Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Norstal]

Would you assume that if you saw the sign

"We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason"

that the business was refusing to serve gay people?
How?
Why would you assume that?

I would assume that the business was reserving the right to refuse service for any reason, and so I would have no right to complain if and when the business did refuse service for some reason.

Ok, but, that's my tax money being spent on the roads and sidewalks leading up to that business. I have the right to complain. Cause that's my tax money.

[Geilinor]

Would you assume that if you saw the sign

"We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason"

that the business was refusing to serve gay people?
How?
Why would you assume that?

I would assume that the business was reserving the right to refuse service for any reason, and so I would have no right to complain if and when the business did refuse service for some reason.

You don't know that the bakery had such a sign hanging out front.

[Colarias]

It wasn't a private club. It was a private business open to the public, so a slight difference there.

"The public" not "an exclusive group"

What if that exclusive group encompasses a large portion of the public?

[Geilinor]

I would assume that the business was reserving the right to refuse service for any reason, and so I would have no right to complain if and when the business did refuse service for some reason.

Ok, but, that's my tax money being spent on the roads and sidewalks leading up to that business. I have the right to complain. Cause that's my tax money.

The roads the business's suppliers use were also paid by taxes.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Everybody Listen Up I have worked out a compromise so that I can finally go to sleep. The companies have the right to discriminate against those who they want by not allowing them into their private business to sell them goods or give them services.

Then

If this occurs the discriminated against person gets people to boycott the business, sends hate mail to the person, annoys the person in public places, parks their own car in front of the persons driveway. Basically does every legal thing to make that persons life as shit as possible. When the person complains just explain "hey, I'm just expressing my freedom to discriminate".

Because nothing quite says a free society like discrimination, revenge, mob justice (within the law hopefully) and acting like three year olds.

Yes. This is perfect.

Fantastic, you should make that your campaign logo, "Freedom to act like a Three Years old, bitches!"

[Lunalia]

It fails the reasonable person test.

One final time.

Why do you hate the idea of the public being informed about a businesses practices?

You aren't pro-capitalism.
You're pro-corporatism.

Fuck that.

Again, could you PLEASE stop assuming only REASONABLE PEOPLE follow this opinion? REASONABLE PEOPLE can be following the other side's opinion too.

He's talking about a legitimate legal term here. The idea is to find wording that's clear to a reasonable person.

[Des-Bal]

They were changed because we AGREED that it was wrong to discriminate based on color of skin.

And now you are saying that we should agree that it is right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and that people should start making "straights only" schools and buses.

And I am disagreeing with you.

If right is whatever we agree on then it was right at the time.

No I'm not.

[Lost heros]

"The public" not "an exclusive group"

What if that exclusive group encompasses a large portion of the public?

That is still an exclusive group.
The public =/= the majority.

[Auralia]

I would assume that the business was reserving the right to refuse service for any reason, and so I would have no right to complain if and when the business did refuse service for some reason.

Again, if a business refused to service customers of certain race or religion would that be acceptable?

Is it morally acceptable? No, of course not.

Should it be legally acceptable? Yes, I think so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It wasn't a private club. It was a private business open to the public, so a slight difference there.

"The public" not "an exclusive group"

Every private business is "open to the public"; a very specific public, but a public regardless.

Water, gas, government agencies, those are all public businesses, tended by taxes. Private businesses are, by definition, owned and maintained by a person or group of people working together to make profits.

That it's opened to the public is about the same as saying "Pools are for swimming"; no shit they are, the question is whether or not those pools are under a private property or under a public property like the local school.

[Lunalia]

"The public" not "an exclusive group"

What if that exclusive group encompasses a large portion of the public?

It's still an exclusive group because it excludes.

[Auralia]

I would assume that the business was reserving the right to refuse service for any reason, and so I would have no right to complain if and when the business did refuse service for some reason.

You don't know that the bakery had such a sign hanging out front.

Fair enough, but we're talking about a hypothetical case in relation to when discrimination would be acceptable, so the point is moot.

[Ostroeuropa]

You don't know that the bakery had such a sign hanging out front.

Fair enough, but we're talking about a hypothetical case in relation to when discrimination would be acceptable, so the point is moot.

If it fails the reasonable person test then it isn't acceptable.
Like i said, he can try a jury and see if he gets lucky.
I'd personally conclude it is too vague to pass the reasonable person test and convict.

[Auralia]

I made this post a few pages earlier, but I think it was missed:

Notwithstanding the question of whether or not, in general, a business should be permitted to refuse to participate in a gay marriage, I think most people can agree that cases like these are abuses of public accommodations anti-discrimination law. The purpose of public accommodations anti-discrimination law is to ensure that members of protected classes of persons are able to access goods and services, not to browbeat everyone into compliance with the anti-discrimination norm.

In this case, the gay couple could easily find another baker who would be willing to provide them with a wedding cake, and they would ultimately suffer little to no hardship, other than hurt feelings. Yet they chose to force the Christian baker to service them, causing him substantial hardship in the process. Forcing someone to act against their deeply held moral and religious convictions - no matter how wrong they may seem - is not something which should be dismissed lightly.

Colorado's anti-discrimination law should be amended to allow defendants to present the availability of alternative services as an affirmative defence to an anti-discrimination claim.

[Galter Gulcher]

Well, both sides are wrong.

The baker is a complete idiot, trying to not make money.

