a societal evil, I'd go a lot further to stomp it out. We'll start by revoking the tax exemption of churches that still preach homophobia. (Kind of like we revoke the tax exemption of racist religions.) Guess what, betcha we'll see the churches get a lot more tolerant of gays after that.

Accepting a job at another person's business is a trade. You are voluntarily trading a certain amount of your autonomy in service to someone else's goals in exchange for their money.

Opening a business is a trade. You trade your time and skill for money. Again, what you are advocating for is special rights for business owners and not special rights for working folks.

So in your crazy world, a Minimum Wage clerk should be denied access to birth control because her boss wants to please a magic sky fairy, but people should be denied service because business owners believe in Bronze Age superstitions.

I still don't think the government would need to get involved. I think if every baker currently in town suddenly decided they didn't want to bake custom cakes for homosexuals, there would be someone in that town who would say, "Wow, there's a whole bunch of people out there with money to spend and no one serving them. What a great business opportunity", and open a bakery for that purpose.

Um... yeah.. Hey did you hear about the folks in the Jim Crow south that provided services to black folks because it was such an awesome business opportunity? Um. No. You didn't. That's why we hve PA Laws to start with.

 

[martybegan]

He's OK with gay customers, he just doesn't want to make a cake specifically for their wedding.

I'm sure if he could get away with more, he'd do more. Keep in mind, he's in trouble again NOW because he reneged on a cake for a Tranny Birthday.

Unlike you I believe people have rights with regards to things I disagree with, i.e. I am not the narcissistic twat that you are.

Naw, man Narcissism is believing the laws shouldn't apply to you because a Magic Man in the Sky told you to do something.

So what we have here is a conflict of rights. The right of someone to abuse his customers for his superstitions vs. the rights of others to get good service.

IN that case, the rights should err towards the consumer, not the business. Caveat Vendor, bitches.

Sorry, but a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for single event doesn't qualify as needing brute government force to create a "greater societal good"

Sure it does. Homophobia is such a societal evil, I'd go a lot further to stomp it out. We'll start by revoking the tax exemption of churches that still preach homophobia. (Kind of like we revoke the tax exemption of racist religions.) Guess what, betcha we'll see the churches get a lot more tolerant of gays after that.

Accepting a job at another person's business is a trade. You are voluntarily trading a certain amount of your autonomy in service to someone else's goals in exchange for their money.

Opening a business is a trade. You trade your time and skill for money. Again, what you are advocating for is special rights for business owners and not special rights for working folks.

So in your crazy world, a Minimum Wage clerk should be denied access to birth control because her boss wants to please a magic sky fairy, but people should be denied service because business owners believe in Bronze Age superstitions.

I still don't think the government would need to get involved. I think if every baker currently in town suddenly decided they didn't want to bake custom cakes for homosexuals, there would be someone in that town who would say, "Wow, there's a whole bunch of people out there with money to spend and no one serving them. What a great business opportunity", and open a bakery for that purpose.

Um... yeah.. Hey did you hear about the folks in the Jim Crow south that provided services to black folks because it was such an awesome business opportunity? Um. No. You didn't. That's why we hve PA Laws to start with.

Just because you are a miserable old bastard doesn't make him a miserable old bastard.

No, narcissism is having to both insult people who don't believe like you do, and then support suppressing them via government action.

There is no basis in the Constitution favoring commerce over free exercise.

Yes, because ThoughtCrime is something we want to start punishing...../sarcasm.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Lets be consistent. Even private entities have to obey the law. FB also states it's ToS up front.

The problem with Facebook is that they don't consistently apply their TOS. They only do it if someone complains.

A friend of my racist brother once complained to me that Facebook blocked her account after she called Obama that word we can't use on USMB.

Smoke another one...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Actually, his business has suffered because decent people don't patronize a homophobe.

LIAR

 

[JoeB131]

Just because you are a miserable old bastard doesn't make him a miserable old bastard.

Again, guy, I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to show how much Christians piss me off and ruin my professional brand in the process.

This guy is fine with that.

No, narcissism is having to both insult people who don't believe like you do, and then support suppressing them via government action.

Again, PA laws protect Christians just as much as gays...

There is no basis in the Constitution favoring commerce over free exercise.

Nor does "Free Excercise" mean you can disobey other laws...

The law says you can't discriminate. Period. Seems pretty fair to me.

 

[martybegan]

Just because you are a miserable old bastard doesn't make him a miserable old bastard.

Again, guy, I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to show how much Christians piss me off and ruin my professional brand in the process.

This guy is fine with that.

No, narcissism is having to both insult people who don't believe like you do, and then support suppressing them via government action.

Again, PA laws protect Christians just as much as gays...

There is no basis in the Constitution favoring commerce over free exercise.

