The hypocrisy of those against the proposed AZ law (regarding gays)

reply to post by benrl


If we have to have a government it may as well serve what one of it's original purposes was even though it failed miserably at the start, and that's to ensure that the rights of all the people are protected.

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

www.legalzoom.com...

reply to post by doubletap


It was quite serious. You are aware that guns shoot projectiles that can and do cause death. You are also aware, I assume, that people are not always the smartest or most rational creatures around? Even Wyatt Earp declared Dodge City to be a gun free zone, because he knew that people were not always the altruistic, wise individuals you seem to think they are. Granted, usually, a responsible gun owner is not likely to be a danger, but I worked in a mountain bar for several years, and the cowboys up there loved nothing more than getting drunk and they all had guns in their trucks. More than once they drank too much whiskey and decided to express their anger about something or someone by shooting one off. Thankfully drunks make bad shots but do NOT tell me that bringing a gun into a business does not make it a more dangerous situation than it was without any guns present. Last time I checked no one got shot by a gun that wasn't there.

I'd like to go the bank and ask for a million dollar loan.

If they refuse to give me the same interest rate as Oprah Winfrey, I'll sue them for discrimination.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


Heck, in the first year after our marriage, my husband and I were quite young and we were turned away from a hotel because they didn't want to rent us a room for the night. They didn't want a party, you see. They were quite open about that being their reason, too, as they turned us away. We had everything in order, too, to prove our respectability as a married couple.

If only we had known, we should have sued them for being ageist or something.

reply to post by Tusks

Should Halal and kosher butchers be forced to prepare/sell the pork I want?

No - because they don't sell pork

But, if for instance, you wanted lamb - and they refused to sell it to you because you're a Christian, then you might have a case

Nobody is forcing anybody to sell things or provide services they don't already sell or provide

It really couldn't be more simple - and your examples only show that you don't actually comprehend the problem

Or, something

I'd like to go the bank and ask for a million dollar loan.

If they refuse to give me the same interest rate as Oprah Winfrey, I'll sue them for discrimination.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


LOLZ....well....if you were worth $2.9 billion, as Oprah is, and they refused you...you might have a case.

But by all means...go for it. It would make a fantastic addition to the LOL bin. Let us know how it goes.

Well I think that the nipple at the super bowl was perverted, and many kids watch, so it was inappropriate on that level, not a religious one for me(I hate all religion too). I think that as long as people act right then the business should serve them, but for the ones who demand special attention, you know what to do. Just don't serve that particular person anymore. I'm all for freedom and rights, but when it comes to someone needing gas or something else bad, If they acted decent, I couldn't turn them away.

neo96
Oh and for the record.

People need to stop making the comparison of the LGBT community to African Americans,

Because that is an damn right insult to what the African community has endured since the end of slavery.

LGBT's were never slaves.

edit on 26-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I'm sure there were a few gay Slaves back in the day! Would go as far as to say at least 5% were. Are you speaking on behalf of the African Americans BTW?

reply to post by neo96

People need to stop making the comparison of the LGBT community to African Americans, Because that is an damn right insult to what the African community has endured since the end of slavery.

You can't have it both ways neo - discrimination is discrimination

You want points for defending the rights of African Americans, and recognizing all their hardship...but the angle you're supporting and selling in this thread would make it possible for us to go straight back to those times of segregation and open discrimination

You should be a little embarrassed about how many times you've brought up the plight of smokers in this thread

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Tusks

 

Should Halal and kosher butchers be forced to prepare/sell the pork I want?

No - because they don't sell pork

But, if for instance, you wanted lamb - and they refused to sell it to you because you're a Christian, then you might have a case

Nobody is forcing anybody to sell things or provide services they don't already sell or provide

It really couldn't be more simple - and your examples only show that you don't actually comprehend the problem

Or, something

I don't have much of a stance on this other than privately held businesses reserve the right to deny business to anyone at anytime for any reason. I don't go into a Muslim butcher and demand non-halal meat or I'll sue based on discrimination.

Going into a Bakery to order a wedding cake that is specifically designed by a Christian baker with two males or females celebrating gay marriage is forcing the proprietor of a PRIVATELY held business (I don't know why people keep calling these small businesses public) to violate their personal rights and provide an item that they do not offer nor agree with selling.

So, yes, people are forcing others to sell things or provide services that they don't already sell / provide.

I guess I don't see the reason why the public isn't using their "majority numbers" to boycott said places and run them out of business, free enterprise / market style. Nope, we must make them conform to our demands.

This is just another way to kill small businesses, IMO.

Peace.

doubletap

Disclaimer: I despise all religion and support this law for the simple reason of protecting the rights of the business owner. IMHO, those who believe a book of fairy tales belong in rubber rooms. I am not a "conservative", nor am I a "liberal". I have a very fond hatred for both groups.

I don't know why you don't just spit it out, you're a libertarian! Same as Ron & Rand Paul. I've heard their crazy asses spouting the very same archaic principles as you do in your OP. The same old Jim Crow bullsh#t of old, just with an expanded list of targets.

Just in case you also refuse to self-identify as a libertarian, might I suggest you take the time to start your own political movement? You could call it the "Planters" party and your slogan could be; "Nothing but mixed-nuts allowed."

Brewer did the right thing in vetoing this bill and anyone with an ounce of morality knows it! Furthermore, even members of her own party, who voted in favor of the bill, were now begging her to use her veto power to save them from themselves. Go figure!

