Right to refuse service?

[Lovelife090994]

This can go towards any country but since I am not acquainted with the laws of numerous countries across the globe as I am with mine and its public opinion the thread will be based on an American viewpoint.

The question is, "Should companies private/public have the right to refuse service to people based on the client's sexual orientation?"

In America most people would say yes, especially when it comes to the cake debate of a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because the client's ways go against the proprietors' religious ideals. I question how this is sound logic since no one would want them to do this towards race since in some beliefs just being of another tribe is warrant enough to be refused. In American history this has been done with Jim Crow laws and reinforcement of slavery. "It goes against my beliefs therefore I don't have to serve it." The White Only shops were made due to thinking like this. The idea that you can refuse to serve someone based on their differences to you usually backed up by religious beliefs.

In America private companies can be religious yet cannot discriminate unless the clients are of another sexuality. I say this because whenever it happens no one seems to care and the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on this issue; as seeing how the LGBT are unprotected. But this isn't about the LGBT alone but whether or not companies should be allowed to refuse service to anyone. The point of business is to profit on your services offered to the public. And while most would say to go somewhere else, would we say this if the reason for refusal was racial? No we would not because it could be a slippery slope but that is the problem. Now I am aware that people may say, "Well, what if I wanted a gay bakery to bake a cake saying 'Fags go to Hell' by law they have to serve me." By law they have to serve you, yes, but that phrase's purpose is for hate speech, spreads hatred, and hate speech is against the law. They have to bake the cake, but they wouldn't be allowed to sell that anyway since it supports discriminatory views and hate speech.

When does this stop? Where do we draw the line. Should a company be allowed to kick me out of their store simply because I wear a pentacle or am openly Pagan? This being America I have the right to do both. So... why can I theoretically be kicked out for something like that? Or a better example what if I was kicked out for being openly homosexual? Unlike religion being homosexual is no choice. So is that allowed or should it be? Should we turn a blind eye whenever LGBT citizens who pay taxes and have rights as well are discriminated simply for their sexuality? This is worse in my opinion since anyone can be LGBT regardless of color and creed so by discriminating against the LGBT we now allow discrimination against anyone in the name of religion for companies. But why? Not everyone lives by the same religion. Even if America were 99% Christian does that mean we now can discriminate against the 1% that isn't and that the 1% should live a life based on the laws of a majority religion even though this 1% does not follow it?

I think most of can agree that discrimination is pointless and ludicrous. If so why is it allowed in business?

[Babs]

I'm very mixed on this subject.
On one hand, I don't want to support discrimination based upon sexual orientation. On the other hand, the right to refuse service isn't necessarily something the government should interfere with, in my opinion. So I'm conflicted.
The state i live in recently passed a law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay people. Not sure if someone can legally refuse service to straight people. Basically my stance is either allow people to refuse service to both gay and straight people, or neither. Though I may be persuaded to think otherwise based on the other replies in this thread.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm very mixed on this subject.
On one hand, I don't want to support discrimination based upon sexual orientation. On the other hand, the right to refuse service isn't necessarily something the government should interfere with, in my opinion. So I'm conflicted.
The state i live in recently passed a law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay people. Not sure if someone can legally refuse service to straight people. Basically my stance is either allow people to refuse service to both gay and straight people, or neither. Though I may be persuaded to think otherwise based on the other replies in this thread.

For now I don't think we should tolerate any discrimination especially on things no one can change.

[Typhlosion]

Nay. On the same view of the Civil Rights, businesses should not have any right to discriminate against any client solely on their race or sexuality. Allowing them to do so sets us one huge step back from the direction of acceptance (whether you like it or not) of different mindsets. There are still racists out there, but their numbers have thankfully diminished. I'm going to further push my opinion to include religious organizations, which both are funded by a (laic) state and also provides services for the population.

We are all human, after all.

[Babs]

For now I don't think we should tolerate any discrimination especially on things no one can change.

I think you're right.
My belief that the government shouldn't be TOO involved in private businesses/lives conflicts with my other views on LGBT politics involving the right to refuse service, but after thinking about it further, you may be right.

