H.M. Murdoch
Well-Known Member
And just how the hell were they supposed to refuse service without giving a reason?
They didn't publicly discriminate. It was the gays who went public.
Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
They didn't publicly discriminate. It was the gays who went public.
TakeTheTicket
Well-Known Member
Are you serious? You don't have to give a reason when it is your business. You ask them to leave and if they don't you call the police.
Saying things like "we don't serve gays" is "open discrimination" which is what I meant.
TakeTheTicket
Well-Known Member
In a contract business you would just say, "no thanks".
H.M. Murdoch
Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm serious. 2 gays walk into a "marriage business". The manager says "I won't serve you. Please leave." ?
It's that simple?
I don't think so.
If a Muslim refused to serve me bacon, I think I'd know why.
TakeTheTicket
Well-Known Member
Just refuse to do business with them, yes. When the customers become irate, call the police.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
That's the strange thing about our laws here. If the owners had said it was because the Bills lost last night and therefore I can refuse you they'd still have 13k and an open business. It seems we prefer our discrimination closeted for some reason. Wouldn't it be better for that shit to be out in the open?
In the name of equality?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Please explain who has a right to force other people to serve them and where this "right" originates ?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you homophobic bigots are trying to deny equal protection of the law and basic civil rights, yet it's somehow the gays that are demanding and want their way?
cool logic, washere.
H.M. Murdoch
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck is up now...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am firmly in the camp that it's better when we respect basic civil rights and equal protection of the law.
ya know, constitution and whatnot.
some of you bible thumping christian sharia law types don't like that, but it's the constitution.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'll handle this one, bobby boy.
when someone is offering wedding services, anyone with enough money may "force" them into serving them by giving them money.
that's kinda the idea of how a business works. funny enough, the people offering the services in exchange for money don't call it being "forced", they call it being paid. so i'm not sure why you use that word "force". no one forced them to open a wedding services business.
gays have just as much "right" to expect to be able to pay for services being offered as a straight couple does, this originates out of "civil rights" and "equal protection of the law", which is somewhere in the constitution.
does that help, bobby?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for attempting to dance to the beat of the question, but that gerbil in your ass has your steps a little shaky there Mr. Astaire....So, no, it doesn't help. It avoids the question. It assumes when a person wants to trade with somebody that some aspects of the interaction are derived not from a mutual agreement, but from a forced edict. It never answers that question does it?
So, the question remains, "who has the right to make another person serve them" ?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that "forced edict" is something called the equal protection clause of the constitution of the united states of america.
now i know that you, in your whiny teenage 'just read ayn rand' angst, have stated before that everyone should have to agree to the constitution first in order to be governed by it. but that's supremely retarded, ultimately unworkable, and died along with the boner you had after poring over ann coulter and lysander spooner.
we've tried it your way before, we once allowed bigots and racists to deny equal protection. it caused harm. no one has a right to cause harm.
put on your big boy pants and soldier on, m'lady. i'll get you a fedora and a trim for that neckbeard of yours.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If a person wanted equal protection, shouldn't among the things being "protected" include the right of all people to chose their consensual interactions on a peaceful basis rather than be forced to associate?
Who has the right to force people to associate with them? That sounds like a rapist tactic.
What's with the neckbeard thing lately ? Bored? C'mon you can do better than that. Maybe get your crayons out?
Commander Strax
Well-Known Member
the real question is what is dumber?
religion or marriage ???
religion or marriage ???
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the right to "consensual interactions" as you call it (or denying service to blacks and gays, as it is commonly known) is protected. just call yourself a private club.
no one forced these people to offer wedding services nor to make them open to the entire public. that was their choice. they had the choice to make their services private and opted not to.
go cry, baby bobby.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So if the government says the sky is purple, you're gonna start playing Prince records and have a gerbil fest? Gotcha.
Later for now, sweetheart.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you have the right to hang your "no blacks allowed" sign as long as your business is private, bobby boy.
hope this helps ya.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
How is it equal protection if I can deny you service if you are fat, wear red shorts, too tall, freckles, like pickles, don't like pickles, have one leg longer than the other, curly hair, voted for Gore, didn't vote, ugly, too pretty etc etc.
Why can hooters discriminate against old fat women as servers? They are NOT private.
Why can Bing Steel hire only blacks? Are brown, red and yellow not minorities too? It is NOT private.
How do you figure it's equal protection in light of the millions of other reasons that are legal to discriminate? Wouldn't exception protection be a more honest descriptor?
cause it's equal herp derp! cool logic alwayshere.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
google "civil rights" for a list of protected statuses.