"Right to Refuse Service" but not to Gays?

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

originally posted by: intrepid
In some Red states that might actually make sense.

You're saying Blue states don't have their own prejudices that disenfranchise people that don't "fit in" even if they aren't hurting anyone?

Nope. I'm saying that in some Red(religious) states that they would rather see the gay population move. If not, starve them. Screw them. THAT'S what I'm saying. How Christian.

a reply to: intrepid

Discrimination against smokers is acceptable.

Right to refuse service because someone is smoking is not only acceptable, but encouraged!

originally posted by: Puppylove
I think they'd at best be forced into poverty, many would suffer malnutrition and die, until a gay community could form assuming they could attain the realistate they'd need to build such a community, they aren't incompetent, but it's be pretty bad. Gays are spread out and not that numerous, and there's not a huge number of grouped gay business owners. You act like having the rug pulled out on them would be no big deal.

You honestly believe most straight people are just waiting to screw over gay people? That there is this horde that is only held at bay by the government? Really? It's a terrible business idea and it was changing *before* government got involved. Government got involved precisely because it could see the tide changing and will jump at any chance to "own" credit for "fixing" things.

Do you not see how absolutely fantastic the "be afraid... only we can protect you... they all hate you..." programming is?

originally posted by: Puppylove
It is wrong and immoral to not do business with someone on grounds not related to harm against your business by actions on their part.

That's an opinion. I don't *disagree* with you on the personal level... but I see the use of the state to enforce ONE set of people's morality is FAR more evil and destructive in the long term. I don't agree with "Christians" using the state to force their morality in the same way I don't agree with Gays using the state to force their morality.

The state *loves* you running to them to solve your problems because it means they get to *own* you. It's a fly trap and it WILL turn on you/us. Don't you see how much it already has? Look at the wars it's fighting in our name because we handed over the responsibility of defense to them? Look at how police departments "investigate themselves" because we've handed over the responsibility to them.

It's a trap lined with honey and with a bear claw waiting at the bottom.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: intrepid

Discrimination against smokers is acceptable.

Right to refuse service because someone is smoking is not only acceptable, but encouraged!

Not in my house. My youngest's BF doesn't like smoke. Fine. Later Jeremy. She don't like it.....M'eh.

Basically, if you're a smoking gun-owner with a open-carry permit, you are not allowed to do anything.

post deux

Too many people want the Right to discriminate and when they don't get that right, they claim to not have rights....

originally posted by: Puppylove
For those saying that a business should be allowed to not service someone for being gay may I ask a question?

Let's say every business decided not to serve gays. They'd no longer be able to buy food, toilet paper, medicine, get hospital care, ect. It would be a death sentence.

That is why it's illegal, because allowing such things can lead to serious human rights violations. I mean really you want to go back to the days a business could have signs like "no blacks allowed"?

But isn't that a reducto ad absurdum argument? Surely that isn't the case in today's day and age and, in a free market, if there is a need to be filled, someone would rush in and fill it. If everyone stopped selling wedding cakes to gays tomorrow, I'd be tempted to find a baker and set him up in a shop that caters ONLY to gays. I'd have a heck of a lot of business.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Too many people want the Right to discriminate and when they don't get that right, they claim to not have rights....

No, people are not wanting to have the right to discriminate, they want to have the right of freedom of association.
None of us here have said that they agree with discrimination, they just don't think that the government should be in the business of dictating who you do or do not do business with. Big difference. Nice strawman.

a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight

No I don't honestly believe that every straight person will ever do what I said. What I said was an exaggeration of the point.

People depend on business for survival in this day and age. It's how we get our essentials, our entire lives are dependent upon our ability to do business. You start allowing businesses to discriminate then you make it so peoples lives are harder for reasons of discrimination which is never a good reason. I don't care if it's a matter of taking your business to the business next door. That shouldn't be necessary. No one, white, gay, straight, black, Hispanic, ect should have their life be made more difficult or harder merely for these reasons, no matter how slight.

If you refuse to serve a person that's clearly drunk or abusive to employees you're in the right.

