Bull Ring OldLady: Can laws distinguish discrimination against PEOPLE unequally vs. Select SERVICES refused

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story

Court upholds ruling against Florist refusing service at same sex wedding

OldLady offered to address and defend points related to the above issue (which I posted as a thread under Law and Justice on further disputes over same sex wedding services vs. discrimination against people)

A. My point is there is a difference between "discriminating against PEOPLE unequally"
(which I agree is in violation of accommodation laws)

B. vs. choosing or refusing certain services at the discretion of the business or service provider
(which I do NOT agree is the same as discriminating against the person)

I believe MAKING this distinction would better solve problems in all such cases of disputes.

I also believe in seeking alternative solutions to prevent legal actions and expenses, including:

1. Enlisting the services of a subcontractor or other staff who don't have the same conflicts with the beliefs of the customer (similar to hiring a bilingual translator or interpreter to help in cases of language barriers)
2. Signing "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration in user agreements (where customers and businesses agree to resolve disputes amicably by mediation and consensus, or in cases of conflicts that cannot be resolved agree to refrain from conducting business together to avoid legal actions and expenses)
3. Providing goods and materials to the customers on site and letting them take responsibility from there.
4. For renting facilities, agreements for the customers to take responsibility for hiring staff for providing services on site, including covering insurance for damages to the property, and licensing agreements on terms or releases for use of the site for images or publicity (similar to agreement to use property for movie shoots)

Since these specifications would be helpful to ALL businesses to prevent or resolve ANY dispute from escalating, I would recommend this anyway.

I address this thread to OldLady or to others who want to help explain to me
why cases of disputes over beliefs about marriage should be treated as
"discrimination against people" IF it's the SERVICES and ACTIVITIES that the
business doesn't agree to support, endorse, engage or participate in.


I equate this with photographers who don't want to film an adult party with drinking.
Or set designers and movie producers who don't like a storyline and don't want to
be involved in or associated with production of it.


Why isn't the discretion and free choice of the business owner
TREATED EQUALLY as the beliefs, values and choice of the customer?

Isn't it just as bad or worse to force a business to provide or create a message against
their beliefs and free choice, as it is to "force" a customer to take business elsewhere?

Why is the belief of the customer more important than the beliefs of the business owner?
Isn't the customer also discriminating by trying to force the business owner to comply with their beliefs?

If it's wrong for the business to do this to the customer,
why isn't it equally wrong for the customer to impose that instead of going with a different business,
and shouldn't they both decide equally they are incompatible and agree not to work together?

That's what they do with movies and music - if the people disagree on creative direction,
they part company and work with other people who agree with their interests and ideas!

Why not take this approach to resolve issues with wedding services?
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
619
Points
255
I can hear Yogi Berra in the background saying "good hitting always beats good pitching and vice versa".
 

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
54,380
Reaction score
11,432
Points
2,040
OldLady would be here but, I'm not sure she was up for a surprise debate challenge.
 

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
4,423
Reaction score
515
Points
170
Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story

Court upholds ruling against Florist refusing service at same sex wedding

OldLady offered to address and defend points related to the above issue (which I posted as a thread under Law and Justice on further disputes over same sex wedding services vs. discrimination against people)

A. My point is there is a difference between "discriminating against PEOPLE unequally"
(which I agree is in violation of accommodation laws)

B. vs. choosing or refusing certain services at the discretion of the business or service provider
(which I do NOT agree is the same as discriminating against the person)

I believe MAKING this distinction would better solve problems in all such cases of disputes.

I also believe in seeking alternative solutions to prevent legal actions and expenses, including:

1. Enlisting the services of a subcontractor or other staff who don't have the same conflicts with the beliefs of the customer (similar to hiring a bilingual translator or interpreter to help in cases of language barriers)
2. Signing "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration in user agreements (where customers and businesses agree to resolve disputes amicably by mediation and consensus, or in cases of conflicts that cannot be resolved agree to refrain from conducting business together to avoid legal actions and expenses)
3. Providing goods and materials to the customers on site and letting them take responsibility from there.
4. For renting facilities, agreements for the customers to take responsibility for hiring staff for providing services on site, including covering insurance for damages to the property, and licensing agreements on terms or releases for use of the site for images or publicity (similar to agreement to use property for movie shoots)

Since these specifications would be helpful to ALL businesses to prevent or resolve ANY dispute from escalating, I would recommend this anyway.

I address this thread to OldLady or to others who want to help explain to me
why cases of disputes over beliefs about marriage should be treated as
"discrimination against people" IF it's the SERVICES and ACTIVITIES that the
business doesn't agree to support, endorse, engage or participate in.