[Lovelife090994]

I think you're right.
My belief that the government shouldn't be TOO involved in private businesses/lives conflicts with my other views on LGBT politics involving the right to refuse service, but after thinking about it further, you may be right.


By that logic slavery would not have been stopped and integration would never be around in the Southern US because I would take government intervention to stop it. When injustice happens and the majority wants to inhibit the minority then the government must be involved to enforce the US Constitution.

[Babs]

By that logic slavery would not have been stopped and integration would never be around in the Southern US because I would take government intervention to stop it. When injustice happens and the majority wants to inhibit the minority then the government must be involved to enforce the US Constitution.

Slavery isn't really comparable to not selling me a pizza because I'm gay, but I get your point.
Obviously the government has to be involved to a certain extent.

[Lovelife090994]

Slavery isn't really comparable to not selling me a pizza because I'm gay, but I get your point.
Obviously the government has to be involved to a certain extent.

I wasn't comparing... English comprehension 101, a comparison mentions both situations, I mentioned one. I meant how the government sometimes needs to step up.

[Babs]

I wasn't comparing... English comprehension 101, a comparison mentions both situations, I mentioned one. I meant how the government sometimes needs to step up.

My bad. What I mean is, the two are entirely different situations and they don't work well in analogy together.

[Microcosm]

At first, I considered putting mixed opinion for this.

However, I went down and read the comments and I think it is best for the world in general if we just go ahead and make it illegal. It sets a trend and just forces people to not discriminate which sounds bad, but it really isn't.

I think it might be one of those "inalienable rights." This is particularly because, in most cases, the people who are of a certain race, gender, sexuality, etc. can't choose to be any different than they are. So, it would be pretty crazy to deny them service based on something they have no control over. Of course, I personally believe that many homosexuals and such actually do have a choice on whether they will be gay or not(not most, but many), but I digress.

There is one other point I want to make, though. I think it would be reasonable for the law to decree something like this: An individual shall not be denied service or employment by any privately owned business, company, or federal agency based upon their gender, sexuality, race, or religion unless the individual is causing a profound or illegal disturbance which can be related to these characteristics.

Basically what that last part is saying is that if, for instance, a male homosexual walks into a store wearing a bright pink crop top that doesn't fit him and a pink skirt and he's prancing around the store screaming to everyone that he is gay, then he can be denied service. If the person will not act in a civilized manner and the manner in which they are acting is offensive to the store employees/owner and/or customers and is a disruption, then and only then may they be denied service.

Beyond obvious scenarios in which this would be a problem, the individual would be eligible to take the owner or employee who has denied him/her service to court. If this is the case, then it would be up to a jury to decide whether what he did or how he acted was offensive, illegal, or outright disruptive.

I hope that all made sense. If you find that any of my points here do not make sense, let me know. I'm not crazy educated on the law or how it is set up, but this was my go at it.

This plan outlined above would also pretty much only work in the U.S. or some country similar to it, I think.

[Uniquemind]

I think completely private companies can deny service to whomever for whatever reasons provided that they are purely privately funded with no public help in their auditing in any way shape or form including them NOT taking any public tax credits/grants/legal leverage offered to them.


This usually is not wise to their bottom line given that most will give the revenue from those they turn away to their competition, but YES they have that right.

When it comes to public entities or any business that accepts some sort of public help, good, or service, then no I don't believe they have the right to deny service, except on the basis of the business being closed according to holiday or normal operating hour schedules.

Ex: the business closes at 9:30pm, a customer wants service but arrives at 9:45pm > the business can deny them service because they are closed.


Also if a customer is behaving badly, to the point where they are upsetting other customers, then a business can deny service to that person and have them removed from the premises.



However no business, private or public, can cite race, age,( in some cases depending on State and local law sexual orientation), disability, or religion as a reason for denying service. In some states sexual orientation can be a reason for denying service.


If a private business wants to deny service to someone, they must state they are denying service to that person(s), for a valid vague reason that's fair across the board.

---


As for the hate speech cake remarks, as an absolute you aren't denying them service, you are just limiting the kind of service you ARE offering to anybody (any potential customer), and so therefore it is not discriminatory.

---

Also to clarify a point, I don't believe businesses CAN have a religious point of view, because no business has a soul and therefore cannot worship God.


