No, it says "related to, or related to the celebration of" - hell you don't even have to be married - "or similar arrangement" - it's about as broad as it could possibly be (which is one of many reasons why it will be eviscerated by the courts...). Not that it matters of course - you don't need to diagram a sentence to know that this steaming turd of bigotry is bad news. The outrage here isn't really the impact of the law, if enacted, which is DOA, the outrage is that there are people who are in positions of power who are going through with this farce (or alternatively, people willing to try to give them the benefit of the doubt..).
Fair question. Try bolding it this way: [rquoter]The bill says individuals and religious entities would not be required, if they had "sincerely held religious beliefs," to: Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement [/rquoter] [/quote] That's a pretty broad thing. A gay couple going to dinner or a hotel is "related to" a domestic partnership, no?
Well of course they can if they want to be known as knuckle dragging neanderthals. But nice strawman. That's not really what this is about.
Based on what is listed here this law is going to run smack into the Civil Rights Act which prevents discrimination in public accomodation. [rquoter]Title II Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"[/rquoter] From the description above if it is about celebrating the marriage as Bobrek noted it could discriminate in hosting a gay marriage but also a hotel could refuse to allow a gay couple stay in the same room or stay at all.
the bigotry is strong with this one because choosing which businesses you can do business with is called competition, and competition is beneficial to the consumers. businesses discriminating against their customers benefits nobody.
Because customers are providing services to the public. We've decided very clearly, as a society, that if you are in the business of making money off the public, you are required to follow certain rules - one of which is that you treat the public with basic human decency and do not discriminate. We don't prevent people from being bigoted in their personal life. We do when they provide services. Is this really that complicated?
You mixing up the customers right on which businesses they patronize with public accommodation by the business. If a business is providing services in the public realm it cannot discriminate in who it serves. If your argument were to hold water then Woolworth's would've been free to segregate their lunch counters. As I posted above the Civil Rights Act specifically prevents this and the American with Disability Act reinforces that private businesses cannot discriminate in the public realm. This idea has also been upheld by the USSC.
You didn't answer my question..... I was asking why morally mark is okay with a customer being allowed to legally discriminate and not a business. bull****. a deal is a deal. IT benefits both in both's eyes. That's why they both agree to it. I know its the law. I wasn't debating what is and isn't the law. I was discussing why posters think it is appropriate to force a business and not customers to not discriminate.
To be fair, tallanvor is arguing that Woolworth's specifically should be allowed to that. He's made this argument before - that the "free market" would solve the problem, ignoring the fact that it, in fact, did not solve the problem.
I don't know if you realize it but your first justification has a qualifier (business who refuses to do business with homosexuals) while the latter doesn't need anything.
Because an individual is not a public entity? As I understand it, once a business offers goods to the public it gives up it's right to discriminate based of race, gender or sexual orientation.
Yes - I answered that. We, as individuals and as a society, have (mostly) decided that we believe in basic human decency and treating our citizens with some basic level of respect.
Answering for myself and not McMark the difference is between an individual choosing how to spend their own money vs a business serving in the public realm. If we take the argument that public businesses can sell only to who they choose that isn't just a matter of discrimination over gender, race but also potentially distorts the market when businesses choose not to for reasons besides economics to not sell to a certain class.
I don't argue it would 'solve' anything. I argue it is virtuous not to force someone into a deal with another person. unless that person runs a business, then you can discriminate against their business.
A business that serves the public, like a gas station, cannot be compared to a country club. Should gas stations be able to refuse the sale of fuel to black people?
