Public accommodations laws.

Post #386,712 by Another Scott 2/23/14 12:14:20 PM Reply	Public accommodations laws. A person doesn't have a right to have a business. By being given the ability by the state to have a business, the proprietor takes on several responsibilities - including accepting business from anyone who meets sensible criteria that treat everyone equally (ability to pay on time, etc., etc.). A proprietor's religion, or claim of religion, isn't a valid reason to deny someone service. http://www.citizenso.../CRA1964/CRA2.htm This isn't hard. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,717 by mmoffitt 2/23/14 2:22:57 PM Reply	Are we really that weak? There's only ONE florist in Colorado, right? And only ONE bakery in Washington. I mean, they can't be expected to take their business elsewhere, right? Too onerous, doubtless. If you're all correct about this (whole scale embrace of homosexuality) isn't this something that will work its way out on its own? I mean, IF the majority find it offensive that these two vendors choose not to serve homosexuals (based upon their right of free religious exercise or just because they don't want to) will not the community at large run them out of business? Have we really gotten to the point that EVERYTHING is a Civil Rights issue to be resolved in Federal Court? The lawyers must be ecstatic.
Post #386,722 by boxley 2/23/14 8:39:51 PM Reply	won't sell to blacks natives and rceaga is that ok? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,725 by Andrew Grygus 2/23/14 9:44:03 PM Reply	And don't forget suspected commies!
Post #386,735 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:24:58 AM Reply	Actually, I'd be okay with that. I'm of the "You don't want my money. Okay. Somebody else will and I'd rather do business with them anyway" stripe. About the last thing I'd consider doing is filing a law suit.
Post #386,738 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:38:52 AM Reply	Nope. Thanks for herring.
Post #386,746 by boxley 2/24/14 11:12:16 AM Reply	either you are a public establishment or a key club a keyclub can have a white only policy no gays allowed. A public establishment cannot. If you can't see that clearly you must hold a view that second class americans can be treated differently with no recourse to the courts. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,753 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 12:44:06 PM 2/24/14 12:44:24 PM Reply	Dupe - ignore. Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 24, 2014, 12:44:24 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,754 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 12:44:06 PM Reply	I don't think flowers and cakes for weddings rise that high. I mean, just step back a few thousand paces. Do we really want a society that has federal lawsuits over cakes and flowers for weddings? The florist, at least, was apparently NOT treating the gay couple any differently ("long time customers") until asked to provide flowers for a wedding. If that's all it takes to rise to the level of a federal lawsuit, $DEITY help us.
Post #386,756 by malraux 2/24/14 12:49:49 PM Reply	So it's a different in magnitude, not kind? Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,760 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 1:01:12 PM Reply	I don't think so. "I don't want to make your wedding cake" and "I don't want to supply flowers for your wedding" are not equivalent, imo, to discrimination against the individuals. Particularly in light of the fact that (at least as concerns the florist) the couple in question could purchase flowers for any other reason. If its discrimination of any sort, it is discrimination against same-sex weddings, not homosexuality per se. I just cannot see that rising to a civil rights trespass.