Business's sole intention is to put profit above EVERYTHING else, including public safety, any safety policies promoting safety have to be justified that such policies will attract customers because of said safety policy, and they do that with money being the sole motivator.

The Christian/Catholic/Judaism/Islamic faiths say that nothing can be more important than God, and business putting profit above all else, violates this tenant.

[Syzygy]

----

[Lovelife090994]

Private businesses should be able to deny service to anybody for any reason they want. Probably wouldn't be good for business, but is still a freedom they should have.

So if they want to be racist you defend that? That breaks the 14th amendment!

[Stronk Serb]

There should be a valid reason. The 'I hate faggots/niggers/Christians/Martians/etc. so I refuse to serve them' reason doesn't count. If the person refused service has commited illegal acts against the firm, owner or employee, then the person can be refused servuce

[Uniquemind]

So if they want to be racist you defend that? That breaks the 14th amendment!

No it doesn't the 14th amendment is equal protection under the law or from public entities who are sustained from taxes which people pay into with the understanding they get something out of those services.




Private entities are private, they just can't do anything criminal, but there is no law and can be no law forcing private entities or individuals from expressing their first amendment right of who they want to do business with and who they do not.

Logistics forces most businesses to accept all business revenue in the face of competition, but logistics of the economy alone force that fairness, not law.


---

Also semi-relatedly, and contrary to popular belief, the customer is not always right.


The customer is right 90% of the time, and then the other 10% of the time the law or business policy is right or the customer misunderstood a sale's terms.



---



IMPORTANT EDIT:

I WAS WRONG!

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance



That blog-legal post does a better job and corrects my initial assumption regarding this issue.

Looks like in regards to sexual orientation it depends on State Law.

Any policy used to refuse service must be broad and consistent to everybody. Except for those protected by a certain class federally.

However it is very hard to gather evidence to prove you were discriminated against especially since those accused of something don't have to incriminate themselves due to the 5th amendment.



An example of this is that say your 60 applying for a job in the high tech industry, you've got the education, more experience, than a 25 year old competing for the same job. At age 60 your body doesn't move as fast, your eyesight is poorer due to your age, compared to the 25 year old guy.

You don't perform as well at the job DUE TO the affects of aging in the interview and trials of potentially getting hired.

That's a VALID reason for them hiring a 25 year old over a 60 year old, because they can successfully argue it wasn't calendar age, but rather job performance that was the deciding factor. (Albeit age caused indirectly the problems for that lower performance).

[Dortmund]

Let's just use common sense here. To not serve someone based upon their religion, race, colour, background or sexuality is stupid.

We're not in the 1900's anymore, we live in a multicultural society and the idea that people are refused service over that is petty.

Having worked in retail I've only ever refused to serve two customers. One of which was attempting to smoke weed as he bought his items and another who had tried (he didn't manage to) to beat me up as I was walking home from my other job the previous evening (I had the last laugh as he had a black eye).

Have a valid reason for not serving someone or simply don't work in retail, it's simple.

[Uniquemind]

Let's just use common sense here. To not serve someone based upon their religion, race, colour, background or sexuality is stupid.

We're not in the 1900's anymore, we live in a multicultural society and the idea that people are refused service over that is petty.

Having worked in retail I've only ever refused to serve two customers. One of which was attempting to smoke weed as he bought his items and another who had tried (he didn't manage to) to beat me up as I was walking home from my other job the previous evening (I had the last laugh as he had a black eye).

Have a valid reason for not serving someone or simply don't work in retail, it's simple.

It's interesting though.


I've heard cases where a transgender customer entered a restaurant and their mere presence upset other paying patrons, to the point where the business manager was caught between losing the business of his transgender customer versus his other customer who was upset an establishment served someone transgender.

In that context because it's a business fear of losing revenue, I don't know what the law says in this case.

I assume if a majority of other customers threaten to take their business elsewhere unless the business denies service to another guest, that detail alone might make it legal discrimination on the grounds of upsetting other customers, provided other customers can go on record to say they were the origin of pressure upon a business owner.


It's a really legalese issue with loopholes like I've just pointed out.

[Living For Love]

Private businesses should be able to deny service to anybody for any reason they want. Probably wouldn't be good for business, but is still a freedom they should have.
Agreed. Public services should follow government rules, though.