And the two couple seem like brats who just wanted to make some point about discrimination, NEWSFLASH there are other bakers out there.

[Lost heros]

Well, both sides are wrong.

The baker is a complete idiot, trying to not make money.

And the two couple seem like brats who just wanted to make some point about discrimination, NEWSFLASH there are other bakers out there.

I don't see why the couple should be forced to go to a separate bakery.

[Myrensis]

Notwithstanding the question of whether or not, in general, a business should be permitted to refuse to participate in a gay marriage, I think most people can agree that cases like these are abuses of public accommodations anti-discrimination law. The purpose of public accommodations anti-discrimination law is to ensure that members of protected classes of persons are able to access goods and services, not to browbeat everyone into compliance with the anti-discrimination norm.

In this case, the gay couple could easily find another baker who would be willing to provide them with a wedding cake, and they would ultimately suffer little to no hardship, other than hurt feelings. Yet they chose to force the Christian baker to service them, causing him substantial hardship in the process. Forcing someone to act against their deeply held moral and religious convictions - no matter how wrong they may seem - is not something which should be dismissed lightly.

Colorado's anti-discrimination law should be amended to allow defendants to present the availability of alternative services as an affirmative defence to an anti-discrimination claim.

I know right, back in the good old days they even had minorities-only businesses and services! And good christian white folk were free to avoid dirtying themselves by mingling with the subhumans, as their deeply held moral and religious convictions instructed them.

[Colarias]

What if that exclusive group encompasses a large portion of the public?

That is still an exclusive group.
The public =/= the majority.

That's the point I was trying to make before. It would be an exclusive group, and therefore have the legal ability to refuse service to certain people. There would be two types of people who walk through the doors of the bakery, the members who are heterosexual, and the non-members who are homosexual. The heterosexuals would automatically be a part of the group, while the homosexuals would not be so. A sign in front of the bakery could have easily said "Registration required to use service", and the registration would be so easy that it would only take a minute, making the flow of business almost as if it were a public business.

It would still be a private, exclusive group, but registration of this group would be so simple that anyone eligible would see the registration as nothing.

[Gauthier]

Well, both sides are wrong.

The baker is a complete idiot, trying to not make money.

And the two couple seem like brats who just wanted to make some point about discrimination, NEWSFLASH there are other bakers out there.

I don't see why the couple should be forced to go to a separate bakery.

It's called Separate But Equal, silly.

[Lunalia]

I made this post a few pages earlier, but I think it was missed:

Notwithstanding the question of whether or not, in general, a business should be permitted to refuse to participate in a gay marriage, I think most people can agree that cases like these are abuses of public accommodations anti-discrimination law. The purpose of public accommodations anti-discrimination law is to ensure that members of protected classes of persons are able to access goods and services, not to browbeat everyone into compliance with the anti-discrimination norm.

In this case, the gay couple could easily find another baker who would be willing to provide them with a wedding cake, and they would ultimately suffer little to no hardship, other than hurt feelings. Yet they chose to force the Christian baker to service them, causing him substantial hardship in the process. Forcing someone to act against their deeply held moral and religious convictions - no matter how wrong they may seem - is not something which should be dismissed lightly.

Colorado's anti-discrimination law should be amended to allow defendants to present the availability of alternative services as an affirmative defence to an anti-discrimination claim.

So was it right to force "White's Only" businesses to let in non whites? They were just as certain that their religion said they needed to stay separate from non whites.

[Auralia]

Well, both sides are wrong.

The baker is a complete idiot, trying to not make money.

And the two couple seem like brats who just wanted to make some point about discrimination, NEWSFLASH there are other bakers out there.

I don't see why the couple should be forced to go to a separate bakery.

Because the hardship they suffer in being forced to go to another bakery is substantially less than the hardship suffered by the baker in being forced to act against his deeply held religious convictions.

[Gig em Aggies]

Well, both sides are wrong.

The baker is a complete idiot, trying to not make money.

And the two couple seem like brats who just wanted to make some point about discrimination, NEWSFLASH there are other bakers out there.

I don't see why the couple should be forced to go to a separate bakery.

their not being forced. people are saying that if the baker refused to serve them then the couple should take their business to another baker who would serve them.

[Ostroeuropa]

That is still an exclusive group.
The public =/= the majority.

That's the point I was trying to make before. It would be an exclusive group, and therefore have the legal ability to refuse service to certain people. There would be two types of people who walk through the doors of the bakery, the members who are heterosexual, and the non-members who are homosexual. The heterosexuals would automatically be a part of the group, while the homosexuals would not be so. A sign in front of the bakery could have easily said "Registration required to use service", and the registration would be so easy that it would only take a minute, making the flow of business almost as if it were a public business.

It would still be a private, exclusive group, but registration of this group would be so simple that anyone eligible would see the registration as nothing.

Perfectly acceptable provided the membership requirements are made clear to those applying so they can refuse to patronise the business.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I support legalising homosexual marriage. But I don't support a company being forced to serve them if they don't want to.

[Lunalia]

I don't see why the couple should be forced to go to a separate bakery.

Because the hardship they suffer in being forced to go to another bakery is substantially less than the hardship suffered by the baker in being forced to act against his deeply held religious convictions.

And the hardship suffered by a black woman on a bus is substantially less than the hardship suffered by the white person in being forced to act against their deeply held religious convictions that whites get seats before blacks?