I equate this with photographers who don't want to film an adult party with drinking.
Or set designers and movie producers who don't like a storyline and don't want to
be involved in or associated with production of it.


Why isn't the discretion and free choice of the business owner
TREATED EQUALLY as the beliefs, values and choice of the customer?

Isn't it just as bad or worse to force a business to provide or create a message against
their beliefs and free choice, as it is to "force" a customer to take business elsewhere?

Why is the belief of the customer more important than the beliefs of the business owner?
Isn't the customer also discriminating by trying to force the business owner to comply with their beliefs?

If it's wrong for the business to do this to the customer,
why isn't it equally wrong for the customer to impose that instead of going with a different business,
and shouldn't they both decide equally they are incompatible and agree not to work together?

That's what they do with movies and music - if the people disagree on creative direction,
they part company and work with other people who agree with their interests and ideas!

Why not take this approach to resolve issues with wedding services?
I am a lib-prog who detests conservatives and considers them to be dangerous loons. I respect a christians right to NOT do business according to their beliefs. My response would be to never do business with THAT business. I avoid any and all businesses that oppose my own beliefs. Additionally I spread the word amongst my friends and family in hopes that they, too, will avoid that business.
 

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
54,380
Reaction score
11,432
Points
2,040
Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story

Court upholds ruling against Florist refusing service at same sex wedding

OldLady offered to address and defend points related to the above issue (which I posted as a thread under Law and Justice on further disputes over same sex wedding services vs. discrimination against people)

A. My point is there is a difference between "discriminating against PEOPLE unequally"
(which I agree is in violation of accommodation laws)

B. vs. choosing or refusing certain services at the discretion of the business or service provider
(which I do NOT agree is the same as discriminating against the person)

I believe MAKING this distinction would better solve problems in all such cases of disputes.

I also believe in seeking alternative solutions to prevent legal actions and expenses, including:

1. Enlisting the services of a subcontractor or other staff who don't have the same conflicts with the beliefs of the customer (similar to hiring a bilingual translator or interpreter to help in cases of language barriers)
2. Signing "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration in user agreements (where customers and businesses agree to resolve disputes amicably by mediation and consensus, or in cases of conflicts that cannot be resolved agree to refrain from conducting business together to avoid legal actions and expenses)
3. Providing goods and materials to the customers on site and letting them take responsibility from there.
4. For renting facilities, agreements for the customers to take responsibility for hiring staff for providing services on site, including covering insurance for damages to the property, and licensing agreements on terms or releases for use of the site for images or publicity (similar to agreement to use property for movie shoots)

Since these specifications would be helpful to ALL businesses to prevent or resolve ANY dispute from escalating, I would recommend this anyway.

I address this thread to OldLady or to others who want to help explain to me
why cases of disputes over beliefs about marriage should be treated as
"discrimination against people" IF it's the SERVICES and ACTIVITIES that the
business doesn't agree to support, endorse, engage or participate in.


I equate this with photographers who don't want to film an adult party with drinking.
Or set designers and movie producers who don't like a storyline and don't want to
be involved in or associated with production of it.


Why isn't the discretion and free choice of the business owner
TREATED EQUALLY as the beliefs, values and choice of the customer?

Isn't it just as bad or worse to force a business to provide or create a message against
their beliefs and free choice, as it is to "force" a customer to take business elsewhere?

Why is the belief of the customer more important than the beliefs of the business owner?
Isn't the customer also discriminating by trying to force the business owner to comply with their beliefs?

If it's wrong for the business to do this to the customer,
why isn't it equally wrong for the customer to impose that instead of going with a different business,
and shouldn't they both decide equally they are incompatible and agree not to work together?

That's what they do with movies and music - if the people disagree on creative direction,
they part company and work with other people who agree with their interests and ideas!

Why not take this approach to resolve issues with wedding services?
I am a lib-prog who detests conservatives and considers them to be dangerous loons. I respect a christians right to NOT do business according to their beliefs. My response would be to never do business with THAT business. I avoid any and all businesses that oppose my own beliefs. Additionally I spread the word amongst my friends and family in hopes that they, too, will avoid that business.
You are valueless, next!
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
13,960
Reaction score
3,450
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
OldLady would be here but, I'm not sure she was up for a surprise debate challenge.
She has her hands pretty full, Marion.

Between telling people what they can and cannot say, issuing ultimatums to those who disagree with her and announcing to everybody she has reported a certain poster so they all know she holds power here through proxy, she has a lot on her plate!
 