[fairmaiden]

I personally disagree with the ''right to refuse'' legislation, due to the fact that it appears to be centred on refusing people based on their sexual orientation. If it was to do with refusing people for a valid reason, then fine, but the legislation seems discriminatory to me.

Public businesses (owned/funded by the government) definitely should not be allowed to refuse people based on their sexual orientation.

As for private businesses; I still completely disagree with the legislation, but if they want to be ridiculous, let them.

Gay/bi/trans people are born that way, so why vilify them for something they can't change?

[phuckphace]

how would they even know you're gay unless you prance in the door with a dildo in your gob

seriously it's not like businesses have a scanner at the front door that'll set off the gay alarm and summon security. here's an idea, behave/dress/carry yourself like a normal person and they'll be none the wiser

signed, a queer who goes to Chic-fil-A and Hobby Lobby every now and then & has yet to be caught

[Uniquemind]

I personally disagree with the ''right to refuse'' legislation, due to the fact that it appears to be centred on refusing people based on their sexual orientation. If it was to do with refusing people for a valid reason, then fine, but the legislation seems discriminatory to me.

Public businesses (owned/funded by the government) definitely should not be allowed to refuse people based on their sexual orientation.

As for private businesses; I still completely disagree with the legislation, but if they want to be ridiculous, let them.

Gay/bi/trans people are born that way, so why vilify them for something they can't change?

Unfortunately it's because of that last statement not being believed by all or proven by science yet regarding why gender identity and sexual orientation are even established in a person during development.

Choice Vs programmed by birth that way is still a debate.


It's because federally sexual orientation isn't a protected class that allows for this type of discrimination.

There are some lines of thought that if pressured by society enough, they'll make efforts to change with God's help. (That's what I think is going on when businesses discriminate like this)

Sexual orientation and gender identity also is not a visual que usually so that makes it hard for some people to understand as well.

[fairmaiden]

Unfortunately it's because of that last statement not being believed by all or proven by science yet regarding why gender identity and sexual orientation are even established in a person during development.

Choice Vs programmed by birth that way is still a debate.


It's because federally sexual orientation isn't a protected class that allows for this type of discrimination.

There are some lines of thought that if pressured by society enough, they'll make efforts to change with God's help. (That's what I think is going on when businesses discriminate like this)

Sexual orientation and gender identity also is not a visual que usually so that makes it hard for some people to understand as well.
I see exactly what you mean. I always hear stories of people sending their kids to ''gay reversal camp'' in the hope that their child is going to magically come back as a heterosexual. The whole situation is quite sad really.

[Uniquemind]

I see exactly what you mean. I always hear stories of people sending their kids to ''gay reversal camp'' in the hope that their child is going to magically come back as a heterosexual. The whole situation is quite sad really.

You know some research is coming out to suggest that the part of development that forms or controls attraction, and perhaps gender identity has to do with synthentic and chemical hormone pollution from industry (processed foods, makeup, etc.), and that's partly responsible in the uptick of more and more people identifying as bi-sexual, gay, or having health issues like having allergy sensitivities, and also contributing to anti-bacterial resistance for diseases.

All of these could be valid explanations for all of these outcomes. Science has also already proven even in the womb, there are tons of chemical and abnormal hormones being exposed to developing human embryos and fetuses.


Maybe it's having an affect...

[DriveAlive]

You know some research is coming out to suggest that the part of development that forms or controls attraction, and perhaps gender identity has to do with synthentic and chemical hormone pollution from industry (processed foods, makeup, etc.), and that's partly responsible in the uptick of more and more people identifying as bi-sexual, gay, or having health issues like having allergy sensitivities, and also contributing to anti-bacterial resistance for diseases.

All of these could be valid explanations for all of these outcomes. Science has also already proven even in the womb, there are tons of chemical and abnormal hormones being exposed to developing human embryos and fetuses.


Maybe it's having an affect...
I truly hope that none of that is true. To me, I would find it offensive and insanely hurtful to the LGBTQ movement to be labeled as the product of a mental abnormality caused by pollution. A better explanation for this "uptick" in people identifying as not straight is probably that its the first time in history where you won't be completely and utterly ostracized or even killed for doing so.

