Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Hey, I'm an admitted racist. Where's my right to deny service to the people I am racist against?
Only if the guy is deeply insecure in his sexuality. You know you can't catch it, right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Is Religious Freedom in the U.S. Broken Beyond Repair?"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Two witnesses. I have myself and God testifying that it is sin.
Public accommodations laws do not provide businesses that solicit customers from the general public with such "associational rights" that permits them to discriminate on the prohibited bases. See Roberts v. Jaycees.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
And they have exactly the same witnesses you do, saying the opposite.
Anyway, you just said you knew BEFORE you were religious...
Last edited:
If you cannot read or reason, then I cannot help you either.
Nature itself shows it is wrong.
He has a right not to offer homosexual themed products. He should have the right not to deliver to someplace he considers a den of iniquity. If they were just picking up a standard cake they would not have to identify themselves as homosexuals. They could have had their cake and ate it too, without causing any problems.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Says you. What if my religious views say different? Why does your religion get to bypass laws but mine doesn't?
Lots of stuff is repulsive. But that's A, highly subjective, and B, not grounds for discriminating against people.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Nonsense. Nature doesn't make value judgements, and I bet a year's salary that you can't make a consistent argument based on "nature". You'll be contradicting and special pleading yourself in seconds.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
What "homosexual themed products" has anyone been compelled to supply?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If I go to a museum, and the charge of admittance is $50 dollars, I present my student ID and get in for $40, but the person in front of me didn't have a student ID and was charged $50, that person was not charged extra, but charged exactly what the cost of admittance is. If I have a "buy one, get one free" coupon for a can of Monster, I'd pay $2.50 as the second can is free, but the person without a coupon would be charged $5.00. They aren't being charged extra, but not getting the discount that the coupon provides. Several restaurants let veterans eat free on veterans day, and while they eat free, everybody else pays what the menu prices are, not more than what they are.
I'm not aware of any laws such a discount illegal.
It's clearly different because in one case you are adding onto the price, above the base price, and the other you are subtracting from the base price.
If one were facing prosecution for discounting a price to a group (whites for example),
but denying the discount to a protected group (blacks, for example), the judge would
scowl at the argument....
"But I charged black people the regular price!"
The judge would see thru this fiction, ie, illegal evasion of l
If yes, then "discrimination".
Your example deals with a type of discrimination which is legal in many jurisdictions.
Even in Ann Arbor, it's tacitly legal because no prosecutor would pursue a violation,
the violation of our Human Rights Ordinance notwithstanding. (But they would
prosecute some violations, eg, residential real estate.)
One must be careful about generalizing when there is so much legal variation
due to state, city, affected industry, & local politics.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
And this is exactly the problem. Religious fundies and their ilk continually insist on sticking their noses into personal issues that don't affect them one bit. It's an arrogant, self centered attitude that smacks of a psychological disorder: "I need people to behave as I see fit."
.
.
Last edited:
I can almost understand a baker not wanting to put Best Wishes to Sean & Jeremy on Their Wedding on a cake. However, if the baker would sell a non-inscribed cake to a couple where one or both are divorced and remarrying but not to a gay couple he would be a hypocrite. In that case he should be ruled against.
Yes I was mostly non-religious or agnostic until about 30. Religion has actually made me more tolerant. Live and let live, keep my mouth shut, mind my own business. But I would not want to hang out with them or do any lengthy projects for them...maybe I could not keep my mouth shut that long. If the cake baker had freedom of speech and started talking about how bad homosexuality is to the guests at the gay wedding would he be within his rights?
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Nope. That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a cake shop that is not also a cafe/restaurant shouldn't be considered a public accommodation.
Federal law sees it the same way. Colorado law does not.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Please cite the federal law that supports your assertion.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Civil Rights Act of 1964
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
Nothing in the above text suggests a cakeshop that is not also a restaurant, cafe, or otherwise a "facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises" would be subject to section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.