Damaged Eagle

Do you hear the people sing?
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
12,997
Reaction score
17,786
Points
2,445
Location
At a Tea Party
Ha ha Damaged Eagle,
Here:


I want YOU to build me this STAIRCASE.
If you refuse, I will SUE you three ways to Sunday.
Don't come back on here until you produce what I demand.
I have consumer's rights! You must accommodate me or else!


I understand the point of your OP. The response I gave was to indicate the Gordian Knot that has been attached to issues surrounding a persons social values and ethics and utilizing the government to enforce one persons view over anothers. It is one thing for the government to say that all people are equal due to skin color. It quite another thing for the government to say one persons cultural values and ethics supercede another persons cultural values and ethics. When this happens it becomes a Gordian Knot or Stair Maze where the government becomes lost in making arbitration satisfactory to appease both sides of the issue.

*****SMILE*****


:)
 

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
1,564
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
It's a tough call to distinguish between 2 competing human rights, somebody's right to freedom of religion vs someone else's right to equal treatment. It's an easy call when one or the other is treated unfairly by the state courts, like in the case of the Colorado baker. Not so easy if both sides are treated in an unbiased manner. My own take is this: if you can find another baker or florist or photographer or whatever in your vicinity, then you ought not to make a federal case out of it, IF the business offers you the same basic services as everyone else but is denying you special services. I'm not a fan of using the law as a weapon to make a political point, if there are alternatives.
 
Last edited:
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Here OldLady here's the case where the owner talked to both the mother and the daughter to have the "humiliating" effect of "discriminating" against them PERSONALLY:

The "Sweetcakes By Melissa" Dispute | Kaempf Law Firm

Given that the owners argued they had freedom of speech and religion rights to defend and express their beliefs, that same argument explains why protestors got them run out of business and shut down.

That seems like justice based on those principles. Both sides got their free speech, and both suffered severely from disapproval by the other.

When it comes to suing, I don't agree with the courts that only "church-related activities" have the right to choices and decisions based on their religious beliefs.

This is like saying only ESTABLISHED GROUPS have religious rights, not individuals.

How would LGBT advocates respond if individual community members didn't have rights to freedom of beliefs and expression UNLESS THEY WERE DECLARED A RELIGIOUS ENTITY?

Makes no sense. Govt should not be regulating religious beliefs, and this shows why!

U.S. Supreme Court tosses ruling against wedding cake bakers who rebuffed lesbians
 
Last edited:

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
1,564
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
About half of the 50 states have public accommodation (PA) laws regarding sexual orientation, all of the blue states plus a few red ones. These states have essentially subjugated an individual's freedom of religion and speech below that of LGBT anti-discrimination rights. I think it's a political attack against Christianity, anybody know if any of these lawsuits are against Muslims? Doubt it. The Left is in a full-blown war against Christianity, mostly because most Christians support the right. So, it may not be entirely a question of LGBT rights, but also another Left v Right battle.

As I said in Post #10, I don't know how the SCOTUS can rule in favor of one right over another, maybe it should be a state by state issue. Maybe all the SCOTUS can do is require the states to treat both rights impartially, although I think that's probably not likely. If a state wanted to, they could probably offer some kind of compromise where a Christian business could get a waiver based on religious grounds, and post that waiver prominently so customers know the establishment isn't a full-service PA. But, I don't think that's what they really want.

Sucks to be a Christian in those states. You create a business, build it up, and then some political hack forces you to make a decision: your business or your religious beliefs. It ain't like these liberal fuckwads can't get their cake or flowers or whatever from somebody else. These cases are deliberate confrontations, and they don't care who gets hurt. And if it's a Christian, then it's win-win.
 
Last edited:

Tijn Von Ingersleben

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
7,532
Reaction score
1,675
Points
290
Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene’s Flowers story

Court upholds ruling against Florist refusing service at same sex wedding

OldLady offered to address and defend points related to the above issue (which I posted as a thread under Law and Justice on further disputes over same sex wedding services vs. discrimination against people)

A. My point is there is a difference between "discriminating against PEOPLE unequally"
(which I agree is in violation of accommodation laws)

B. vs. choosing or refusing certain services at the discretion of the business or service provider
(which I do NOT agree is the same as discriminating against the person)

I believe MAKING this distinction would better solve problems in all such cases of disputes.