[Uniquemind]

I truly hope that none of that is true. To me, I would find it offensive and insanely hurtful to the LGBTQ movement to be labeled as the product of a mental abnormality caused by pollution. A better explanation for this "uptick" in people identifying as not straight is probably that its the first time in history where you won't be completely and utterly ostracized or even killed for doing so.


One should not be ridiculed period.


But the science is the science and some of that claims or links from certain chemicals already impacting animals (like frogs, fish) are showing errors in development in terms of not forming complete male or female genitalia that they are supposed to be there at their stage of development.


Again like I've said in other conversations, anything biological is very machine like and the right hormones and neurotransmitters and DNA codons need to be read and transcribed correctly otherwise you get outcome X instead of outcome Y or a mix of X-Y.


Now whatever science says, that does NOT give the society the right to ridicule or kill or hurt those afflicted with the condition.

I was afraid the way I worded my last post, would be interpreted the way you read into it, and I want to separate biology darwinism, from social darwinism and other ideals that have shaped societies rating systems of true value (religions for example).

[Danny_boi 16]

I say no discrimination on any grounds. A religion is not enough to violate morality, justice, and the law of a nation state. Either comply with the law of a nation or try to change it trough the political/legal process, or leave the nation all together.

[Uniquemind]

I say no discrimination on any grounds. A religion is not enough to violate morality, justice, and the law of a nation state. Either comply with the law of a nation or try to change it trough the political/legal process, or leave the nation all together.

Problem is the line that gets used of "GTFO of the nation and go elsewhere" is that practically there really is nowhere else to on the physical Planet Earth that meets one's ideal living environment 100%.

America really is the most free in theory.

The problem is boundaries and perception of when one has the right to feel infringed upon, via the mere presence and fact that they don't rule the world.

[Sir Suomi]

I say yes, and I'll provide an example on why businesses should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please

Let's say there are 2 bakeries in the town of Example.

The first bakery, Bakery A, is ran by a man who thinks that people who wear green shirts are dirty heathens, and refuses to serve anyone who comes in with a green shirt. This is his right, seeing as he manages the store by himself, that he should be able to do with his business as he pleases.

Bakery B, on the other hand, is ran by a man who doesn't care on what color of shirt you wear, as long as you pay for his service.

So now, we run into the situation where Bakery A receives no business from anyone who wears green shirts, while Bakery B begins to receive business from those who wear green shirts, giving him an edge over Bakery A.

And that's not all. People have heard that Bakery A refuses to serve people who wear green shirts, and soon begin boycotting Bakery A for basically being a dick (Which he has every right to be), and soon Bakery A receives no more business. Bakery A can no longer sustain itself, and is forced to close down. Meanwhile, Bakery B is now receiving more business since it's rival is no longer able to compete. Bakery B can now expand it's business, hiring more employees, adding more tax money into the local economy, and generally having a positive influence on the region.

It's economics people.

[Danny_boi 16]

Problem is the line that gets used of "GTFO of the nation and go elsewhere" is that practically there really is nowhere else to on the physical Planet Earth that meets one's ideal living environment 100%.

America really is the most free in theory.

The problem is boundaries and perception of when one has the right to feel infringed upon, via the mere presence and fact that they don't rule the world.

If people want to live in a theocracy, a nation governed by religion, I recommend Iran or the Vatican. It's all well and good to be an American and to experience freedom. But everyone has to know and respect that their freedom ends where mine begins, and vis versa. I seems hard to know when you are infringing on other people's rights. But it really isn't. Just look at the Civil Rights acts, supreme court rulings, and the bill of rights.

[Microcosm]

I say yes, and I'll provide an example on why businesses should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please

Let's say there are 2 bakeries in the town of Example.

The first bakery, Bakery A, is ran by a man who thinks that people who wear green shirts are dirty heathens, and refuses to serve anyone who comes in with a green shirt. This is his right, seeing as he manages the store by himself, that he should be able to do with his business as he pleases.

Bakery B, on the other hand, is ran by a man who doesn't care on what color of shirt you wear, as long as you pay for his service.

