So if I, as a private business owner decided to ban someone dressed like in my above example from entering my business because I feel that it is morally wrong, should I be forced to serve him?  Think about the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs.

 

The same thing goes for a private business that might be owned by a deeply religious family.  Should they be forced to go against their beliefs because somebody that they don't agree with wants to do business?

Terrible analogy. "No shirt, no shoes, no service," is designed to protect the experience of the other patrons present, not suit the whim of the business owner. A gay couple that walks in and starts making out on the counter would, imo, be justifiably asked to leave. A gay couple that walks in, sits at a table and eats their lunch without flashing rainbow underwear at the other guests has just as much right to be there as a straight couple doing the same thing is. Frankly, I don't give a crap if the owner of the shop has "deep, personal beliefs" that conflict with serving gay people. If your doors are open for business, it's your obligation to serve everyone who walks through those doors, as long as they don't cause a disturbance that affects the experience of your other customers. Being black, brown, gay, transgender, or Martian does not, by itself, constitute a disturbance.

---

BTW; here's the case I was talking about earlier: Reynolds v. United States.

 

I'll just quote the relevant section:

 

 

 

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

---

I'll say this: I think discrimination is a dangerous, dangerous act that should be avoided by any means necessary. No man or woman should be denied service on the basis of the color of their skin or their sexuality. I'm actually a bit surprised that, in 2015, people actually disagree with this sentiment. Nobody should have the "right" to deny service to anyone, unless we're talking selling weapons to a mentally ill individual. No individual in this country is superior to the other. I think government officials should try to buck such a trend, which they seem to be doing, thankfully.

 

Once again, I agree with you that discrimination is a bad thing.  However, freedom is about choice and being able to make those choices without fear of government coming down on them.

 

I also agree with you that "no man or woman should be denied service on the basis of the color of their skin or their sexuality".  However, you can't make it a "law" and call it a "fair" thing to do.  Do our laws not apply to everyone, and not just a select few?

 

I go back to the original story that I linked to.  Should someone on their own property be forced to go against their personal views?  If so, then the precedent is more dangerous than the discrimination problem that you bring up.  At that point we move from a democratic republic to a dictatorship or worse.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I agree with you in principle that discrimination of any kind is a deplorable act.  That is my own personal belief.  And I also agree with you that it's a bad way to do business... up to a point.

 

When you are talking about people running a private business that involves their own personal property, then they should have the freedom to chose how they run said business.  If their particular belief is that a certain group, whether it's because of race or sexual orientation is not someone they want to do business with, then they should have the freedom to do so.  What eventually happens to the business would be because of their own doing.  That is what freedom is all about.  Let them live or die as a business based on whatever decisions that they make.

 

A private business should never be forced to accommodate someone regardless of lifestyle, race or whatever.

 

I would ask, what kind of example(s) do we set for our children today?  Does the "average" father wear pants that are too big to where he has to walk around holding them up, and it meanwhile exposes his underwear?  Does that kind of action come from the example that we display to our children?

 

So if I, as a private business owner decided to ban someone dressed like in my above example from entering my business because I feel that it is morally wrong, should I be forced to serve him?  Think about the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs.

 

The same thing goes for a private business that might be owned by a deeply religious family.  Should they be forced to go against their beliefs because somebody that they don't agree with wants to do business?

 

Not sure if your example holds weight. You can put on a shirt, shoes. You can't change your skin color.

 

You can argue a business has the freedom to discriminate against an individual, but I'd argue in doing so you're taking away said individual's freedom in the process. I don't think one person (or business) should be afforded a "freedom" at the expense of another person's respective freedom. That shouldn't be the American way of doing business and should be outlawed outright. Under those circumstances, African Americans would still be fighting for their basic civil rights all these years later. I'd argue the freedom to discriminate isn't freedom at all. It contradicts the essence of the term "freedom."

---

I go back to the original story that I linked to.  Should someone on their own property be forced to go against their personal views?  If so, then the precedent is more dangerous than the discrimination problem that you bring up.  At that point we move from a democratic republic to a dictatorship or worse.

