Tennessee

[Plane]

Well actually a business should post what theme they are. If they got christain restrictions then it should be worded out front. Look at the trouble that bakery got for not doing it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. Close, anyway. This goes back to the kosher/halal thing I posted before. Still, you can't absolutely refuse to serve someone based on race, creed, religion, blah blah blah,  BUT you can post a sign saying (stay with me here) KOSHER ONLY or HALAL ONLY or NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE... get the idea? As long as everyone, every legitimate customer, is treated the same within those guidelines.

So, a bakery can make, say, a generic seven-tier wedding cake for anyone BUT, say, refuse to put anything on it that would in any way signify whether it was for a traditional union or a non-traditional one. No little plastic couple on top, or XX loves OO written on it - well, unless they were perfectly willing to do it for everyone. THAT's what I (and others) have been trying to point out. IF a baker, or whomever, isn't willing to provide the service for everyone, even those he doesn't necessarily agree with, he shouldn't be doing it for anyone, not in a public business establishment. Otherwise they should find another line of work.

That's all people are asking for, to be treated the same as everyone else.

That sounds reasonable , but would it satisfy the law, and would it satisfy litigious LGBT couples willing to chase down a test case across eight state lines?

[hnumpah]

In school I had a close friend who was Seventh Day Adventist. Often at lunch, we would swap sandwiches. I don't remember what I had, but he always had some soy meat or something he hated. I thought it was pretty good.

Just don't ever ask me to give up my bacon...

[hnumpah]

Plane -

That should satisfy the law just fine. Everyone can get the same product and the same treatment.

And was it shown that was what was done to make this a test case? And if it was, should it matter? Apparently the court didn't think so.

[Plane]

  I see the improvement , but I still don't feel satisfied.

    I have been a plumber and a carpenter a welder and an electrician. I have made and sold a commercial sign, I was a Sailor too.

    I can imagine having a fabrication business, would you like me to have no right to refuse to build nice flaming crosses for the KKK?

      Is it beyond my rights to refuse to do any work for anyone , just because I would rather not?

      Whatever business I might try to do , I am sure that there is a way to misuse it , whether laying carpet or dispensing drugs.

        One of the things I see as vulnerable is sellers of firearms , some of these guys have gotten into more trouble than others , because some of them refuse to sell to the customer that strikes them as untrustable, and the ability to discern this quality is not universal.

        So you have a gun to sell and this guy that has the cash wants it , but you have a screaming instinct not to do it, can you not do it?

     

[hnumpah]

I'm not out to play wild hypotheticals.

But...

If you are a licensed firearms dealer, are you not required to do a background check anyway, and would it not be your responsibility as a licensed dealer to bring your suspicions to the attention of the proper authorities?

And if this is a private transaction, of course you can sell, or not, to whomever you want.

[Plane]

And if this is a private transaction, of course you can sell, or not, to whomever you want.

No.

This is what we are talking about loosing.

It puts anyone dealing with a dangerous product into a catch 22.

It puts anyone who thinks it wrong into a gag order.

It makes dozens of careers inappropriate for Christians or Jews or Muslims who are observant.

All because there is no right to discriminate?

There is often example of how discrimination is wrong and causes hardship, but I bet that for each of them there could be an example of discrimination being a good idea.

Businesses that discriminate foolishly are going to be outcompeted by businesses with equal quality but wider reach, why isn't that enough?

[hnumpah]

Sorry, yes, if it is a private sale, you can sell or not to whomever you please.

A business, however, generally has a license issued by a local governing authority that is tasked with enforcing the law, including those against discrimination. That permit can be revoked if the business does not conform to those laws.

I could care less whether you agree with the law. If you don't, lobby to change it. In the meantime, you have two choices.

You can obey the law, keep your permit, and keep doing business.

You can ignore the law, and risk paying the penalties.

Look on the second option as an opportunity to become a martyr for the cause; to defy the law, spend everything you own fighting it, possibly end up in jail for contempt of the law, and so on. Then when you die and stand before your god you can beat your breast and tell him how dedicated you were to the cause. Might get you a mention in some heavenly journal and a house next door to Job or Daniel, or at the least a pat on the head and a cookie.

No one is saying you can't ignore the law.

[Plane]

http://ftf-comics.com/
No.

That is just not how it is.

There is a popular cause and it is getting unusual protection.

If a baker didn't feel like baking a cake for me because he just didn't feel like baking a cake for me , I would have no legal recourse but to find another baker.

But all the difference is in the reason he doesn't feel like baking my cake and his inability to lie about it .

What is the real purpose of such law?

[Plane]

http://ftf-comics.com

[hnumpah]

Yes, it is. Try to force me to sell you a gun. Take me to court. I am a private owner. You can no more force that than you could force me to sell you my car, or my house.

There will always be ways out, there always have been. How do you think blacks were kept from moving into white neighborhoods years ago? I bet a lot of inventive excuses were made up by sellers and real estate agents. I bet a lot still are. But as people catch on, laws are passed and enforced, lawsuits are won, and discrimination, even disguised as something else, gets harder to get away with.

[sirs]

Kimba & H, have touched on what could be considered a reasonable compromise, although I'm extremely wary about "compromising" any of my constitutional rights.  Perhaps if an establishment made it painfully clear of what they're willing to do vs not, ....... would that be enough?  Or would some entity, see it as another marker of Politically Correct deduced bigotry, that needs to be snuffed out.  To be honest, I don't see some sign as providing such an umbrella of protection.  Places used to have signs (many still do), that indicate they reserve the right to refuse service.  Apparently, they don't

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is an excellent vegetarian restaurant in the San Telmo district of Buenos Aires, in the Plaza Dorrego.

http://www.guiaoleo.com.ar/restaurantes/Naturaleza-Sabia-7710

Who better to be good at fake meat than an Argentine?

[kimba1]

the only thing I fear about the right to refuse is it effects my health. drugstores has refuse medications due to ethical conserns but even if it`s possible to go to another the potential delay can take days an somehow people do not understand cost can be extremely high
I once had wait a week to get my mothers heart meds which could cost 100's more if I request it sooner. my situation had nothing to do with religion but does pretain to potential delays and costfor going to another store.


http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/12/02/cvs_refused_to.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

Places used to have signs (many still do), that indicate they reserve the right to refuse service.  Apparently, they don't

There are fewer and fewer of these signs. I have not seen one in years. They are never seen in chain restaurants, so far as I know.

The owner clearly has the right to post the sign (as that is free speech), but he does not have the right to refuse service to people based on creed, color or sex.
Service may be refused if the person offends other customers, such as being shoeless, shirtless, pantsless, smelling bad or speaking obscenities
 or wearing clothing with obscene words or graphics on them.

[kimba1]

In my job Iwish I can refuse service on people with disabilities but we`re somehow considered cruel for doing that. I totally don`t doubt thier disabled but thier totally taking advantage of it.  was I supposed to mention thier faking thier pets as service animals .