Personally if you choose to refuse someones money due to their choices not matching yours, please keep being vocal about so those of us that care can boycott you too.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Too many people want the Right to discriminate and when they don't get that right, they claim to not have rights....

You are missing the point. The argument is not in favor of discrimination.

It's arguing against using the *state* which has been shown time and time again to not be able to control itself when given power. Especially when the pendulum swings the opposite direction.

I'm actually warning you against the day down the road where one of these Christians you supposedly are so scared of is running a national political party and has all these fancy powers to force *you* to conduct business their way. Before you would have been able to say "Nope" and they couldn't do anything. Now they... who are pissed off after being forced to play it your way for so long... say "Welp... take this fine or go to jail."

Always think about the state from the point of view of your most loathed opponent being in charge and "loved" by the majority because of all the promises they are making them (whether they can actually deliver or not).

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

originally posted by: intrepid
In some Red states that might actually make sense.

You're saying Blue states don't have their own prejudices that disenfranchise people that don't "fit in" even if they aren't hurting anyone?

Nope. I'm saying that in some Red(religious) states that they would rather see the gay population move. If not, starve them. Screw them. THAT'S what I'm saying. How Christian.

And you really don't have any evidence to support that other than preconceived notions, do you?

A business is not a club, it's a service. Association has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Sorry you have the right to be a bigot, racist, or any other adjective in your own home, but in public there are rules.

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Too many people want the Right to discriminate and when they don't get that right, they claim to not have rights....

You are missing the point. The argument is not in favor of discrimination.

It's arguing against using the *state* which has been shown time and time again to not be able to control itself when given power. Especially when the pendulum swings the opposite direction.

I'm actually warning you against the day down the road where one of these Christians you supposedly are so scared of is running a national political party and has all these fancy powers to force *you* to conduct business their way. Before you would have been able to say "Nope" and they couldn't do anything. Now they... who are pissed off after being forced to play it your way for so long... say "Welp... take this fine or go to jail."

Always think about the state from the point of view of your most loathed opponent being in charge and "loved" by the majority because of all the promises they are making them (whether they can actually deliver or not).

Well said and my point as well.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: grey580
Nowhere does Jesus say to use the state upon threat of punishment to force people to behave his way.

Either you obey the commandments because you choose to, or you don't and risk the consequences once your run on the planet is over.

this country isn't set up to be run by what Jesus says, that's why it has a constitution. I don't obey any mythical being, nor do I want to live in a country that does.

you live in CA....So welcome to the country that does believe in what you call a "mythical being"...

You ever read a paper bill? Anyone will work...$1, $5, $10, $100 whatever....IN GOD WE TRUST!!

ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, Indivisible......

There are a lot more examples, but hopefully your eyes are open now to where you say you don't want to live..

really??... go pick up a history book, or at least go out on the internet and do some research on those two examples...your eyes are the ones that need to be opened

What in the world do you mean by pick up a history book when you are talking about not living in a country that believes in God and I am saying you do?

Sorry my eyes must be closed here, but I don't see what the hell you are trying to say here....

I understand if you all of a sudden just found out that the USA believes in God and don't know what to say, but if you are trying to defend your stance somehow I would appreciate an explanation because I have no clue what you are trying to defend from the above statement...

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: NavyDoc

Sorry you have the right to be a bigot, racist, or any other adjective in your own home, but in public there are rules.

When does my private business become "public?" Do you pay for it's upkeep? Taxes on it? Own shares. Again--a leftist principle: we want to tell you what to do so we declare your private business public.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

originally posted by: intrepid
In some Red states that might actually make sense.

You're saying Blue states don't have their own prejudices that disenfranchise people that don't "fit in" even if they aren't hurting anyone?

Nope. I'm saying that in some Red(religious) states that they would rather see the gay population move. If not, starve them. Screw them. THAT'S what I'm saying. How Christian.

And you really don't have any evidence to support that other than preconceived notions, do you?

Just read the news and the blogs dude. I'm not saying all people there but the vocal minority do make a noise.