Finally someone said it:Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom

[frigidweirdo]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. In the case of the people on the plane,
if they have an issue riding together, they
either resolve the issue civilly or the people who
can't, separate from each other and not impose on
everyone else. So No, the man with the problem
doesn't impose on all the others. Or the other people
don't discriminate against the man but allow him the
chance to resolve the conflict so they can agree on a policy.

B. with business, I would recommend that customers and companies sign Mediation Agreements and Arbitration Waivers. So if a conflict arises in the course of doing business, either they resolve by mediation or arbitration,
or agree NOT to conduct business together if they cannot resolve their differences civilly and without incurring legal action or costs. This is to prevent both. So people should refrain from doing business together who can't respect each other's beliefs. it's a two-sided policy.

If you want your beliefs respected, it makes sense to respect the beliefs of others, and they do the same for you! Common Sense!

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.
So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

So, people resolve things or the person who has the problem doesn't impose themselves on others. Until the point comes where two people aren't resolve the problem. Then you have courts to deal with it. If both sides have a problem, then what? Who goes away?

Why are Christians imposing themselves on someone who just wants a cake for a wedding?

If people who can't do business together just stay apart, what happens when everyone doing business in a town decides they won't serve black people.

All of a sudden you get into the realm of "do we want our society to be divided"?

They're not, the people who want the cake are imposing themselves on that business when they are fully capable of buying it somewhere else. They can buy from their competition, it's not a complicated issue. Congrats to the business, they just turned away a demographic, they'll feel that until they change their minds.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.
So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

Treason and Libel infringe on the rights of others, hate speech shouldn't be against the law in the first place. Freedom of Religion and freedom of practice aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is just ignorant. Obviously you're free to worship whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, so about the time you try to kill a human being while claiming it's worship, you'll have murder charges to worry about.

Yes they do. Hate speech also infringes on the rights of others. There's also the clear and present danger doctrine.

If a human being decides they don't mind being sacrificed, then what? It's not going against their rights.

What about polygamy? Does that go against anyone's rights?

Dear frigidweirdo
If we are going to discuss hate speech, is it fair game to rage hate against Christians, conservatives, people who don't believe in gay marriage, Republicans, Trump voters, etc. based on their beliefs we don't agree with?

If people mouthing off against homosexuals is considered hateful bigotry, what about people mouthing off against Christians as a group. Like how rdean made a blanket statement that "Republicans want gays dead" If so how could the Log Cabin Republicans exist, unless they are all "suicidal' and want their own selves dead? Is it okay for rdean to make mean spirited statements against Republicans as a group, stereotyping their beliefs, and then argue against bigoted hate speech against gays and LGBT for their beliefs?

Are we being fair here?

Hate speech needs to be understood. It's not saying something bad against someone else. It's saying something bad against someone else and it incites violence or prejudicial action against a group of people.

This can be against Christians, Muslims, women, gay people, whatever group.

So, if you say "I hate Muslims, they should all die" to a friend, then it might not be considered hate speech. If you did it in front of 20,000 people and it was on TV, then you might get done for hate speech.

Is it okay for rdean to make such a statement? Is it going to lead to violence or prejudicial action? No, probably not, so it's okay.

Okay frigidweirdo thanks for making that distinction.
What about bigoted speech or stereotypes:

A. if it's not okay to "spread misperceptions and stereotypes" by saying ALL gays are perverts who want to abuse children

B. is it okay for rdean to say ALL Republicans are hateful against gays and want them dead

Even if people have free speech to say whatever belief they want; isn't it problematic to denounce one and not the other.

We have the freedom to express such biases.
But doesn't it cause greater harm to the relationships
we are claiming should be changed to stop hate and ill will.

Again, bigoted speech is okay, people do it on this forum all the time. It's a matter of whether bigoted speech becomes hate speech or not. Stereotypes is the same thing.

Hate speech is when it becomes a real problem for society, not when it's just people making their opinions known.

 

[NYcarbineer]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Why? Because they are being denied equal rights.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. In the case of the people on the plane,
if they have an issue riding together, they
either resolve the issue civilly or the people who
can't, separate from each other and not impose on
everyone else. So No, the man with the problem
doesn't impose on all the others. Or the other people
don't discriminate against the man but allow him the
chance to resolve the conflict so they can agree on a policy.

B. with business, I would recommend that customers and companies sign Mediation Agreements and Arbitration Waivers. So if a conflict arises in the course of doing business, either they resolve by mediation or arbitration,
or agree NOT to conduct business together if they cannot resolve their differences civilly and without incurring legal action or costs. This is to prevent both. So people should refrain from doing business together who can't respect each other's beliefs. it's a two-sided policy.