So now, we run into the situation where Bakery A receives no business from anyone who wears green shirts, while Bakery B begins to receive business from those who wear green shirts, giving him an edge over Bakery A.

And that's not all. People have heard that Bakery A refuses to serve people who wear green shirts, and soon begin boycotting Bakery A for basically being a dick (Which he has every right to be), and soon Bakery A receives no more business. Bakery A can no longer sustain itself, and is forced to close down. Meanwhile, Bakery B is now receiving more business since it's rival is no longer able to compete. Bakery B can now expand it's business, hiring more employees, adding more tax money into the local economy, and generally having a positive influence on the region.

It's economics people.

While this is true, it kind of avoids the fact that discrimination is widely believed to be fundamentally wrong in today's society. The reason it should be illegal(at least to some degree), in my opinion of course, is because discrimination holds society back from moving forward.

Yes, perhaps it does infringe on people's "right" to serve whoever they please, but the moral effect of it being illegal is much more important than the economic effect.

Also, let's analyze that economic effect. When the government makes it illegal to deny someone service based on such factors as religion, race, etc., then they are actually helping that local business based on the economic effect of discrimination you have outlined above. The reason it helps them is because it protects them from themselves in a way by keeping them from losing business.

So, either way it's good that it's illegal.

[Uniquemind]

I say yes, and I'll provide an example on why businesses should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please

Let's say there are 2 bakeries in the town of Example.

The first bakery, Bakery A, is ran by a man who thinks that people who wear green shirts are dirty heathens, and refuses to serve anyone who comes in with a green shirt. This is his right, seeing as he manages the store by himself, that he should be able to do with his business as he pleases.

Bakery B, on the other hand, is ran by a man who doesn't care on what color of shirt you wear, as long as you pay for his service.

So now, we run into the situation where Bakery A receives no business from anyone who wears green shirts, while Bakery B begins to receive business from those who wear green shirts, giving him an edge over Bakery A.

And that's not all. People have heard that Bakery A refuses to serve people who wear green shirts, and soon begin boycotting Bakery A for basically being a dick (Which he has every right to be), and soon Bakery A receives no more business. Bakery A can no longer sustain itself, and is forced to close down. Meanwhile, Bakery B is now receiving more business since it's rival is no longer able to compete. Bakery B can now expand it's business, hiring more employees, adding more tax money into the local economy, and generally having a positive influence on the region.

It's economics people.

This economic example of competition doesn't work in oligopolies where regional monopolies exist however.

There comes a point where only a few giant companies are left to choose from and the customer gets screwed if such the concept of right to refuse service exists.


For example cable companies...exorbitant rate charges, having data transference dominance on any other smaller company that depends on the tech, + abuse of the patent system preventing startup companies from competing as threats.

It's a main reason Google Fiber isn't out yet, despite being a superior technology.


Again like I said in other threads we've reached a pinnacle of how far the founding father's rights and John Locke's theories can take us.

This generation must take us even further beyond to patch the loopholes the previous intellectual revolution failed at, with respect to the horrors witnessed in the 20th and 21st centuries.

[Sir Suomi]

While this is true, it kind of avoids the fact that discrimination is widely believed to be fundamentally wrong in today's society.

Which is exactly why most businesses these days wouldn't even dream of doing it. With today's social media spreading stories like wildfire (granted they normally jump to conclusions BIG TIME) unfair discrimination would basically wreck a company's reputation, and cost them in the long run.

The reason it should be illegal(at least to some degree), in my opinion of course, is because discrimination holds society back from moving forward.


I'll agree that discrimination is something that should be frowned upon, forcing people to accept others defeats the purpose in our current world. Most people who still hold these views are beginning to age out of the system while the newer more open generation is coming to replace them. Anti-Discrimination laws were helpful during the Civil Rights movement, but in today's world they're not needed and do more harm than good in cases.

Yes, perhaps it does infringe on people's "right" to serve whoever they please, but the moral effect of it being illegal is much more important than the economic effect.

And see, that's why I disagree. As a business owner, I should be able to do with my business as I see fit. Maybe there is a reason I don't like people who wear green shirts. Maybe on average they are more disrespectful, don't always pay for services, or some other negative incident has occurred that makes me not like those who wear green shirts.

