djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,144
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 15, 2015 8:22:07 GMT -5
No. Discrimination in the context we are using it here requires an unjust or prejudicial component to the denial.
this always creates confusion in conversations about discrimination. that is probably because there is a trivial sense that this word is used: distinguishing between two or more things. taken in this sense, human beings are veritable discrimination machines. it is literally about all we do with our waking lives. it is ONLY when this discrimination results in harm to others that discrimination becomes a social problem. and that is where the law steps in to prohibit it- for without that, surely, people would revert to their MO's. edit: so, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against a non-protected class. and it is perfectly moral to do so when no harm is done to a non consenting other's person or property. in fact, it is totally natural.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 13:28:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 8:34:25 GMT -5
No. Discrimination in the context we are using it here requires an unjust or prejudicial component to the denial. It would be selectively denying services to one group of persons while not denying another group for the same "offense." In this case, if (as a rule) white students were expelled while black students were not, or males while females were not. The actual term that should be used here is consequences. Actions have consequences, and those by themselves absent other factors cannot be discriminatory.
In the bakery case, there was no justifiable reason for the discriminatory behavior. Denial was based solely on the opinion of the denier, not as a result of any action by the denied. I will grant that if the couple had actually engaged in sex on the floor of the bakery the owner would have been justified in having them removed, but in the actual case they did nothing to warrant being denied.
It occurred to me on reading this that we may have a disconnect resulting from interpretation of the language used. Let me clarify. When I suggested that the students would not be disciplined for racist comments while on their own time and unaffiliated with the University, I thought it clear that I was referring to general racist comments. The University is concerned here because of the reference to what is apparently standard practice or belief at the fraternity, which IS associated with the university. I will concede that the same song would engender the same response no matter where it occurred, due to the relationship of the fraternity to the university, but that is not the context in which I made the comparison. Also of note, and precisely because of this case, other chapters of that fraternity at other universities are now under scrutiny because of this case. This is far beyond simple name-calling or moral repugnance. Unless you think religious conviction justifies certain thinking and actions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 13:28:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 8:45:22 GMT -5
No, like I said, I can't get behind the idea of government censorship even in the case of hate speech. However, I'm not sure I consider a university the government in this case, and getting booted from the fraternity and the school seems like a just consequence of the hate speech in this particular case. College isn't a right. They didn't have their driver's license revoked, they weren't removed from voter rolls, they didn't have their citizenship revoked, etc. A public university decided to remove them from campus permanently as a result of their voluntary actions. I don't see government overreach in that, but I guess it's up to the courts to decide. You get booted from public universities for cheating, and cheating isn't illegal. Seems like the same deal to me. So if the university of Oklahoma is not government run, could they choose to be a religious school like Oral Roberts? I mean, if the school can restrict speech can they establish religion practice necessary to attend?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 11:05:26 GMT -5
No. Discrimination in the context we are using it here requires an unjust or prejudicial component to the denial. It would be selectively denying services to one group of persons while not denying another group for the same "offense." In this case, if (as a rule) white students were expelled while black students were not, or males while females were not. The actual term that should be used here is consequences. Actions have consequences, and those by themselves absent other factors cannot be discriminatory.
In the bakery case, there was no justifiable reason for the discriminatory behavior. Denial was based solely on the opinion of the denier, not as a result of any action by the denied. I will grant that if the couple had actually engaged in sex on the floor of the bakery the owner would have been justified in having them removed, but in the actual case they did nothing to warrant being denied.
The only difference here is in the immediacy of the behaviour. In the bakery case, we could consider the immoral behaviour to be any number of things--sodomy, engaging in a homosexual wedding, etc. The shop owners refused service on the basis that they had no desire to facilitate the immoral behaviour. If the immoral behaviour was racism, the direct equivalent in the UOK case would be the university refusing admission to a well-known and unrepentant racist hoping to improve his public speaking abilities. Personally I see no meaningful differences between discrimination based on what an individual intends to do in the next few minutes versus discrimination based on what an individual intends to do during the next few months. No. Discrimination in the context we are using it here requires an unjust or prejudicial component to the denial.