If you want your beliefs respected, it makes sense to respect the beliefs of others, and they do the same for you! Common Sense!

So, people resolve things or the person who has the problem doesn't impose themselves on others. Until the point comes where two people aren't resolve the problem. Then you have courts to deal with it. If both sides have a problem, then what? Who goes away?

Why are Christians imposing themselves on someone who just wants a cake for a wedding?

If people who can't do business together just stay apart, what happens when everyone doing business in a town decides they won't serve black people.

All of a sudden you get into the realm of "do we want our society to be divided"?

They're not, the people who want the cake are imposing themselves on that business when they are fully capable of buying it somewhere else. They can buy from their competition, it's not a complicated issue. Congrats to the business, they just turned away a demographic, they'll feel that until they change their minds.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, and the Wall Street Crash shows what happens when you take bad loans. Capitalism has never failed a single time, let alone unregulated capitalism.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, people resolve things or the person who has the problem doesn't impose themselves on others. Until the point comes where two people aren't resolve the problem. Then you have courts to deal with it. If both sides have a problem, then what? Who goes away?

Why are Christians imposing themselves on someone who just wants a cake for a wedding?

If people who can't do business together just stay apart, what happens when everyone doing business in a town decides they won't serve black people.

All of a sudden you get into the realm of "do we want our society to be divided"?

They're not, the people who want the cake are imposing themselves on that business when they are fully capable of buying it somewhere else. They can buy from their competition, it's not a complicated issue. Congrats to the business, they just turned away a demographic, they'll feel that until they change their minds.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, and the Wall Street Crash shows what happens when you take bad loans. Capitalism has never failed a single time, let alone unregulated capitalism.

Well each state has its own law.

Like I said, without the correct terminology it's hard to find the laws. Last time I spoke about this some guy knew the terminology and I was able to find such laws.

I've found some stuff relating to NY state.

I’m a customer can I sue a retail store for emo - Q&A - Avvo

"As to discrimination, you have not included in your posting anything from which one can infer whether there was unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is unlawful if it involves such factors as national origin, skin color, disability, religion, age, and the like. Although people usually think of discrimination in terms of employment, under NY law the law reaches to certain incidents at places of public accommodation, such as stores and restaurants."

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law."

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation."

"The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people."

 

[Syriusly]

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."”

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

 

[Syriusly]

So, people resolve things or the person who has the problem doesn't impose themselves on others. Until the point comes where two people aren't resolve the problem. Then you have courts to deal with it. If both sides have a problem, then what? Who goes away?

Why are Christians imposing themselves on someone who just wants a cake for a wedding?

If people who can't do business together just stay apart, what happens when everyone doing business in a town decides they won't serve black people.

All of a sudden you get into the realm of "do we want our society to be divided"?

They're not, the people who want the cake are imposing themselves on that business when they are fully capable of buying it somewhere else. They can buy from their competition, it's not a complicated issue. Congrats to the business, they just turned away a demographic, they'll feel that until they change their minds.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, .

The Leftists take America out of the Great Depression, save farms, bring us Social Security and the GI Bill?

Man I can see why conservatives hate that.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

They're not, the people who want the cake are imposing themselves on that business when they are fully capable of buying it somewhere else. They can buy from their competition, it's not a complicated issue. Congrats to the business, they just turned away a demographic, they'll feel that until they change their minds.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, and the Wall Street Crash shows what happens when you take bad loans. Capitalism has never failed a single time, let alone unregulated capitalism.

Well each state has its own law.

Like I said, without the correct terminology it's hard to find the laws. Last time I spoke about this some guy knew the terminology and I was able to find such laws.

I've found some stuff relating to NY state.

I’m a customer can I sue a retail store for emo - Q&A - Avvo

"As to discrimination, you have not included in your posting anything from which one can infer whether there was unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is unlawful if it involves such factors as national origin, skin color, disability, religion, age, and the like. Although people usually think of discrimination in terms of employment, under NY law the law reaches to certain incidents at places of public accommodation, such as stores and restaurants."

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law."

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation."

"The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people."

In other words, you argued in my favor, because you CAN refuse service to people in 'protected groups', just not for those specific reasons. Though, what I was arguing is that forcing someone to serve another is infringing on their rights, but this proves my point, too.

 

[Syriusly]

whos discriminating on what people do in the bedroom ?

Dear Timmy:
he's saying that people shouldn't have special rights
just because they are gay or transgender.

