Had my own business for 13 years...only people to whom I refused service
were the rude, condescending ones that thought their stuff didn't stink.
Never occurred to me to ask about their politics or sexuality. The only
color that mattered was green.
Had my own business for 13 years...only people to whom I refused service
were the rude, condescending ones that thought their stuff didn't stink.
Never occurred to me to ask about their politics or sexuality. The only
color that mattered was green.
Which is exactly why this is all much ado about nothing. The large majority of businesses will look at this exactly as you did (do). Others who choose to discriminate for whatever reason will suffer (or prosper) by their decision.Originally Posted by rock on sooner
Been away. I expect to see African American or "black people/community". To me black is an adjective and not a noun. Happy to help.
They should just add sexual orientation to Title VII.
Why?
Until they prove it's 100% biological, like race, sex, then no they shouldn't.
You offended by "white" on all the applications, surveys, etc? why not? I'm not "white"... that's a color... or adj as you said. I'm a noun, race, American... or USA citizen... or euro-American... but not "white"
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
It's been years but there used to be a time where, if a loved one was seriously ill in an Intensive Care Unit, you'd be refused admittance unless you were 'family members only'. Lots of 'significant others' were refused entry as their loved ones were dying.
Civil Unions didn't count. Only those either related by birth or marriage were admitted.
Just one example.
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
I probably should just let this drop but I can't.
Wouldn't the same rules apply to a heterosexual under these circumstances? Wouldn't a heterosexual be denied access if only family were permitted? Why would a patients sexual preference give people of that same preference certain privileges? That's what it would be.
Discussing the merits/legality of a law like this may be intellectually satisfying, but everyone knows the intent is not as stated. The people behind these laws are just mad because they are losing the battle to keep gay marriage from happening. They mad bro. So they throw out a preemptive strike to try to make up something they can win and succeed in looking like morans in the process. This is a totally unnecessary law. The number of people that would patronize a business that doesn't give them good service is tiny as is the number of businesses that would turn away business from good customers. The folks that feel strongly against this law could break it so easily. All they have to do is find all such businesses, then have a bunch of hetero people visit them acting as stereotype gay as possible and then sue when they are refused service. I'm sure there are plenty of hetero people against this law that would agree to do this.
What if they're all "gay blind"?
OleVet Posse Instigator
And we have a winner!
Aint that what we been sayin?
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Well yes, there is a an intellectual and legal component to this so it's not like you can dismiss that out of hand. Also this law isn't "anti-homosexual" legislation per se. Let me ask you this. Should any business be able to refuse service out of an act of conscience? Should a Jewish baker be forced to decorate a Nazi cake? Should a black shopkeeper be forced to accommodate the KKK?
This is a good law. Businesses should be able to serve who they wish (ex civil rights act 1964)
Like I said, I don't believe for a second this law is meant to protect some poor small business owner from having to serve gay customers. If it really was, your question would be worth answering, but it's not. If it was the same as Jews forced to serve Nazis or blacks accomodating the KKK, those would have been issues in the court a long time ago. It's just designed to find another legal foothold against gay marriage as it becomes clear it is coming. I think capitalism will ultimately make this whole effort fade out with a whimper, but that assumes people are fundamentally rational, so I'm not putting money on it.
As I understood it back then (maybe 15 years ago) there were couples that had been together many many years and one partner was refused entry because there was no marriage. Heterosexual partners used the 'common law' excuse with no problem.
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
except that there is no way to legally marry in many states if you are a same sex couple
Thats admirable !Point being is! Seems YOU had the right to REFUSE that service , am I correct?
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Dave what in hell does that mater?
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Horse shat! I remember Many times that we just said he was my brother/ She was/Is my sister/Brother
Yall spewing that are stupid!
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
the point was that there are things that gay couples are not able to do that straight couples have access to. hospital visitation is one thing.
sure you can lie, but what happens if the family doesn't want you there?
the other issue was inheritance. one of the cases that went to the supreme court was about a beneficiary from a gay couple that was married in Canada
there were hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in extra taxes because the US didn't recognize their marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
Quote Originally Posted by hawaii 5-0
If some business doesn't want to provide service to someone they shouldn't have to.
If some group wants to picket or boycott that business because of that company's specific or general hatreds they should be able to.Basic freedoms. The state should not be allowed to interfere with them.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Posting Permissions