this always creates confusion in conversations about discrimination. that is probably because there is a trivial sense that this word is used: distinguishing between two or more things. taken in this sense, human beings are veritable discrimination machines. it is literally about all we do with our waking lives. it is ONLY when this discrimination results in harm to others that discrimination becomes a social problem. and that is where the law steps in to prohibit it- for without that, surely, people would revert to their MO's. edit: so, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against a non-protected class. and it is perfectly moral to do so when no harm is done to a non consenting other's person or property. in fact, it is totally natural. Right. Only... you may have missed the four pages of debate on whether racist bus chanties are protected free speech that may not serve as the basis for discrimination. That's the whole point of the discussion. If a mean song "results in harm to others" (apologies for the quotes, but emphasizing your criterion here) and this harm obviates its protection by free speech laws, you might as well not even have the laws. Drawing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban clearly "results in harm to others" in this day and age, hence that would be the next thing to go.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 11:21:52 GMT -5
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Seems to me that apples to apples would be violation of First Amendment rights in each case.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 12:38:10 GMT -5
No. Discrimination in the context we are using it here requires an unjust or prejudicial component to the denial. It would be selectively denying services to one group of persons while not denying another group for the same "offense." In this case, if (as a rule) white students were expelled while black students were not, or males while females were not. The actual term that should be used here is consequences. Actions have consequences, and those by themselves absent other factors cannot be discriminatory.
In the bakery case, there was no justifiable reason for the discriminatory behavior. Denial was based solely on the opinion of the denier, not as a result of any action by the denied. I will grant that if the couple had actually engaged in sex on the floor of the bakery the owner would have been justified in having them removed, but in the actual case they did nothing to warrant being denied.
It occurred to me on reading this that we may have a disconnect resulting from interpretation of the language used. Let me clarify. When I suggested that the students would not be disciplined for racist comments while on their own time and unaffiliated with the University, I thought it clear that I was referring to general racist comments. The University is concerned here because of the reference to what is apparently standard practice or belief at the fraternity, which IS associated with the university. I will concede that the same song would engender the same response no matter where it occurred, due to the relationship of the fraternity to the university, but that is not the context in which I made the comparison. Also of note, and precisely because of this case, other chapters of that fraternity at other universities are now under scrutiny because of this case. This is far beyond simple name-calling or moral repugnance. Unless you think religious conviction justifies certain thinking and actions. Religious conviction can justify whatever thinking you wish it to. It cannot justify whatever actions you wish it to. One of the hallmarks of America is that you can think whatever you want. For the most part you can also do whatever you want, subject to law. Laws are generally based on preventing harm or potential harm to others.
A business, open to the public, must serve the public by law. Absent any legitimate reason for removal from the premises a customer must be served. To not do so runs afoul of discrimination law, and rightly so. And no, "because I think they're icky" is not a legitimate business reason to refuse service. If one wants to refuse service to icky people, you can easily do so IF you run a private business not open to the public. But you cannot have it both ways. You either serve the public or you don't, and if you do you must serve ALL of it. Even the icky ones. That should not be a difficult concept. I am truly surprised that so many people have a problem with it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 12:49:32 GMT -5
That's fine, and also understandable. But that is not the same thing as allowing discriminatory actions. You (as the bakery owner) can think whatever you want about the couple. You can think that they are icky, and that their behavior is morally repugnant, but you cannot refuse them service on that basis. That is a violation of law, and it should be. Thoughts are protected. Actions are not.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 13:00:22 GMT -5
... You (as the bakery owner) can think whatever you want about the couple. You can think that they are icky, and that their behavior is morally repugnant, but you cannot refuse them service on that basis. That is a violation of law, and it should be. Thoughts are protected. Actions are not. I have a disagreement with the detail of the above. For me it is: You (as an individual) will think as you think. You (as an individual) can refuse service as you wish. An incorporated business must conform its behavior in accordance with the laws of the government that created it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 13:27:24 GMT -5