How is being allowed to marry like anyone else a 'special right'?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

They're not, the people who want the cake are imposing themselves on that business when they are fully capable of buying it somewhere else. They can buy from their competition, it's not a complicated issue. Congrats to the business, they just turned away a demographic, they'll feel that until they change their minds.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, .

The Leftists take America out of the Great Depression, save farms, bring us Social Security and the GI Bill?

Man I can see why conservatives hate that.

Oh, this guy again. The lefttards extended the Great Depression by seven years, you just buy into the lefttard propaganda because you lack independent thought. Go educate yourself instead of wasting my time.

 

[Syriusly]

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, .

The Leftists take America out of the Great Depression, save farms, bring us Social Security and the GI Bill?

Man I can see why conservatives hate that.

Oh, this guy again. The lefttards extended the Great Depression by seven years, you just buy into the lefttard propaganda because you lack independent thought. Go educate yourself instead of wasting my time.

LOL- you retarded right wing nut jobs just hate it that Republicans got America into the Great Depression and FDR got us out- and along the way lead America to victory in WW2, brought American Social Security, bank depositors insurance, the GI Bill and save farms.

Of course you hate that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, and the Wall Street Crash shows what happens when you take bad loans. Capitalism has never failed a single time, let alone unregulated capitalism.

Well each state has its own law.

Like I said, without the correct terminology it's hard to find the laws. Last time I spoke about this some guy knew the terminology and I was able to find such laws.

I've found some stuff relating to NY state.

I’m a customer can I sue a retail store for emo - Q&A - Avvo

"As to discrimination, you have not included in your posting anything from which one can infer whether there was unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is unlawful if it involves such factors as national origin, skin color, disability, religion, age, and the like. Although people usually think of discrimination in terms of employment, under NY law the law reaches to certain incidents at places of public accommodation, such as stores and restaurants."

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law."

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation."

"The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people."

In other words, you argued in my favor, because you CAN refuse service to people in 'protected groups', just not for those specific reasons. Though, what I was arguing is that forcing someone to serve another is infringing on their rights, but this proves my point, too.

What? I didn't say you couldn't not serve people for reasons like bad behavior. We're talking about discriminating against people for belonging to a GROUP.

You were arguing that forcing someone to serve another is infringing their rights, and you've not proven that at all and this doesn't help your case in any way at all. Sorry.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, .

The Leftists take America out of the Great Depression, save farms, bring us Social Security and the GI Bill?

Man I can see why conservatives hate that.

Oh, this guy again. The lefttards extended the Great Depression by seven years, you just buy into the lefttard propaganda because you lack independent thought. Go educate yourself instead of wasting my time.

LOL- you retarded right wing nut jobs just hate it that Republicans got America into the Great Depression and FDR got us out- and along the way lead America to victory in WW2, brought American Social Security, bank depositors insurance, the GI Bill and save farms.

Of course you hate that.

So, what you're saying is "You're just jealous!" what an intelligent and mature response.

FDR not only caused the Great Depression, as at the start of his presidency, the economy was only mildly recessionary, but by increasing the risk of hiring employees by making Unionism compulsory, tripling taxes, filing a constant stream of lawsuits against businesses, locking prices high(Preventing competition and making it harder for the middle class to buy anything), he extended the Great Depression by seven years. If he had literally sat on his hands and done nothing, it would have been 2-4 years. The war got us out of the Depression, much to FDR's displeasure, no doubt.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, and the Wall Street Crash shows what happens when you take bad loans. Capitalism has never failed a single time, let alone unregulated capitalism.

Well each state has its own law.

Like I said, without the correct terminology it's hard to find the laws. Last time I spoke about this some guy knew the terminology and I was able to find such laws.

I've found some stuff relating to NY state.

I’m a customer can I sue a retail store for emo - Q&A - Avvo

"As to discrimination, you have not included in your posting anything from which one can infer whether there was unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is unlawful if it involves such factors as national origin, skin color, disability, religion, age, and the like. Although people usually think of discrimination in terms of employment, under NY law the law reaches to certain incidents at places of public accommodation, such as stores and restaurants."

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law."

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation."

"The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people."

In other words, you argued in my favor, because you CAN refuse service to people in 'protected groups', just not for those specific reasons. Though, what I was arguing is that forcing someone to serve another is infringing on their rights, but this proves my point, too.

What? I didn't say you couldn't not serve people for reasons like bad behavior. We're talking about discriminating against people for belonging to a GROUP.