I hold it as my personal view that I may take any woman who enters my domicile as my wife and may father as many children with her as I deem necessary. Since these are my personal views and I am acting solely within my personal property whatever laws may exist hold no power. 

---

Terrible analogy. "No shirt, no shoes, no service," is designed to protect the experience of the other patrons present, not suit the whim of the business owner. A gay couple that walks in and starts making out on the counter would, imo, be justifiably asked to leave. A gay couple that walks in, sits at a table and eats their lunch without flashing rainbow underwear at the other guests has just as much right to be there as a straight couple doing the same thing is. Frankly, I don't give a crap if the owner of the shop has "deep, personal beliefs" that conflict with serving gay people. If your doors are open for business, it's your obligation to serve everyone who walks through those doors, as long as they don't cause a disturbance that affects the experience of your other customers. Being black, brown, gay, transgender, or Martian does not, by itself, constitute a disturbance.

 

Wrong.

 

The "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy is a decision by the owner for whatever reason.  There is no law for or against this.

 

 

If your doors are open for business, it's your obligation to serve everyone who walks through those doors, as long as they don't cause a disturbance that affects the experience of your other customers.

 

Please show me a law that says this.  Where is it mandated that any business has an "obligation to serve everyone" that comes to your business?

 

Now what if you're operating on your own private property, somewhere where you live?  Should you be forced by the federal government to conduct something that is against your belief/wishes in your own home and on your own private property?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Wrong.

 

The "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy is a decision by the owner for whatever reason.  There is no law for or against this.

 

 

Please show me a law that says this.  Where is it mandated that any business has an "obligation to serve everyone" that comes to your business?

 

Now what if you're operating on your own private property, somewhere where you live?  Should you be forced by the federal government to conduct something that is against your belief/wishes in your own home and on your own private property?

1. If "no shirt, no shoes, no service" were to be taken to court as discriminatory, it would be upheld for the very reason I gave.

 

2. Yes. Plain and simple, yes, the government should have the right to force your business to serve anyone who walks through the door, with very few exceptions ("no shirt, no shoes, no service" being one of them). If your doors are open for business, whether they're in a leased building, a building you own or your own house, those doors are open to all. Prejudice and bigotry are not excuses to deny equal service to anyone who comes in.

---

Wrong.

 

The "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy is a decision by the owner for whatever reason.  There is no law for or against this.

 

 

Please show me a law that says this.  Where is it mandated that any business has an "obligation to serve everyone" that comes to your business?

 

Now what if you're operating on your own private property, somewhere where you live?  Should you be forced by the federal government to conduct something that is against your belief/wishes in your own home and on your own private property?

Do you not understand the separation between a person's beliefs and a person's actions or are you just purposefully ignoring my argument?

---

I can only hope that the courts don't try and force this on the church's.

---

And people want to talk about marriage between same-sex individuals being a slippery slope by itself, holy crap. Any sort of law defending a practice like this would set the country back 50 years.

 

My only line exists with religious figures. If a certain religion expressly condemns homosexuality, leadership figures within that religion should be allowed to refuse to officiate marriage ceremonies between same-sex individuals. This rule does not apply if the religion itself is ambiguous on the topic but the officiant is opposed to it on a personal level. Religious buildings should still be required to house private ceremonies though, assuming those ceremonies don't conflict with existing commitments (i.e., don't try to book a wedding that conflicts with the weekly Saturday night service and sue when the church asks you to pick another time, but likewise, the church can't suddenly decide to make bingo a five-nights-a-week occasion purely to lock marriages out).

 

I know I'm walking that same tightrope regarding religion here, but I feel that the two issues are very closely linked, and I'm trying to be as vague about it as possible. I'm going to drop the topic after this post, because I'm not really sure there's anything I could say to further clarify my views on it.

 

How long do you honestly think that's going to last?  Activists will have to have some new cause to work their population into a frenzy over, and I have little doubt about what the next action item on their list will be.  They will go to a church, be it Catholic or some other denomination that has been very clear about their stance on gay marriage, and they'll ask to be married in the church.  When the priest or minister refuses on the grounds that their church does not support this, we've got the next great "civil rights" battle. 