Nor does "Free Excercise" mean you can disobey other laws...

The law says you can't discriminate. Period. Seems pretty fair to me.

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Sure it does. Homophobia is such a societal evil, I'd go a lot further to stomp it out. We'll start by revoking the tax exemption of churches that still preach homophobia. (Kind of like we revoke the tax exemption of racist religions.) Guess what, betcha we'll see the churches get a lot more tolerant of gays after that

Amazing that "Americans" think like this.

As we see, totalitarians ALWAYS come out of the left.

 

[dblack]

Sure it does. Homophobia is such a societal evil, I'd go a lot further to stomp it out. We'll start by revoking the tax exemption of churches that still preach homophobia. (Kind of like we revoke the tax exemption of racist religions.) Guess what, betcha we'll see the churches get a lot more tolerant of gays after that.

Sure you would Joe. You'd shine up your jack boots, kick ass and take names. Sing us a song about the 'thug life'!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just because you are a miserable old bastard doesn't make him a miserable old bastard.

Again, guy, I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to show how much Christians piss me off and ruin my professional brand in the process.

This guy is fine with that.

No, narcissism is having to both insult people who don't believe like you do, and then support suppressing them via government action.

Again, PA laws protect Christians just as much as gays...

There is no basis in the Constitution favoring commerce over free exercise.

Nor does "Free Excercise" mean you can disobey other laws...

The law says you can't discriminate. Period. Seems pretty fair to me.

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

 

[martybegan]

Just because you are a miserable old bastard doesn't make him a miserable old bastard.

Again, guy, I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to show how much Christians piss me off and ruin my professional brand in the process.

This guy is fine with that.

No, narcissism is having to both insult people who don't believe like you do, and then support suppressing them via government action.

Again, PA laws protect Christians just as much as gays...

There is no basis in the Constitution favoring commerce over free exercise.

Nor does "Free Excercise" mean you can disobey other laws...

The law says you can't discriminate. Period. Seems pretty fair to me.

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

If you run a store where you just sell point of sale items, and you let people on the premises, I can see they can tell you you have to serve or sell to people and can't refuse based on race, sex, orientation, etc. Selling a pack of gum or a pre-made cupcake does not imply endorsement as a custom made item does.

Same goes with hotels, if you offer rooms to people off the Street, you offer rooms to anyone off the street who has the $$.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just because you are a miserable old bastard doesn't make him a miserable old bastard.

Again, guy, I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to show how much Christians piss me off and ruin my professional brand in the process.

This guy is fine with that.

No, narcissism is having to both insult people who don't believe like you do, and then support suppressing them via government action.

Again, PA laws protect Christians just as much as gays...

There is no basis in the Constitution favoring commerce over free exercise.

Nor does "Free Excercise" mean you can disobey other laws...

The law says you can't discriminate. Period. Seems pretty fair to me.

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

If you run a store where you just sell point of sale items, and you let people on the premises, I can see they can tell you you have to serve or sell to people and can't refuse based on race, sex, orientation, etc. Selling a pack of gum or a pre-made cupcake does not imply endorsement as a custom made item does.

Same goes with hotels, if you offer rooms to people off the Street, you offer rooms to anyone off the street who has the $$.

I think you SHOULD do business with everyone on an equal basis in point-of-sale. I don't necessarily think that equates to "the government should force you to". I think people also have the right to be ignorant, short-sighted assholes if that's what they want to do (I'd be obliged if people would stop feeling the necessity of exercising this right quite so much). Personally, I don't want to give my money to someone who hates me, just because the government is forcing them to lie about it. I'd rather they be honest, I know who they are, and then I take my money to someone who's doing business with me because he WANTS to do so.

 

[martybegan]

Just because you are a miserable old bastard doesn't make him a miserable old bastard.

Again, guy, I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to show how much Christians piss me off and ruin my professional brand in the process.

This guy is fine with that.

No, narcissism is having to both insult people who don't believe like you do, and then support suppressing them via government action.

Again, PA laws protect Christians just as much as gays...

There is no basis in the Constitution favoring commerce over free exercise.

Nor does "Free Excercise" mean you can disobey other laws...

The law says you can't discriminate. Period. Seems pretty fair to me.

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

If you run a store where you just sell point of sale items, and you let people on the premises, I can see they can tell you you have to serve or sell to people and can't refuse based on race, sex, orientation, etc. Selling a pack of gum or a pre-made cupcake does not imply endorsement as a custom made item does.

Same goes with hotels, if you offer rooms to people off the Street, you offer rooms to anyone off the street who has the $$.