... You (as the bakery owner) can think whatever you want about the couple. You can think that they are icky, and that their behavior is morally repugnant, but you cannot refuse them service on that basis. That is a violation of law, and it should be. Thoughts are protected. Actions are not. I have a disagreement with the detail of the above. For me it is: You (as an individual) will think as you think. You (as an individual) can refuse service as you wish. An incorporated business must conform its behavior in accordance with the laws of the government that created it. The thoughts of the bakery owner are that of an individual. The actions of the bakery owner in that capacity and within the bakery are also the actions of the bakery. The individual can discriminate within the confines of their thoughts. The bakery cannot discriminate in their actions. Because of law. Clearer?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 14:00:31 GMT -5
That's fine, and also understandable. But that is not the same thing as allowing discriminatory actions. You (as the bakery owner) can think whatever you want about the couple. You can think that they are icky, and that their behavior is morally repugnant, but you cannot refuse them service on that basis. That is a violation of law, and it should be. Thoughts are protected. Actions are not. The action being prohibited this case is the expression of a particular thought in what amounts to a private venue. You can draw as many lines in the sand as you like, both cases boil down to the conditional denial (or revoking) of services due to moral objections. Notwithstanding the fact that the bakery owners didn't refuse service because they considered lesbianism "icky", if that's the term we're going to use to describe "reprehensible and harmful to society" (despite our not being able to agree on precisely what actions qualify), then we can restate the UOK case as the university giving the boot to some frat boys it considered icky since it wanted nothing to do with their ickiness.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 15, 2015 14:12:36 GMT -5
Related to businesses- and even government employees- the OK legal discrimination religious freedom bill they are working on had a smart amendment attached to it- if the bill is going to be passed then all businesses, etc. who plan to refuse service to certain people over their 'religious freedom' shall post such information on the businesses, websites etc. so those customers will be aware they are not welcome
www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/13/oklahoma_legislator_wants_anti_gay_businesses_to_post_no_gays_allowed_signs.html
When not debating whether to outlaw hoodies or protect parents’ decision to force their children into ex-gay conversion therapy, the severely conservative Oklahoma legislature has spent much of this session debating an anti-gay “religious liberty” bill. The measure would allow both private businesses and government entities to refuse service to gay people based on their religious beliefs. Although the proposed legislation is similar to the Arizona bill that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last year, it actually goes much further, explicitly permitting anybody—from a hotel owner to a DMV employee to a social worker—to turn away gay people if their religious beliefs require it.
Virgin’s amendment requires that “any person” who despises gay people too much to serve them must simply “post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites.” The amendment would promulgate the same notice requirement for businesses that refuse to service based on race or gender identity.
Sounds fair
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 14:33:38 GMT -5
I have a disagreement with the detail of the above. For me it is: You (as an individual) will think as you think. You (as an individual) can refuse service as you wish. An incorporated business must conform its behavior in accordance with the laws of the government that created it. The thoughts of the bakery owner are that of an individual. The actions of the bakery owner in that capacity and within the bakery are also the actions of the bakery. The individual can discriminate within the confines of their thoughts. The bakery cannot discriminate in their actions. Because of law. Clearer?
IM(not so)HO, it is always essential to mention incorporation. It is by filing that paperwork with government that individuals agree to follow laws such as non-discrimination statutes.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 14:58:33 GMT -5
Again, you are perfectly within your rights to hold whatever belief you wish. You are not free to act on such belief if the act is discriminatory and contrary to law. That is a necessary component of civilized society. If the rights of any citizen are denied, then those of all citizens are at risk. Those in power or who are of the dominant category do not need laws to protect them. They in fact dislike law because it limits their capacity to remain dominant. But law is what protects everybody.
The rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent on the action, not on who is being hurt. It matters not whether the targeted group is gays, or blacks, or women, or Chinese, or Irish, or Muslims, or Christians. Discrimination is a type of persecution. You are one of the most outspoken Christians on this board. Are you really okay with the persecution of Christians as well? To be logically consistent, you have to be, up to and including the use of lion's dens. Whether the persecution is great or small is basically immaterial. That is only a matter of degree. The wrongness is embedded in the concept itself.
Dj has mentioned often the concept of universality. It applies here. A belief or behavior cannot hold if it cannot hold for everybody. It is easy for others to say, "Find another bakery." But what if there isn't one? What if nobody will serve a certain group, like, for example, Christians? Are you okay with that as well?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 15:05:35 GMT -5
The thoughts of the bakery owner are that of an individual. The actions of the bakery owner in that capacity and within the bakery are also the actions of the bakery. The individual can discriminate within the confines of their thoughts. The bakery cannot discriminate in their actions. Because of law. Clearer?