I also believe in seeking alternative solutions to prevent legal actions and expenses, including:

1. Enlisting the services of a subcontractor or other staff who don't have the same conflicts with the beliefs of the customer (similar to hiring a bilingual translator or interpreter to help in cases of language barriers)
2. Signing "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration in user agreements (where customers and businesses agree to resolve disputes amicably by mediation and consensus, or in cases of conflicts that cannot be resolved agree to refrain from conducting business together to avoid legal actions and expenses)
3. Providing goods and materials to the customers on site and letting them take responsibility from there.
4. For renting facilities, agreements for the customers to take responsibility for hiring staff for providing services on site, including covering insurance for damages to the property, and licensing agreements on terms or releases for use of the site for images or publicity (similar to agreement to use property for movie shoots)

Since these specifications would be helpful to ALL businesses to prevent or resolve ANY dispute from escalating, I would recommend this anyway.

I address this thread to OldLady or to others who want to help explain to me
why cases of disputes over beliefs about marriage should be treated as
"discrimination against people" IF it's the SERVICES and ACTIVITIES that the
business doesn't agree to support, endorse, engage or participate in.


I equate this with photographers who don't want to film an adult party with drinking.
Or set designers and movie producers who don't like a storyline and don't want to
be involved in or associated with production of it.


Why isn't the discretion and free choice of the business owner
TREATED EQUALLY as the beliefs, values and choice of the customer?

Isn't it just as bad or worse to force a business to provide or create a message against
their beliefs and free choice, as it is to "force" a customer to take business elsewhere?

Why is the belief of the customer more important than the beliefs of the business owner?
Isn't the customer also discriminating by trying to force the business owner to comply with their beliefs?

If it's wrong for the business to do this to the customer,
why isn't it equally wrong for the customer to impose that instead of going with a different business,
and shouldn't they both decide equally they are incompatible and agree not to work together?

That's what they do with movies and music - if the people disagree on creative direction,
they part company and work with other people who agree with their interests and ideas!

Why not take this approach to resolve issues with wedding services?
The biggest problem with civil rights legislation is that it removes the freedom of association.
 

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
1,564
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
The biggest problem with civil rights legislation is that it removes the freedom of association.

No, it doesn't. It does put restrictions on who you can decide not to associate with in your place of business, but you can still decide who you want to otherwise associate with. Every right we have in this country is subject to limitations. We do this for the common good, in other words in the best interests of our society. If we really want to work toward as much equality of opportunity then it makes no sense to deny someone the ability to buy and sell in the marketplace. On either end of the transaction, we should not deny anyone their choices based on the discriminators listed in the 1964 Civil Rights Law, and subsequent legislation. For by doing so, by expanding our own choices but we are limiting their choices and that is NOT equal opportunity.

The freedom of association is no different from the other freedoms, they all have limitations. We still have the ability to deny association for any reason other than those listed under existing laws. If you would deny association to those of a different color, religion, ethnicity, etc., then you are really no better than a white supremacist, an anti-semitist, or anyone who hates white people, black people, Christians, and so on. Should we make that kind of discrimination legal again?

Question: if you want the right to deny service to someone based on the existing list of discriminators, then you won't mind being the object of discrimination if the shoe is on the other foot, right? Suppose your suppliers tell you they won't do business with you any more do to your stance against one of the listed groups, or protesters parade back and forth in front of your business decrying your bigotry. That's what it is, right? Preferential treatment for some at the expense of others? Most of us would say no, we shouldn't go down that road. That's not the direction we want our society to evolve in.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,035
Reaction score
3,127
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
The biggest problem with civil rights legislation is that it removes the freedom of association.

No, it doesn't. It does put restrictions on who you can decide not to associate with in your place of business, but you can still decide who you want to otherwise associate with. Every right we have in this country is subject to limitations. We do this for the common good, in other words in the best interests of our society. If we really want to work toward as much equality of opportunity then it makes no sense to deny someone the ability to buy and sell in the marketplace. On either end of the transaction, we should not deny anyone their choices based on the discriminators listed in the 1964 Civil Rights Law, and subsequent legislation. For by doing so, by expanding our own choices but we are limiting their choices and that is NOT equal opportunity.

The freedom of association is no different from the other freedoms, they all have limitations. We still have the ability to deny association for any reason other than those listed under existing laws. If you would deny association to those of a different color, religion, ethnicity, etc., then you are really no better than a white supremacist, an anti-semitist, or anyone who hates white people, black people, Christians, and so on. Should we make that kind of discrimination legal again?

