Is it safe to say the wingnuts really played this poorly. Thinking they were riding a wave of conservatism they go after gays under the guise of "freedom of religion". Little did they know that a pretty broad slice of America, including sports starts, sports teams, and *gasp* big business would swing the hammer down on them. And... just when things were looking up for the Republican party...
It's what happens when you're totally detached from reality. Polls show that 59% of Americans support same sex marriage, yet in state houses across the country, Republican majorities are trying one last Hail Mary to discriminate against gays before a very likely pro-gay marriage SCOTUS ruling later this year. This is what happens when people don't bother to vote in state and local elections: an over-representation of a fringe, minority opinion.
Not selling a possible pedophile some cake wont kill the republican party Any business should be allowed to refuse sale/service if they want to. let the market decide. The truth of the matter is that liberals/drones are too thin skinned to get rejected like that. They hate rejection.......
He's not calling for the prevention of this 'discrimination'. He made it clear he doesn't believe in such things. He was mocking you and your ilk. It went over your head. That restaurant is receiving death threats now. Let me know when TPM reports on it.
Oh lordy. Think about why I called Commodore a wingnut. Reread what you just wrote. Do it again. Then hang your head in embarrassment.
The problem with your argument is that businesses are allowed to refuse service to people, just not to members of a protected class. There is nothing preventing a business from refusing to serve all people named Jerry, for example, which would have the exact same distortion of the market for non-economic reasons. The only difference is, instead of being based on racism (or homophobia, or whatever bias against a protected class) it is based on an arbitrary, non-protected distinction. Why is one okay but the other not? It is because the law has nothing to do with market distortion and everything to do with valuing the defense of protected classes over the protection of property rights and the right of free association. In other words, the court has decided to place a statute (the Civil Rights Act) over the Constitution. That may even be the morally correct thing to do, but it is not the legally correct thing to do. There is a process by which the Constitution can be changed, but it should not be ignored, nor should the meaning of the text be tortured to get the desired result. The power to regulate interstate commerce should require that the activity being regulated be commerce across state lines, not commercial or even non-commercial conduct within a single state.
<object classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="258" height="338" title="Click Here to donate!" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="movie" value="//funds.gofundme.com/Widgetflex.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="flashvars" value="page=MemoriesPizza&template=0" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed allowScriptAccess="always" src="//funds.gofundme.com/Widgetflex.swf" quality="high" flashVars="page=MemoriesPizza&template=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="258" height="338"></embed></object>
God, you people are delusional. Are you being thrown in jail or killed for the expression of your faith? Are you having to pray in private with the lights off? No. You are a public business and somebody wants to pay you to arrange some flowers. You're true holy warriors making Jesus proud with your pettiness and sense misguided persecution.
Businesses can and do discriminate for economic reasons. The nature of why there are protected classes is that many businesses can and did discriminate those classes. I would suspect that if there had and was a historic pattern of discrimination against people named Jerry they would probably be included. Even without the Civil Rights act I suspect that if a business refused to serve people only on the basis that their name was "Jerry" I'm betting there would be a lawsuit there under public accommodation. Now while you might disagree with the Civil Rights act the USSC has said pretty definitively that it is Constitutional. Further the Constitution specifically mentions Equal Protection under the law and Congress has the power to make laws on that basis. Your opinion aside though as I said before the bigger issue of this is to call into question what is the nature of a business that operates in the public realm If your argument is that free association trumps everything then that does call into question whether a business can be regulated at all. As I said that means that the ADA along with things like licensure might not apply. Now you might not be bothered by that but I think most people are both accepting and happy that there are laws that provide for public accommodation. Also the further the Civil Rights Act doesn't prohibit free association as it specifically exempts private clubs. You can still have a club where you serve drinks and food to only the people you like and even have them give you money. The difference again comes down to when you are operating the public realm. The contradiction that I see in your argument is that you are saying businesses should be allowed to have it both ways. They should be able to operate in the public realm without really having to serve the whole public.
Aside from the fact that any couple is unlikely to use a pizza place to cater a wedding, refusing to cater or arrange flowers for a wedding is a far cry from a whites only sign on the door. Would a business be in their right to refuse service to a political group?
aint being a gay or a homo in your genes? like you cant change that. kinda like a restaurant not letting me eat because i like poossy. if there are laws on the books for discrimination, then i will use them to fight against that ban against me. being a part of political group aint something you wake up with every day and walk around in. bottom line is indiana can do whatever it wants against the gays but there will be consequences like losing $. you cant have your twinkie and eat it too.
If a person went into an gay sign makers shop and asked them to make a sign that said "I Hate Gay People" should the sign maker be forced to make the sign or should they have the right to refuse service?
Other than the existence of a sign refusing service to a group of people for no other reason than for being a member of that group (black, or gay)... what is the difference in your mind? So, in your mind, a business having a sign that said "straights only" would be wrong, but its OK if there's no sign?
Except... that's not what is being argued here. What is being argued whether a store can refuse service to someone, simply for being gay? Not for refusing to serve someone asking me to do something they found offensive. So is that right, in your mind? But, to answer your question... if the sign didn't incite violence against gays, wasn't profane, wasn't obscene, and if I was the shop owner and if I was gay... I would charge the person for making the sign, and in my mind, laugh about how I was profiting from some idiots bigotry. That said... I don't know if a Catholic signmaker is required to build a sign that said "I Hate Catholics". But again... that's not what is being debated... what is being debated is whether that same signmaker can refuse to serve someone, simply for being Catholic. While you dodge these simple ethical questions... its clear that a majority (and growing) number of Americans can see how wrong it is to allow discrimination like this. And businesses are also seeing this.
That person would not be a proper Christian. They should repent and ask for God's forgiveness. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Guys, laws are an option when the market produces a less than desirable outcome. If you support having laws on the books that make it illegal to discriminate, then pointing out that the market is producing a desired result on its own is not a good way to support the idea of having anti-discrimination laws governing the private sector.