IM(not so)HO, it is always essential to mention incorporation. It is by filing that paperwork with government that individuals agree to follow laws such as non-discrimination statutes. I doubt that is true. Incorporation is a legal status regarding structure and treatment of the business. Private businesses are not necessarily subject to such statutes and they can incorporate just as easily as public ones. True?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 15:24:59 GMT -5
IM(not so)HO, it is always essential to mention incorporation. It is by filing that paperwork with government that individuals agree to follow laws such as non-discrimination statutes. I doubt that is true. Incorporation is a legal status regarding structure and treatment of the business. Private businesses are not necessarily subject to such statutes and they can incorporate just as easily as public ones. True? That was the issue with the Hobby Lobby case. Can private or closely held corporations operate on a different set of rules than other corporations. The Supreme Court ruled they can. It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court would rule that a bakery could do the same.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2015 16:37:21 GMT -5
... It is easy for others to say, "Find another bakery." But what if there isn't one? What if nobody will serve a certain group, like, for example, Christians? Are you okay with that as well? Notwithstanding the fact that this is an impossibility in a capitalist society, yes I am "okay with this" in the sense that the state should not establish laws in an attempt to prevent it from happening. As for the rest, we're drifting a bit too far away from the case at hand. I wasn't trying to turn this into another bakery thread. I'm simply pointing out that the right to discriminate cuts both ways.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 16:55:03 GMT -5
.... They won't lose everything if it fails. ... Honest question: will you lose your house, car, clothes, golf clubs, etc (i.e. everything) or has the citizens of your state of residence granted you limited liability for what you would lose?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 16:59:47 GMT -5
But what if you can't? What if there isn't one who will do business with you? It is an easy transition from, "If one is allowed to discriminate, then all are allowed to discriminate..." Is it likely? Not in this country. Is it possible? Sure. You are fortunate not to be a member of a targeted group. So am I. So is Virgil. The law is not needed to protect us. It is needed to protect those who are not us.
And for the record, nobody would have been forced "to bake a cake shaped like a dick, with Robert and Steve forever written on it." Just a normal cake like they do for anyone else who walks through the door. Not doing THAT is what violates discrimination law.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 17:03:53 GMT -5
And I am simply pointing out that there is no right to discriminate. It does and should violate law. The fraternity case is not a discrimination issue.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 15, 2015 17:10:47 GMT -5
.... They won't lose everything if it fails. ... Honest question: will you lose your house, car, clothes, golf clubs, etc (i.e. everything) or has the citizens of your state of residence granted you limited liability for what you would lose? That is a good point- and IMO if someone wants to take advantage of the laws 'the public' has enacted to allow an artificial entity to stand in the place of the business owner when it comes to liability- then such entity cannot discriminate against members of said public.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 17:22:48 GMT -5
I was aware of that case. It is a different one and was not the subject at hand. But even given that, they have not had a decision go against them, have they? Until then, your contention of being forced to do anything is baseless.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 17:26:01 GMT -5
Honest question: will you lose your house, car, clothes, golf clubs, etc (i.e. everything) or has the citizens of your state of residence granted you limited liability for what you would lose? I won't lose everything, but I might end up losing more than I invested, which was pretty much my entire life savings up to that point. I'll lose a hell of a lot more than a customer would by having to drive a whole 2 miles to go shop with a competitor. But you lose nothing by not being able to discriminate based on your personal feelings. Would you trade risking your house for the right to discriminate?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 17:26:29 GMT -5
That is a good point- and IMO if someone wants to take advantage of the laws 'the public' has enacted to allow an artificial entity to stand in the place of the business owner when it comes to liability- then such entity cannot discriminate against members of said public.
How much liability is enough for you guys? Most small business owners are already risking most/all of their savings, thier livelihood, and their residence. How much more liability should they have? What do you guys want; their eyes, kidneys, first born? Losing their income, savings, and house isn't enough skin in the game, maybe a literal pound of flesh or five? Not the point at all. Liability can be limited now, and to an extent it should be. The question is about whether one is willing to follow the law in return. And even that has no bearing on liability unless you are sued and lose.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 17:28:47 GMT -5
That is a good point- and IMO if someone wants to take advantage of the laws 'the public' has enacted to allow an artificial entity to stand in the place of the business owner when it comes to liability- then such entity cannot discriminate against members of said public.
