Gay marriage and business problem

a reply to: grandmakdw

It may or may not be about them WANTING to use these businesses, but about them being the ONLY businesses they can utilize. Not everyone lives in a city or large town with many business options to choose from.

Do you think the black people who staged sit-ins during the 60's cared that the people who would end up being forced to cater them would probably spit in their food? Of course not, they were doing it for more reasons than just getting served.

a reply to: Gryphon66
I figured everyone has seen news reports or read about business being sued and fined monies for refusing to service gay couples. However, I did a Google search and found several pages. Here are but a few.
www.theblaze.com... r-attorney-reveals-whats-next/

www.reuters.com...

www.foxnews.com...

radio.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Darth_Prime
What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

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. To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

Lots of lawyers know how to "coach" people about how to set-up lawsuits.

a reply to: Ceeker63

None of those are personal law suits in which the plaintiffs receive money. If the courts find against the defendants, the defendants pay fines to the town/county/city/state.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What about one's that say shirt and shoes required or gentleman must wear ties? They turn people away daily. Are they breaking the law?

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

No, because that is a rule applied equally to all patrons regardless of their demographic. Plus for many establishments, there are health reasons that people without clothes can be legally turned away. So in those cases, they are governmentally mandated to refuse service to those people.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well that says cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion or country of origin. And must be handicap accessible. Also that private clubs and churches were exempt.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah I'm sure I would be uncomfortable sitting at a table across from someone wearing a shirt and shoes and nothing else!
But in the case of gentlemen must wear ties a cross gender person might be in a dress but still required to wear a tie. Or is that only apparently gentlemen? I know that's stretching it a bit but the situation could present itself.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ceeker63

Why don't you list the specific examples you're talking about and the big "pay-outs" each was supposed to provide?

For starters.

Seems to me, most who did get payouts donated them back to some area of LGBTQ support.

Of course there's always at least one bad apple in every group, but most intentional or accidental LGBTQ activist knows this is a bigger picture of Equality and are not in it for personal gain.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Are you referring to establishments that require more formal wear? I'm really not sure how it would go down legally if an establishment kicks a customer out for wearing a formal dress as a guy. Technically it is formal wear, so I really don't think he should be kicked out, I just don't think there is valid legal precedent for the courts to side against the business. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?

a reply to: Ceeker63

I don't think churches can be sued for not performing a gay marriage. Not even now with the new laws can churches be compelled to provide this . That's against the constitution's freedom of religion clauses. The justice of the peace must but the Catholic priest cannot be made to do this.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hypothetical a man who is obviously a man but chooses to dress as a woman and goes to a formal establishment that requires gentlemen to wear ties. Can they refuse him?

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yea, that's what I assumed you were asking. Like I said, I don't personally agree with them being able to eject this person because I disagree with discriminating against transsexuals, but I'm just not sure that the legal precedents are in place to actually argue this in court. It may be a rather uphill battle for the person with the alleged discrimination.

Here's another honest question because I know lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender so when did we add Q what does it mean and please tell me that doesn't stand for queer.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I am none of those things, so I am the wrong person to ask that question to.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Want to test it ? I'll lend you a dress but don't shave or put on a wig. Then we can raise a stink and put a video on you tube and such. Or is that just as despicable as it sounds to me?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Me either I'm just trying to keep up.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Heh. I'm pretty sure that I don't have to worry if I shave my beard or not and be mistaken for a dude. Though, we'd have to pick a state that isn't as open to these concepts. Here in Maryland, you are likely not going to be kicked out for this because Maryland (at least from what I've seen of Baltimore) is open to these things.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm in Virginia. We're practically neighbors. Washington DC has restaurants with this rule. I've seen them. Half way between us. Of course were still talking hypothetical. ( last thing i need is a harassment suit)