Post #386,792 by folkert 2/24/14 5:02:54 PM Reply	If they stick to the... If the "vendors" stick to the "I don't want to make your wedding cake" and "I don't want to supply flowers for your wedding" and completely hold their tongue at that, I've really got really ZERO PROBLEM WITH THAT As soon as they trot that "additional part" -- "because you are Gay/Lesbian/Black/Inuit/Chinese/1912-Baptist-Reform/Muslim" THAT is when we gots problems. Learn to bite your tongue and you can be a closet case of Anti-something all you want. Keep your ignorance to your self. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,797 by drook 2/24/14 6:20:13 PM Reply	You mean ... You can hold whatever homophobic views you want, just don't keep shoving it my face? :-D -- Drew
Post #386,799 by folkert 2/24/14 6:47:20 PM Reply	Yes... But the simplified version wasn't clear enough. I wanted to be somewhat explicit. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,825 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 8:17:02 AM Reply	The baker may have. A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages. http://abcnews.go.co...story?id=18922065
Post #386,830 by folkert 2/25/14 9:00:26 AM Reply	These people are ignorant fools. Keep your racial/homo/religio phobias to yourself and wallow in your self-righteousness all by your lonesome. If you serve the public... and are not a closed resource... you get to follow the public laws. What are we... in the 50s where only whites get to sit at the counter? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,812 by malraux 2/24/14 8:59:13 PM Reply	Hmm, nope. If its discrimination of any sort, it is discrimination against same-sex weddings, not homosexuality per se. The proprietor also stated he would not be willing to sell a cake to a gay couple that wanted a civil union or a commitment ceremony, either. At that point it's quite obvious the problem is with homosexuality and not just same-sex marriage, as from a religious standpoint there's no "marriage" involved in either of those two cases. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,727 by Another Scott 2/23/14 11:03:49 PM Reply	What's wrong with treating people equally? Should bakers or florists be able to refuse products or services to the mentally disabled? (Maybe they feel uncomfortable around them, or believe they're possessed or something?) How about people who are missing arms or legs for whatever reason? (Maybe they believe that their body has been defiled or something?) Having a license to sell products or services to the pubic doesn't mean you get to refuse to do so because you don't like their hair color or height or number of toes or way they style their hair or shoe color or religious symbols or ... Wrapping prejudice in a bow of religion doesn't make it less offensive and it doesn't mean it's acceptable. Selling a product or service to someone doesn't mean you have to like them. It's not an endorsement. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,737 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 8:38:24 AM Reply	I guess the difference for me was the purpose. If they'd just been refused service for cupcakes or a potted plant, I think I'd be more sympathetic to the majority's view. But this was for weddings. I'd be willing to wager that they "couples" involved here had at least a decent idea that the florist and bakery in question might refuse to provide wedding ceremony props for a gay couple and that is precisely why those businesses were chosen. And why the need for the products was expressed fully. I think that's what makes my butt start to itch. Last week I had a EE buddy of mine say, "You know, I really don't give a damn what other people do or who they do it with. I'm just sick of having it shoved in my face all the time." The attempt to force everyone to embrace homosexuality as "normal" is doomed to fail. It isn't "normal" in any rational sense of the word (affecting at best estimates < 1.75% of the population). Accepting a "same-sex wedding" as normal is not something I think the majority of Americans (and as we've seen, at least two private business owners) will ever think of as "normal." I don't think they should be punished for that. FWIW.
Post #386,748 by boxley 2/24/14 11:16:41 AM Reply	yeah, like shoving that handicapped thing in your face by going around and finding places that don't comply and suing there ass. All those blue sticker bastards parking in front must really get your buddy's goat too. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,755 by mmoffitt 2/24/14 12:45:32 PM Reply	How many handicapped persons got married at the Grammy's? Wanna explain that nexus to me?
Post #386,773 by boxley 2/24/14 2:04:35 PM Reply	how many handicapped at the grammies? :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,788 by a6l6e6x 2/24/14 4:17:55 PM Reply	There are some mentally challenged! :) Alex ÂThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.Â -- Isaac Asimov
Post #386,782 by pwhysall 2/24/14 3:21:40 PM Reply	Homosexuality is normal, you doofus. There are relatively very few gingers in the world, but they're normal (apart from having no soul). Here's the deal: bigots are having their bigotry legislated against. No-one cares what you think, so don't come the old "thoughtcrime" piffle. This is about what you do, and what you do is treat people in protected classes equally when you're in business. It's totally fine to say "no shirt no service", or "not in those shoes mate", or "sorry, we're totally booked up" (with an empty restaurant behind you), but the second you bring sexual orientation into it - well, tough noogies. You're not allowed to do that, any more than you're allowed to post a sign saying "no blacks no dogs no irish".

Welcome to IWETHEY!