How much liability is enough for you guys? Most small business owners are already risking most/all of their savings, thier livelihood, and their residence. How much more liability should they have? What do you guys want; their eyes, kidneys, first born? Losing their income, savings, and house isn't enough skin in the game, maybe a literal pound of flesh or five? Zero limit to liability in exchange for the right to discriminate based on personal feelings.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Mar 15, 2015 17:51:19 GMT -5
We protect classes of people from discrimination because it is the right thing to do if the business owner or employee likes it or not. Say you owned a motel and decided not to rent to anyone who offended you so people had to find another place to stay. Some might not find a place at all or waste hours looking for a place that wasn't offended by them. Some place all the other motels if there were any could be full or not allow them either. If they have done nothing wrong they have a right to rent a room even if they are offensive to someone else. Religions shouldn't have more rights than other who are opinionated. So I say I don't want to rent to anyone who is not willing to swear that Jesus never existed and they must be only females and children. A married couple shows up and the man can't stay only the woman and children he needs to go down the road looking for a place that accepts men it would seem pretty silly unless it was a homeless shelter where all the people sleep in one room with strangers. Mixed race couples and same gender couples being told they can't stay is just as stupid even if your religion or prejudice says it is wrong. If the motel clerk is against alcohol, pork, beef or other things do they have the right to turn you away if you have a can of beer and a roast beef sandwich with you or might buy one later?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,163
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 15, 2015 18:16:45 GMT -5
That's okay. Make the business part of you do those things. It can have no feelings of moral repugnance.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 15, 2015 18:16:49 GMT -5
You lose the ability to not do things that you find morally repugnant. If what you do as a business you find morally repugnant, you should be in a different business.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 13:28:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 18:31:25 GMT -5
No. Discrimination in the context we are using it here requires an unjust or prejudicial component to the denial. It would be selectively denying services to one group of persons while not denying another group for the same "offense." In this case, if (as a rule) white students were expelled while black students were not, or males while females were not. The actual term that should be used here is consequences. Actions have consequences, and those by themselves absent other factors cannot be discriminatory.
In the bakery case, there was no justifiable reason for the discriminatory behavior. Denial was based solely on the opinion of the denier, not as a result of any action by the denied. I will grant that if the couple had actually engaged in sex on the floor of the bakery the owner would have been justified in having them removed, but in the actual case they did nothing to warrant being denied.
It occurred to me on reading this that we may have a disconnect resulting from interpretation of the language used. Let me clarify. When I suggested that the students would not be disciplined for racist comments while on their own time and unaffiliated with the University, I thought it clear that I was referring to general racist comments. The University is concerned here because of the reference to what is apparently standard practice or belief at the fraternity, which IS associated with the university. I will concede that the same song would engender the same response no matter where it occurred, due to the relationship of the fraternity to the university, but that is not the context in which I made the comparison. Also of note, and precisely because of this case, other chapters of that fraternity at other universities are now under scrutiny because of this case. This is far beyond simple name-calling or moral repugnance. Unless you think religious conviction justifies certain thinking and actions.It doesn't, when one chooses to open a public business. When one chooses to open a public business, they choose to follow the public laws about how businesses MUST operate. No one forces them to open a business.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 13:28:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 18:39:09 GMT -5
Unless you think religious conviction justifies certain thinking and actions. Religious conviction can justify whatever thinking you wish it to. It cannot justify whatever actions you wish it to. One of the hallmarks of America is that you can think whatever you want. For the most part you can also do whatever you want, subject to law. Laws are generally based on preventing harm or potential harm to others.
A business, open to the public, must serve the public by law. Absent any legitimate reason for removal from the premises a customer must be served. To not do so runs afoul of discrimination law, and rightly so. And no, "because I think they're icky" is not a legitimate business reason to refuse service. If one wants to refuse service to icky people, you can easily do so IF you run a private business not open to the public. But you cannot have it both ways. You either serve the public or you don't, and if you do you must serve ALL of it. Even the icky ones. That should not be a difficult concept. I am truly surprised that so many people have a problem with it.
I am truly surprised that more people don't think I am right on the issues too. Its the way of the world though, people have different values and thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 13:28:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 18:40:11 GMT -5
Related to businesses- and even government employees- the OK legal discrimination religious freedom bill they are working on had a smart amendment attached to it- if the bill is going to be passed then all businesses, etc. who plan to refuse service to certain people over their 'religious freedom' shall post such information on the businesses, websites etc. so those customers will be aware they are not welcome
www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/13/oklahoma_legislator_wants_anti_gay_businesses_to_post_no_gays_allowed_signs.html
When not debating whether to outlaw hoodies or protect parents’ decision to force their children into ex-gay conversion therapy, the severely conservative Oklahoma legislature has spent much of this session debating an anti-gay “religious liberty” bill. The measure would allow both private businesses and government entities to refuse service to gay people based on their religious beliefs. Although the proposed legislation is similar to the Arizona bill that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last year, it actually goes much further, explicitly permitting anybody—from a hotel owner to a DMV employee to a social worker—to turn away gay people if their religious beliefs require it.
Virgin’s amendment requires that “any person” who despises gay people too much to serve them must simply “post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites.” The amendment would promulgate the same notice requirement for businesses that refuse to service based on race or gender identity.
Sounds fair
Didn't we (as a country) try that once before?
|
|