LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[JoeB131]

Why would a straight same sex couple get married?

But I agree, there is no problem. And there is no problem with this place refusing to serve the anti gay group.

Don't get this moron started, he'll waste hours of your time with his twisted logic about straight brothers getting married or something.

 

[SweetSue92]

That is where all this is heading. It’s ok to discriminate against race, religion, gender etc. when you serve the public. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

Although it begs the question, how would you know someone is Christian?

IMO, if the public opposes discrimination, they can boycott and shun since it is likely the court will strike down public accommodation laws.

Christians are using a very thin thread of religion to justify discrimination. Gluttony is a sin, so is adultery, and greed. Will they serve fat people? Marriage is supposed to be a permanent bond in God’s eyes. Will they make cakes for second weddings? The Bible was once used to justify a ban on interracial marriage and discrimination. There is an ugly history here.

You don't know why someone is fat. They could be a glutton, or they could be on terrible medication.

You don't know when someone comes into the restaurant if they're an adulterer, or greedy, or a Christian, or whatever.

But if the EVENT CELEBRATES THAT--then yeah. If your standard was, a private business must be forced in taking part in all requests--then you must assert that this restaurant was ALSO wrong to dump the Christian ministry event.

Anything less is blatant hypocrisy.

 

[HeyNorm]

Why would a straight same sex couple get married?

But I agree, there is no problem. And there is no problem with this place refusing to serve the anti gay group.

Not my cup of tea, but the law allows it, and this solves the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know why someone is fat. They could be a glutton, or they could be on terrible medication.

You don't know when someone comes into the restaurant if they're an adulterer, or greedy, or a Christian, or whatever.

But if the EVENT CELEBRATES THAT--then yeah. If your standard was, a private business must be forced in taking part in all requests--then you must assert that this restaurant was ALSO wrong to dump the Christian ministry event.

Anything less is blatant hypocrisy.

Again, the minister has solid grounds for a breach of contract lawsuit.
He probably doesn't have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit because the refusal to work was an employee action.
They weren't refused for being "Christian", they were refused for their stance on human rights.

 

[rightwinger]

My position is what the SC seems to be leaning toward: you should accommodate people but you cannot force messages or artistic endeavors. In other words, you should not put a sign on your door that says, "we do not serve gays" or whatever. But if you do not want to use your time and talents to support gay WEDDINGS, or photograph gay WEDDINGS, you should have that right.

In this case, it would seem the staff was required to serve a Christian EVENT, so the same would apply. They should not have to serve it, by law. But now will the same faction that wanted to force the baker and photographer to work say the same for these servers??? Shouldn't they be FORCED to serve it?

Over to you, Leftists

What the Supreme Court is doing is allowing business to discriminate against gays while hiding behind claims of religious belief and now “artistic freedom”

What is surprising is that they are willing to have this discrimination only apply to gay marriage and not race, religion or political affiliation

There are many passages in the Bible that people violate. Is the Supreme Court willing to enforce those too?

 

[candycorn]

Again, the minister has solid grounds for a breach of contract lawsuit.
He probably doesn't have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit because the refusal to work was an employee action.
They weren't refused for being "Christian", they were refused for their stance on human rights.

I noticed the OP hasn't responded...

crickets of course.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What the Supreme Court is doing is allowing business to discriminate against gays while hiding behind claims of religious belief and now “artistic freedom”

What is surprising is that they are willing to have this discrimination only apply to gay marriage and not race, religion or political affiliation

Political affiliation is not a protected class

 

[Hellokitty]

I personally support both the baker and this restaurant. But I do not think anyone should be forced to serve anyone, period.

Anti-discrimination laws enforced against anyone but the government is actually unconstitutional in my opinion. The Constitution tells the Govt they cannot discriminate, that does not give them the right to push that on to private entities.

I also believe that protected classes violates the equal protection clause.

Good luck finding a leftist that agrees with me

The difference is the baker refused to make a cake at time of request, whereas the restaurant book a private party for the christian group and canceled only 90 minutes before it was scheduled to start.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The difference is the baker refused to make a cake at time of request, whereas the restaurant book a private party for the christian group and canceled only 90 minutes before it was scheduled to start.

And yet I still support the rights of both to do so.