Question: if you want the right to deny service to someone based on the existing list of discriminators, then you won't mind being the object of discrimination if the shoe is on the other foot, right? Suppose your suppliers tell you they won't do business with you any more do to your stance against one of the listed groups, or protesters parade back and forth in front of your business decrying your bigotry. That's what it is, right? Preferential treatment for some at the expense of others? Most of us would say no, we shouldn't go down that road. That's not the direction we want our society to evolve in.
Dear task0778

Nothing wrong with business LOCATIONS that are open to the PUBLIC
serving everyone without discrimination.

The issue was with DICTATING THE SERVICES offered.

Examples:
1. Not allowing wedding videographers to CHOOSE which clients they want to go videotape.
That's different from offering services to all who enter a place of business to receive services ON SITE.

Such cases became freedom of speech/first amendment issues
where govt is not supposed to be abused to FORCE someone to perform or record certain materials or activities against
their consent or beliefs.

2. Forcing wedding services providers to attend a ceremony or event OUTSIDE THEIR PUBLIC PLACE OF BUSINESS.

Again, that's different from providing services ON SITE to customers who enter.

Do you get the difference here?

Between equal treatment and accommodation AT A PLACE OF BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
vs.
Forcing service providers to videotape, photograph or otherwise record activities against their beliefs
or forcing them to attend or participate in activities against their beliefs off site or at a private venue outside their
normal business location.
 

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
1,564
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
The biggest problem with civil rights legislation is that it removes the freedom of association.

No, it doesn't. It does put restrictions on who you can decide not to associate with in your place of business, but you can still decide who you want to otherwise associate with. Every right we have in this country is subject to limitations. We do this for the common good, in other words in the best interests of our society. If we really want to work toward as much equality of opportunity then it makes no sense to deny someone the ability to buy and sell in the marketplace. On either end of the transaction, we should not deny anyone their choices based on the discriminators listed in the 1964 Civil Rights Law, and subsequent legislation. For by doing so, by expanding our own choices but we are limiting their choices and that is NOT equal opportunity.

The freedom of association is no different from the other freedoms, they all have limitations. We still have the ability to deny association for any reason other than those listed under existing laws. If you would deny association to those of a different color, religion, ethnicity, etc., then you are really no better than a white supremacist, an anti-semitist, or anyone who hates white people, black people, Christians, and so on. Should we make that kind of discrimination legal again?

Question: if you want the right to deny service to someone based on the existing list of discriminators, then you won't mind being the object of discrimination if the shoe is on the other foot, right? Suppose your suppliers tell you they won't do business with you any more do to your stance against one of the listed groups, or protesters parade back and forth in front of your business decrying your bigotry. That's what it is, right? Preferential treatment for some at the expense of others? Most of us would say no, we shouldn't go down that road. That's not the direction we want our society to evolve in.
Dear task0778

Nothing wrong with business LOCATIONS that are open to the PUBLIC
serving everyone without discrimination.

The issue was with DICTATING THE SERVICES offered.

Examples:
1. Not allowing wedding videographers to CHOOSE which clients they want to go videotape.
That's different from offering services to all who enter a place of business to receive services ON SITE.

Such cases became freedom of speech/first amendment issues
where govt is not supposed to be abused to FORCE someone to perform or record certain materials or activities against
their consent or beliefs.

2. Forcing wedding services providers to attend a ceremony or event OUTSIDE THEIR PUBLIC PLACE OF BUSINESS.

Again, that's different from providing services ON SITE to customers who enter.

Do you get the difference here?

Between equal treatment and accommodation AT A PLACE OF BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
vs.
Forcing service providers to videotape, photograph or otherwise record activities against their beliefs
or forcing them to attend or participate in activities against their beliefs off site or at a private venue outside their
normal business location.
You're basically saying the cake baker in Denver has to bake the cake for a Gay wedding but he doesn't have to deliver it to the event. I'm okay with that, but I don't know that others are. Interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this. A florist has to create the flower bouguet but not deliver it, right? A photographer should not be forced to attend a gay wedding, right? I wonder if they'll leave it up to the states to decide that.
 

Damaged Eagle

Do you hear the people sing?
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
12,997
Reaction score
17,786
Points
2,445
Location
At a Tea Party
Ha ha Damaged Eagle,
Here:


I want YOU to build me this STAIRCASE.
If you refuse, I will SUE you three ways to Sunday.
Don't come back on here until you produce what I demand.
I have consumer's rights! You must accommodate me or else!


^^^Alright^^^

Don't mind me I have to go order my Confederate flag cake from that black run bakery, also my Third Reich flag cake from a Jewish bakery, in addition to the swine shaped cake that says Pork Lovers from that Muslim bakery, and the Straight Pride cake from the gay bakery.

I might to sue if any of them can't fill my order...

*****CHUCKLE*****


:)
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top