 

We can talk about slippery slopes.  Activists were already out there today saying this was the next step.  They were not going to rest until they beat back this "religious intolerance" that forces the moral values of a specific faith community on others.  It'll happen, and it's going to happen very quickly.  There are plenty of activists out there just looking for the next lawsuit, just like they did when they sought out bakeries and other businesses that they knew would refuse to do business with them for religious reasons. 

 

This nation is allowing our courts to act as legislators.  In the span of 2 days, SCOTUS has rewritten one law and created another.  That's not their job, and it's a dangerous precedent to allow.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I can only hope that the courts don't try and force this on the church's.

Good luck hoping for that.  It's the next agenda item.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Do you not understand the separation between a person's beliefs and a person's actions or are you just purposefully ignoring my argument?

 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, I shouldn't have any issues walking into a gay owned bakery and ordering a giant sheet cake that has the Confederate flag on it, and inscribed on the top it says "I support traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and do not believe gay marriage should be endorsed by my government", that's okay?  The bakery shouldn't refuse my business?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Good luck hoping for that.  It's the next agenda item.

 

It will be a topic at some point. With their tax exempt status hanging over their heads.

---

Not sure if your example holds weight. You can put on a shirt, shoes. You can't change your skin color.

 

You can argue a business has the freedom to discriminate against an individual, but I'd argue in doing so you're taking away said individual's freedom in the process. I don't think one person (or business) should be afforded a "freedom" at the expense of another person's respective freedom. That shouldn't be the American way of doing business and should be outlawed outright. Under those circumstances, African Americans would still be fighting for their basic civil rights all these years later. I'd argue the freedom to discriminate isn't freedom at all. It contradicts the essence of the term "freedom."

 

Again, we are talking about a business that is privately owned and operated.

 

My argument to you is, if said business does discriminate against an individual, for whatever reason, they are certainly free to do so.  They are not "taking away" said individual's rights or freedom in the process.  The individual is free to take their business elsewhere, and the business owner is free to take the loss of business.

 

Again, at this point in our discussion, I must point out.  Do I personally agree with businesses discriminating against anyone?  Not really.  In the case that I linked to, if it was my property and my business I personally would have allowed the lesbian marriage.  However, that is just my own personal point of view.  The property owners had a different idea, and it should be respected.  They should not be forced to hold a gay marriage on their private property and certainly should not be fined for refusing to do so.  To do so takes away their freedom.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It will be a topic at some point. With their tax exempt status hanging over their heads.

 

Good luck with that.  If the gay mafia wants to start using tax law as a weapon, they're going to run into a buzz saw.  I almost encourage that to happen because it would stop certain progressive movements in their tracks.

 

The last thing democrats want to do is start using tax exempt status as a weapon.  All those black churches they pander to for the minority vote would be included in that process as well. Go ahead and open that can of worms.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

How long do you honestly think that's going to last?  Activists will have to have some new cause to work their population into a frenzy over, and I have little doubt about what the next action item on their list will be.  They will go to a church, be it Catholic or some other denomination that has been very clear about their stance on gay marriage, and they'll ask to be married in the church.  When the priest or minister refuses on the grounds that their church does not support this, we've got the next great "civil rights" battle. 

 

We can talk about slippery slopes.  Activists were already out there today saying this was the next step.  They were not going to rest until they beat back this "religious intolerance" that forces the moral values of a specific faith community on others.  It'll happen, and it's going to happen very quickly.  There are plenty of activists out there just looking for the next lawsuit, just like they did when they sought out bakeries and other businesses that they knew would refuse to do business with them for religious reasons. 

 

This nation is allowing our courts to act as legislators.  In the span of 2 days, SCOTUS has rewritten one law and created another.  That's not their job, and it's a dangerous precedent to allow.