 

[Hellokitty]

So what if the business decides it doesn't want to support interracial weddings? Should they have that right? What if they want to refuse service to a minority? What if they want to refuse service because your church isn't their church? You see what a can of worms you open here.

What if the staff was predominately black, and the group that wanted to be served was the White Aryan Nation? Should they have the right to refuse.

You kind of have to feel for the manager here. He was given the choice between not serving this customer, or trying to serve the customer and facing a mass employee walkout.



Again, the major difference was that this was an employee action, not a management action. The manager was happy to take the money from these trolls, until his employees found out who they were and refused to serve them. Any other time in history, the threat of firing would probably have been enough to get people to get into line. But we are at a point where restaurants and banquet halls are having a hard enough finding staff for these menial jobs as it is.

Still, I think the minister has perfectly good cause for breach of contract and damages. Does he have a civil rights suit? Probably not because these were the employees, not the manager. An employee action is kind of like if the Water Main broke or the health department shut you down. It's a circumstance largely beyond your control.




Again, we have cases of hate crimes that are committed against gay people all the time. So they would have pretty good reasons to feel unsafe around a bunch of (un)Christian bigots.



Well you put people who disagree with you on ignore, this is probably why you aren't hearing anything.

But here's the thing. If I went to work tomorrow and told my boss, "I refuse to deal with this vendor because he's a Mormon, and I think Mormons are a deranged cult!" I would probably get fired and rightfully so. So these arguments are usually for the privileged class who own businesses not the wage slaves. Once you've established that anyone can refuse to do their jobs on religious grounds, you can have all sorts of chaos.

View attachment 735279

The restaurant management released a public statement supporting their employees, so yes the christian ministry group would have a civil rights case.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hey what happened to "Bake the Cake"?

I wonder if they would serve a group of Muslims that came in? I'm guessing yes, because that's different.

The courts have determined you aren't required to "bake the cake" It's what you wanted. Quit whining.

 

[TNHarley]

Awesome. Flex those rights

 

[Papageorgio]

The restaurant should have the right to refuse service, however, they are in violation of public accommodation laws. The government is overstepping it’s bounds, however I think if the group sue’s the restaurant, they win because the restaurant itself backed up the employees. According to the current law a case can be made.

 

[OldFlame]

I'm guessing "basic human rights" means they are opposed to gay marriage and abortion.

How does this make any servers "unsafe"? Obvious things are obvious: people simply disagreeing with you does not REALLY make you "unsafe". Offended, hurt feelings is not "unsafe". It's part of life.

Buck up, do your jobs.

Geez. The collapse of Rome is coming for us.

That was going to be my comment, they were in no way 'unsafe', it's just a bunch of bullshit. They would have been treated with respect and dignity, and there would have been no reason to even comment on anyone's sexual preferences while at work doing your job. Not to mention that many Christian denominations are now supporting gay marriage and welcoming them into their doors, they had no way of knowing what any of these people personally felt about 'being gay', they just made 'ass'umptions and went with it. The so called 'tolerant' are the least tolerant of all.

In this day and age, no one gaf if you're gay or not, get over it.

 

[Vastator]

Dumb decision on the restaurants part. The smart move would have been to fire the employee who refused to do their job. Now they’ve opened themselves up to potential lawsuits, and actual bad press…

 

[Zincwarrior]

I'm going with NO. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, buoyed by the ACW Amendments and the original power to regulate interstate commerce prohibit this prima facae. The relevant portion (my bolds):

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

 

[Zincwarrior]

Dumb decision on the restaurants part. The smart move would have been to fire the employee who refused to do their job. Now they’ve opened themselves up to potential lawsuits, and actual bad press…

Yes. They are in a bad place now vs. the law.

 

[rightwinger]

Dumb decision on the restaurants part. The smart move would have been to fire the employee who refused to do their job. Now they’ve opened themselves up to potential lawsuits, and actual bad press…

I agree

It is like if you have employees who refuse to serve Negroes
You don’t give them that option

 

[Hellbilly]

You don't know why someone is fat. They could be a glutton, or they could be on terrible medication.

Unless you’re from India, according to Canon Shooter in which case you’re a glutton.

 

[Papageorgio]

The intolerant left is no different then the intolerant right. Both extremes seem tolerant only if you agree with them.