You were arguing that forcing someone to serve another is infringing their rights, and you've not proven that at all and this doesn't help your case in any way at all. Sorry.

You CAN turn people away for belonging to a group, it just can't be your stated reason. Where the baker messed up was that he said why he turned them away.

I don't have to prove that point, there's no right to be served by another.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As business owners they are NOT free to choose who they do business with. They've signed a contract with the state and they have AGREED to accept the laws that apply to businesses.

Such laws protect consumers from discrimination. I forget a lot of the terminology with this, which is annoying because it's only with that terminology that you can easily find information about this.

But I'm not really sure that we need to get into that detail. It's just simple to accept that businesses sign up to different law. They make this choice and they have to agree to this. Then they get annoyed when they go against such law and claim their rights are being infringed upon.

You're thinking about commerce and how it should be totally free market. I think the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression showed quite clearly that unregulated Capitalism doesn't work.

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, and the Wall Street Crash shows what happens when you take bad loans. Capitalism has never failed a single time, let alone unregulated capitalism.

Well each state has its own law.

Like I said, without the correct terminology it's hard to find the laws. Last time I spoke about this some guy knew the terminology and I was able to find such laws.

I've found some stuff relating to NY state.

I’m a customer can I sue a retail store for emo - Q&A - Avvo

"As to discrimination, you have not included in your posting anything from which one can infer whether there was unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is unlawful if it involves such factors as national origin, skin color, disability, religion, age, and the like. Although people usually think of discrimination in terms of employment, under NY law the law reaches to certain incidents at places of public accommodation, such as stores and restaurants."

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law."

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation."

"The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people."

In other words, you argued in my favor, because you CAN refuse service to people in 'protected groups', just not for those specific reasons. Though, what I was arguing is that forcing someone to serve another is infringing on their rights, but this proves my point, too.

What? I didn't say you couldn't not serve people for reasons like bad behavior. We're talking about discriminating against people for belonging to a GROUP.

You were arguing that forcing someone to serve another is infringing their rights, and you've not proven that at all and this doesn't help your case in any way at all. Sorry.

You CAN turn people away for belonging to a group, it just can't be your stated reason. Where the baker messed up was that he said why he turned them away.

I don't have to prove that point, there's no right to be served by another.

No. You can't turn people away for belonging to certain groups. You can turn them away for other reasons. What you seem to be saying is that you can get away with breaking the law by simply not saying why. I agree. That doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You don't have to prove your point? Then why the fuck are you on here if you're not going to prove your points?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Cite exactly the law that prevents them from turning people away. Actually, the Great Depression showed what happens when leftards get into office and think Socialism works, and the Wall Street Crash shows what happens when you take bad loans. Capitalism has never failed a single time, let alone unregulated capitalism.

Well each state has its own law.

Like I said, without the correct terminology it's hard to find the laws. Last time I spoke about this some guy knew the terminology and I was able to find such laws.

I've found some stuff relating to NY state.

I’m a customer can I sue a retail store for emo - Q&A - Avvo

"As to discrimination, you have not included in your posting anything from which one can infer whether there was unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is unlawful if it involves such factors as national origin, skin color, disability, religion, age, and the like. Although people usually think of discrimination in terms of employment, under NY law the law reaches to certain incidents at places of public accommodation, such as stores and restaurants."

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law."

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation."

"The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people."

In other words, you argued in my favor, because you CAN refuse service to people in 'protected groups', just not for those specific reasons. Though, what I was arguing is that forcing someone to serve another is infringing on their rights, but this proves my point, too.

What? I didn't say you couldn't not serve people for reasons like bad behavior. We're talking about discriminating against people for belonging to a GROUP.

You were arguing that forcing someone to serve another is infringing their rights, and you've not proven that at all and this doesn't help your case in any way at all. Sorry.

You CAN turn people away for belonging to a group, it just can't be your stated reason. Where the baker messed up was that he said why he turned them away.

I don't have to prove that point, there's no right to be served by another.

No. You can't turn people away for belonging to certain groups. You can turn them away for other reasons. What you seem to be saying is that you can get away with breaking the law by simply not saying why. I agree. That doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You don't have to prove your point? Then why the fuck are you on here if you're not going to prove your points?

If you don't say it, how can they prove it? They can't.

Do you disagree? If so, show me a right to be served by another. Of course, you can't, because there's no such right. Meaning if you force someone to, you're infringing on their rights. This was pretty obvious from the start.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well each state has its own law.

Like I said, without the correct terminology it's hard to find the laws. Last time I spoke about this some guy knew the terminology and I was able to find such laws.