Wow, what an absolute bunch of loons the "right" has become!

I find both sides of this argument to be puerile.

On one hand, you have people upset about private business owners banning homosexuals from their stores. Oh well. Stop complaining about it. They have as much right to boycott customers as customers do to boycott their store. It's a free country -- they can ban whoever they want. It's not a good idea or a well thought out business plan, but more power to them.

On the other hand, while I have no complaints about business owners picking and choosing who they serve, I do have a major complaint about it being a religious issue. For a religion that worships a guy that hung around with thieves, prostitutes, lepers, and other elements of society that were generally recognized as "untouchable", Christians sure are stingy with that "love of god" they always talk about. Love your neighbour as yourself. Judge not lest you be judged. Don't point out the speck in your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own. These are words the namesake of your religion spoke -- and you choose to throw them all out the window for two -- maybe three obscure verses in the bible, just because they fit your narrow world view. That's really sad.

Lastly, for the love of god -- it's 2014. We've been through segregation. We've been through widespread racism and hatred. Throughout the years, we have oppressed blacks, asians, native americans, muslims, jews, mexicans, and others south of the border. Now we persecute the gays. Have we learned nothing? When will this end? Are we going to have to go through several more years of segregation? Are we going to have to make some sort of compromise that gay marriage is only equivalent to ... let's say ... three-fifths of a straight marriage? Then when that's over, who will we oppress next?

It's about time we all sat down at that great table of brotherhood, shared a humble pie, and got over ourselves. This mindset needs to end. Now.

reply to post by doubletap


I thought discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexuality was illegal?

This seems pretty clear cut though you seem to be obscuring the core issue with your loquacious and possibly baiting OP.

If someone wants to open a business to just family and friends (or private club), fine, they can do what they want.

As soon as it is open to the public (in general I add though which is redundant), any form of discrimination is illegal.

Is that concept so difficult?

reply to post by scolai


It seems as though both yourself and the OP are making the argument that business owners currently have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I think you are sadly mistaken in your narrow interpretation of current anti-discrimination laws.

I think the law, (at least in most states and at the federal level) says that "you have the right to refuse service to anyone." What it doesn't say is that you have the right to do so for any reason. Furthermore, it doesn't say that you have the right to refuse service to an entire class of individuals.

For instance, why don't you just try putting a sign in your window that states "we don't serve blacks" or "we don't serve gays" or "we don't serve muslims" and see how long it is before your business is owned by one of those you've chosen to discriminate against. At the very least, you'll find yourself spending huge sums of money in futile attempts to defend your ludicrous discriminatory business practices.

Also, let's take this further, what kind of frigging society would we have if even a smaller percentage of businesses discriminated against possible customers based on race, religion, gender, sexuality? Honestly, this is one of the most imbecilic things I have heard about in a while.

If you were an African Jew you would need a list of what local shops would welcome you and which would not, oh, I wonder if I can shop at that Kroger? I know the Menards down the street doesn't accept my kind.

I really feel disappointed in my fellow citizens that we even need to have this discussion, there are thousands of better things to talk about!

If you have such a hard-on for discrimination go join the KKK or something like that so you can live out your Aryan fundamentalist fantasies.

Flatfish
reply to post by scolai

 

It seems as though both yourself and the OP are making the argument that business owners currently have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I think you are sadly mistaken in your narrow interpretation of current anti-discrimination laws.

I think the law, (at least in most states and at the federal level) says that "you have the right to refuse service to anyone." What it doesn't say is that you have the right to do so for any reason. Furthermore, it doesn't say that you have the right to refuse service to an entire class of individuals.

For instance, why don't you just try putting a sign in your window that states "we don't serve blacks" or "we don't serve gays" or "we don't serve muslims" and see how long it is before your business is owned by one of those you've chosen to discriminate against. At the very least, you'll find yourself spending huge sums of money in futile attempts to defend your ludicrous discriminatory business practices.

edit on 27-2-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

YES, THIS IS SO CLEAR-CUT!

A business can refuse someone if they are not wearing a shirt, drunk, antagonizing other customers or staff, etc.

A business cannot refuse someone if they are a woman, white, or short ETC.

IF YOU DON'T FRIGGING GET THIS YOU NEED TO REPEAT GRADE 3!!!!!

reply to post by Flatfish


I'm glad to see that you stopped reading my post after the first paragraph and all you got out of it was how incredibly wrong I am.

reply to post by doubletap

The simple fact of the matter is that government has no Constitutional power to dictate who I do business with, or in this case, refuse to do business with.

Yes it does. I would suggest that you read the 14th amendment sometime and you will see that you are wrong.

QUANTUMGR4V17Y

I don't have much of a stance on this other than privately held businesses reserve the right to deny business to anyone at anytime for any reason.

Could you please provide a single state or federal statute that includes the wording; "for any reason."

You do not have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. That's a flat out lie!

If you think you do, then prove it. Show us the statute!

scolai
reply to post by Flatfish

 

I'm glad to see that you stopped reading my post after the first paragraph and all you got out of it was how incredibly wrong I am.

As nutty as it was, you can rest assured that I read the whole thing.

On the other hand, at least you were able to comprehend that I do believe you to be incredibly wrong and I can only hope that you didn't miss the part where I inferred that you were incredibly NUTS as well.