Also, let's analyze that economic effect. When the government makes it illegal to deny someone service based on such factors as religion, race, etc., then they are actually helping that local business based on the economic effect of discrimination you have outlined above. The reason it helps them is because it protects them from themselves in a way by keeping them from losing business.

This is my personal opinion, but really government should have little to do with the private sector. Now I do agree that these measures should be in governmental-related businesses, I think that the more the government dips into the economy, the worse it gets. I mean hell you've got the government giving companies money that can't ever repay them, because they're a failing industry. There's no use in trying to try and dump water out of a boat that's almost underwater.

[phuckphace]

so let me get this straight, if we give companies the right to refuse service, all those giant Christian bigot cable oligopolies will refuse to serve homosexuals and then the poor oppressed gays won't get to watch Modern Family on the telescreen. yes we should definitely devote our energies to prevent this outrage

in real life corporations love gays as a demographic because they tend to spend disproportionate amounts of money on the latest trendy fashion & designer whatever, and being prone to narcissism they like to make sure their consumption is as highly visible as possible (free advertising!) for every company that expresses some vague Christian ethics you've got 200 other companies who will happily take your money no questions asked

[Abyssal Echo]

I'm sure this is going to get me a lot of hate, but quite frankly, I don't give a fuck. I'm tired of hearing about all this petty Bull Shit!

Where I used to live in Cali most stores I went into had a large sign on the wall behind the cash register that said:
"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" and another sign on the door that said: "No Shoes No Shirt No Service"
Obviously these statements did not discriminate and I believe it covers ANYONE and EVERYONE regardless of what race, religion, and/or sexual preference you are.

[Uniquemind]

I don't think anybody read the link I provided to a blog that really broke down the legal nuances of it.


It's about refusing service consistently.


Businesses (private) have the right to enforce consistent refusal policies other than outside the protected classes.


No shoes, no shirt, no service is a legal policy.


If someone smells extremely offensive a business can tell them to leave.


If a customer's making a scene and has an attitude problem and isn't behaving like a "guest" should in a business, management or owners of that business can ask them to leave.


I would like to engage Patton in a bit more one on one debate though. The most logical (not opinionated) argument wins.


---

Another example of regional monopolies are hospitals.

Hence why abortion services aren't offered with easier access since the Catholic Church owns a lot of those services within easier economic distance.




Deleted.

[Bull]

discrimination toward anyone with whom you do not agree, wheather it be orientation, race, religious affiliation, political party, language group, etc. is just wrong. On the issue of sexual orientation it seems to be a major "Christian" orientation trying to say they have a religious "right" to discriminate. I am a born again Christian who would remind my fellow believers of the Biblical injunction to " do unto others as you would that they do to you" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself". Come on folks, your neighbor could have a different color skin, different political affiliation, different sexual orientation. There is no loop hole, no exception, just straight forward "love your neighbor". And to the misguided folks at the Westboro Baptist Church, I love you while I abhor your actions of hate and pray that you will turn toward Jesus's love and go forward and hate no more.

[Uniquemind]

discrimination toward anyone with whom you do not agree, wheather it be orientation, race, religious affiliation, political party, language group, etc. is just wrong. On the issue of sexual orientation it seems to be a major "Christian" orientation trying to say they have a religious "right" to discriminate. I am a born again Christian who would remind my fellow believers of the Biblical injunction to " do unto others as you would that they do to you" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself". Come on folks, your neighbor could have a different color skin, different political affiliation, different sexual orientation. There is no loop hole, no exception, just straight forward "love your neighbor". And to the misguided folks at the Westboro Baptist Church, I love you while I abhor your actions of hate and pray that you will turn toward Jesus's love and go forward and hate no more.

The problem and common counter to that when you say that to their face.

(And I am bold enough to say that to someone's face publicly on the spot)

Is that when you tell them to place themselves in the other person's shoes their incapable of doing that objectively.

They always respond with "well I'd try harder to change with my faith in the first place so I could and wouldn't be in this person's place" or "I work hard so I would never be in the same economic poor position they're in".


This has been proven too by brain science looking at the brains responses that control empathy and sympathy and processing abstract thoughts and then measured that against which political party they identified with.