I think you SHOULD do business with everyone on an equal basis in point-of-sale. I don't necessarily think that equates to "the government should force you to". I think people also have the right to be ignorant, short-sighted assholes if that's what they want to do (I'd be obliged if people would stop feeling the necessity of exercising this right quite so much). Personally, I don't want to give my money to someone who hates me, just because the government is forcing them to lie about it. I'd rather they be honest, I know who they are, and then I take my money to someone who's doing business with me because he WANTS to do so.

I also wouldn't deny service on the basis they want to. My concern is where to draw the line. I don't see contracted services that are non-timely, easily replaceable and non nessasary as Public Accommodations.

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

For some people, it's not about the transaction, it's about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, guy, I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to show how much Christians piss me off and ruin my professional brand in the process.

This guy is fine with that.

Again, PA laws protect Christians just as much as gays...

Nor does "Free Excercise" mean you can disobey other laws...

The law says you can't discriminate. Period. Seems pretty fair to me.

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

If you run a store where you just sell point of sale items, and you let people on the premises, I can see they can tell you you have to serve or sell to people and can't refuse based on race, sex, orientation, etc. Selling a pack of gum or a pre-made cupcake does not imply endorsement as a custom made item does.

Same goes with hotels, if you offer rooms to people off the Street, you offer rooms to anyone off the street who has the $$.

I think you SHOULD do business with everyone on an equal basis in point-of-sale. I don't necessarily think that equates to "the government should force you to". I think people also have the right to be ignorant, short-sighted assholes if that's what they want to do (I'd be obliged if people would stop feeling the necessity of exercising this right quite so much). Personally, I don't want to give my money to someone who hates me, just because the government is forcing them to lie about it. I'd rather they be honest, I know who they are, and then I take my money to someone who's doing business with me because he WANTS to do so.

I also wouldn't deny service on the basis they want to. My concern is where to draw the line. I don't see contracted services that are non-timely, easily replaceable and non nessasary as Public Accommodations.

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

For some people, it's not about the transaction, it's about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

I define public accommodation as "things that are funded by public money (taxes)". If the government is not actually funding it and running it, I have very hard limits to how much business I think the government has telling those who DO fund and run it how to do so.

I see no compelling government interest whatsoever at the countertop or in the hotel room, and I'd be curious to have you tell me what you think that is.

 

[martybegan]

No, you have the government to do it for you. How convenient.

Show me a bunch of Christians going out of their way to ruin people.

if the laws impact free exercise, they shouldn't be applied unless there is a compelling government interest.

The law isn't absolute. private clubs can still discriminate, churches can still discriminate.

Unless your religion is into human sacrifice, I have trouble coming up with any "compelling government interest" that overrides the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. Maybe that's just me.

If you run a store where you just sell point of sale items, and you let people on the premises, I can see they can tell you you have to serve or sell to people and can't refuse based on race, sex, orientation, etc. Selling a pack of gum or a pre-made cupcake does not imply endorsement as a custom made item does.

Same goes with hotels, if you offer rooms to people off the Street, you offer rooms to anyone off the street who has the $$.

I think you SHOULD do business with everyone on an equal basis in point-of-sale. I don't necessarily think that equates to "the government should force you to". I think people also have the right to be ignorant, short-sighted assholes if that's what they want to do (I'd be obliged if people would stop feeling the necessity of exercising this right quite so much). Personally, I don't want to give my money to someone who hates me, just because the government is forcing them to lie about it. I'd rather they be honest, I know who they are, and then I take my money to someone who's doing business with me because he WANTS to do so.

I also wouldn't deny service on the basis they want to. My concern is where to draw the line. I don't see contracted services that are non-timely, easily replaceable and non nessasary as Public Accommodations.

I can see the government's interest in compelling equal treatment at the countertop and the hotel room, but that's about it.

For some people, it's not about the transaction, it's about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

I define public accommodation as "things that are funded by public money (taxes)". If the government is not actually funding it and running it, I have very hard limits to how much business I think the government has telling those who DO fund and run it how to do so.

I see no compelling government interest whatsoever at the countertop or in the hotel room, and I'd be curious to have you tell me what you think that is.

That is a public authority, commons, agency, or space. A public accomodation is a business that opens itself to the public for commerce.

For a hotel room, if a person is travelling, them being denied can be seen as a harm. it can be a time sensitive, not easily replaceable service (only hotel for 20 miles)

For a countertop transaction to me it's that the burden on the person selling the item's religious freedom isn't there compared to say a SSM wedding and having to make a custom cake. When you invite the public on your property to do commerce, the government can regulate that commerce, to a point.

 

[dblack]

I think you SHOULD do business with everyone on an equal basis in point-of-sale. I don't necessarily think that equates to "the government should force you to".

And that sums up ninety perfect of today's political debates. Way too many people think that the purpose of government is to force people to do what they "should". But, in a free society government doesn't work like that. Instead, it protects our freedom to decide for ourselves how things should be.