I've found some stuff relating to NY state.

I’m a customer can I sue a retail store for emo - Q&A - Avvo

"As to discrimination, you have not included in your posting anything from which one can infer whether there was unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is unlawful if it involves such factors as national origin, skin color, disability, religion, age, and the like. Although people usually think of discrimination in terms of employment, under NY law the law reaches to certain incidents at places of public accommodation, such as stores and restaurants."

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

"At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law."

"The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation."

"The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people."

In other words, you argued in my favor, because you CAN refuse service to people in 'protected groups', just not for those specific reasons. Though, what I was arguing is that forcing someone to serve another is infringing on their rights, but this proves my point, too.

What? I didn't say you couldn't not serve people for reasons like bad behavior. We're talking about discriminating against people for belonging to a GROUP.

You were arguing that forcing someone to serve another is infringing their rights, and you've not proven that at all and this doesn't help your case in any way at all. Sorry.

You CAN turn people away for belonging to a group, it just can't be your stated reason. Where the baker messed up was that he said why he turned them away.

I don't have to prove that point, there's no right to be served by another.

No. You can't turn people away for belonging to certain groups. You can turn them away for other reasons. What you seem to be saying is that you can get away with breaking the law by simply not saying why. I agree. That doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You don't have to prove your point? Then why the fuck are you on here if you're not going to prove your points?

If you don't say it, how can they prove it? They can't.

Do you disagree? If so, show me a right to be served by another. Of course, you can't, because there's no such right. Meaning if you force someone to, you're infringing on their rights. This was pretty obvious from the start.

You can't prove it. Doesn't make it illegal, it just means that it can't be proven.

That's not the point here.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In other words, you argued in my favor, because you CAN refuse service to people in 'protected groups', just not for those specific reasons. Though, what I was arguing is that forcing someone to serve another is infringing on their rights, but this proves my point, too.

What? I didn't say you couldn't not serve people for reasons like bad behavior. We're talking about discriminating against people for belonging to a GROUP.

You were arguing that forcing someone to serve another is infringing their rights, and you've not proven that at all and this doesn't help your case in any way at all. Sorry.

You CAN turn people away for belonging to a group, it just can't be your stated reason. Where the baker messed up was that he said why he turned them away.

I don't have to prove that point, there's no right to be served by another.

No. You can't turn people away for belonging to certain groups. You can turn them away for other reasons. What you seem to be saying is that you can get away with breaking the law by simply not saying why. I agree. That doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You don't have to prove your point? Then why the fuck are you on here if you're not going to prove your points?

If you don't say it, how can they prove it? They can't.

Do you disagree? If so, show me a right to be served by another. Of course, you can't, because there's no such right. Meaning if you force someone to, you're infringing on their rights. This was pretty obvious from the start.

You can't prove it. Doesn't make it illegal, it just means that it can't be proven.

That's not the point here.

They can still do it, and the fact is that what they're doing can't be determined as illegal unless it can be proven that they actually did it.

It's certainly part of the point, given that the consumer has no right to be served, but the business owner has a right to refuse.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What? I didn't say you couldn't not serve people for reasons like bad behavior. We're talking about discriminating against people for belonging to a GROUP.

You were arguing that forcing someone to serve another is infringing their rights, and you've not proven that at all and this doesn't help your case in any way at all. Sorry.

You CAN turn people away for belonging to a group, it just can't be your stated reason. Where the baker messed up was that he said why he turned them away.

I don't have to prove that point, there's no right to be served by another.

No. You can't turn people away for belonging to certain groups. You can turn them away for other reasons. What you seem to be saying is that you can get away with breaking the law by simply not saying why. I agree. That doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

You don't have to prove your point? Then why the fuck are you on here if you're not going to prove your points?

If you don't say it, how can they prove it? They can't.

Do you disagree? If so, show me a right to be served by another. Of course, you can't, because there's no such right. Meaning if you force someone to, you're infringing on their rights. This was pretty obvious from the start.

You can't prove it. Doesn't make it illegal, it just means that it can't be proven.

That's not the point here.

They can still do it, and the fact is that what they're doing can't be determined as illegal unless it can be proven that they actually did it.

It's certainly part of the point, given that the consumer has no right to be served, but the business owner has a right to refuse.

The point is the law exists and you can't do something illegal without breaking the law, no matter how much it can't be proven.

The point is that businesses CANNOT discriminate against people within a group legally.

 

[gtarguy921]

Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom?

Because they have been discriminated against, based on what they do in the bedroom.