What part of my post did you misconstrue? I'm well aware that in probably a hundred different cases already, gay couples have walked into Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran and Mormon churches (and probably plenty of other religions, too) and asked to be married there. I'm sure that most religious figures in the country are already consulting with their supervisors and lawyers about how to handle such requests, and I'm sure there are already activist lawyers filling in the names of churches on lawsuits that will be filed Monday morning. I don't think anyone's under the impression that today's ruling was the end of it. There were numerous battles that continued to be fought long after Brown v. Board of Education. Hell, Jacksonville itself hadn't actually desegregated schools until the late 80's/early 90's, and one could make a strong argument that schools are still drawn up to be segregated today down there. This is the beginning of a long process that will take years to sort itself out, and I should remind you that the Justices on this court are as likely to rule in favor of religious freedom (Hobby Lobby case) as they are to rule in favor of equal rights. I don't think that forcing Catholic priests to officiate weddings between same-sex individuals is as much of a slam dunk as you're making it out to be.

---

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, I shouldn't have any issues walking into a gay owned bakery and ordering a giant sheet cake that has the Confederate flag on it, and inscribed on the top it says "I support traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and do not believe gay marriage should be endorsed by my government", that's okay?  The bakery shouldn't refuse my business?

No, they shouldn't. Simple as that.

 

Good luck with that.  If the gay mafia wants to start using tax law as a weapon, they're going to run into a buzz saw.  I almost encourage that to happen because it would stop certain progressive movements in their tracks.

Aaaaaand your bigotry is revealed.

---

What part of my post did you misconstrue? I'm well aware that in probably a hundred different cases already, gay couples have walked into Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran and Mormon churches (and probably plenty of other religions, too) and asked to be married there. I'm sure that most religious figures in the country are already consulting with their supervisors and lawyers about how to handle such requests, and I'm sure there are already activist lawyers filling in the names of churches on lawsuits that will be filed Monday morning. I don't think anyone's under the impression that today's ruling was the end of it. There were numerous battles that continued to be fought long after Brown v. Board of Education. Hell, Jacksonville itself hadn't actually desegregated schools until the late 80's/early 90's, and one could make a strong argument that schools are still drawn up to be segregated today down there. This is the beginning of a long process that will take years to sort itself out, and I should remind you that the Justices on this court are as likely to rule in favor of religious freedom (Hobby Lobby case) as they are to rule in favor of equal rights. I don't think that forcing Catholic priests to officiate weddings between same-sex individuals is as much of a slam dunk as you're making it out to be.

Never said it would be a slam dunk.  Only said that the issue was going to be forced by the activists.  You apparently agree with that point.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

No, they shouldn't. Simple as that.

 

Aaaaaand your bigotry is revealed.

But odds are they would.  There are already stories in the media of this happening, but there's no outrage when it does.  Why is that?  Why is it that activists jump out of the woodwork when a pizza restaurant owner says in an interview that if she was asked to cater a gay wedding, she wouldn't because of her religious beliefs?  The fact that they'd never been asked to do so, and that they had gay customers that they provided service to as patrons was irrelevant.  The activists had their sacrificial lamb. 

 

It's not bigotry.  It's fact.  There is a legitimate gay mafia in our society today.  Talk to our gay relatives or friends and ask them.  It's not something I've concocted.  But hey, call me a bigot if you feel the need. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

No, they shouldn't. Simple as that.

 

I disagree.  


They can refuse to bake that specific cake simply by saying they refuse to bake cakes with hateful messages on them.  That's the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' type of refusal of service.  If the man wants a cake from a gay bakery, and they refuse him then that's discrimination.  They can refuse to make a certain cake, but they can't refuse to make him a cake at all (as long as he requests one that's within their guidelines).


I think discrimination is a horrible practice, and it sets a bad example.  Especially for children.  Now if churches don't want to perform a ceremony for a gay couple -- that's their business because they're actually a religious group.  They can deny jewish people from getting married in their church just as much as they can a gay couple.  


Don't want to attend a gay wedding?  Maybe if you're in the cake business you should hire employees to do it in your place. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.