Republican wakes up!

Legion Troll said:
Sorry, Norah. Your opinions and beliefs are at odd with the laws of the USA.

Business owners can refuse to serve customers, but denial of service must be based on customer behavior, decorum or the health and safety of patrons and employees.

Failure to observe this standard will most often result in litigation or enforcement action.
Click to expand...

I know but I'm giving my opinion and what I'd like to see for the future. I understand that currently a lot of these ideas wouldn't fly but that doesn't have to be the future. I believe that the more we try and regulate what's right the less rights we actually have.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It doesn't matter what you believe, in this particular, because that's the law. BTW...if you open a public business and you don't serve the public well...you probably won't be in business for long. The goal of a public business is to serve the public in a mutually beneficial manner in which the public receives valuable goods and services and in which the business owner(s) earn monetary profits.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that it would probably hurt your business to openly discriminate or exclude people but all I'm saying is that it should be their right in my opinion. I wouldn't expect a business that doesn't serve black people to last very lon before they change their tune but it's their business to let tank.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well no shit Captain Obvious but that has nothing to do with my point...Troll.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with your "point". Your claim that a business must consume "public resources" to be governed by anti-discrimination statutes is specious.

Try reading the Ohio law:

(1) "Person" includes one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, and other organized groups of persons. "Person" also includes, but is not limited to, any owner, lessor, assignor, builder, manager, broker, salesperson, appraiser, agent, employee, lending institution, and the state and all political subdivisions, authorities, agencies, boards, and commissions of the state.

(2) "Employer" includes the state, any political subdivision of the state, any person employing four or more persons within the state, and any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer.

(3) "Employee" means an individual employed by any employer but does not include any individual employed in the domestic service of any person.

(4) "Labor organization" includes any organization that exists, in whole or in part, for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning grievances, terms or conditions of employment, or other mutual aid or protection in relation to employment.

(5) "Employment agency" includes any person regularly undertaking, with or without compensation, to procure opportunities to work or to procure, recruit, refer, or place employees.

(6) "Commission" means the Ohio civil rights commission created by section 4112.03 of the Revised Code.

(7) "Discriminate" includes segregate or separate.

(8) "Unlawful discriminatory practice" means any act prohibited by section 4112.02, 4112.021, or 4112.022 of the Revised Code.

(9) "Place of public accommodation" means any inn, restaurant, eating house, barbershop, public conveyance by air, land, or water, theater, store, other place for the sale of merchandise, or any other place of public accommodation or amusement of which the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges are available to the public.


http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4112

I'm surprised, Mott. I expect this kind of obstinate ignorance from conservatives, not from you.
 
Cowgirl Tuff said:
I believe that a faith based organization should be able to hire whoever they want and also be able to deny services to anybody that goes against their sincerely held beliefs. If a private business based in faith wants to only hire people that share that faith then I am ok with that. Same if a private organization wants to deny service for something that goes against their faith and principles. Likewise if I disagreed with the religious beliefs of an organization I wouldn't try to get a job with them and I wouldn't seek out their services.
Click to expand...

Here are my issues with this interpretation:

First and foremost, a business is a legal entity that by its very nature cannot have faith or belief. It's founders and owners may, but the business itself simply cannot. As such, I find that a business should be exempted from laws that protect discrimination and bigotry. And if organizations are permitted to discriminate in direct contravention of the Constitution's guarantees of equality, then they should lose their tax-exempt status.

Beyond that, I would question whether or not anyone has "sincerely held beliefs" if they choose to discriminate. To use Christians as an example, Jesus and the New Testament are both very, very clear on the idea of discrimination and bigotry.

In Acts, Peter tells us that "God shows no partiality," and we are reminded of this Romans, too.

The Gospel of Matthew lobs the "Golden Rule" at us: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

In James, we are admonished to "show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory..." because if you do, then, "...have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

The New Testament is riddled with edicts and comments that we should not discriminate against anyone, and that we should treat others exactly in the way we wish to be treated ourselves, and that we should love one another. This is where the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" comes from (which is always said by people who are shouting hate-filled messages at people who they consider "sinners" - and they say it without any irony, which is in itself ironic).

So I would be forced to question just how strongly a Christian is in their faith if they're using that faith to justify discrimination when the book they draw their faith from expressly states that you should not discriminate.

If one is doing the exact opposite of what one is told to do by the documents upon which their faith is based, then they are clearly not very devout and the exemption based on those "sincerely-held religious beliefs" is invalidated.

Bill Maher (who is a complete schmuck, but I won't get started) actually made sense at one point on this very issue. When Christians discriminate in direct contravention of what Jesus taught, "It's like joining Greenpeace but hating whales."
 
Cowgirl Tuff said:
I don't disagree that it would probably hurt your business to openly discriminate or exclude people but all I'm saying is that it should be their right in my opinion. I wouldn't expect a business that doesn't serve black people to last very lon before they change their tune but it's their business to let tank.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking Nora. History has proven otherwise.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Wishful thinking Nora. History has proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Meh, it's not the 50's any more. Any business that put a sign up saying 'no blacks' would probably have a UN resolution filed against it lol. This is the age of racial hypersensitivity, so any business that did such a thing would be out of business in a week.

Thats a poor analogy for gay wedding cakes anyway. Racial animus is racial animus. But business owners who have a religious objection to baking cakes aren't refusing to serve gays---I'm sure they'd be more than happy to sell gays 10 dozen donuts. Something a racially bigoted store owner wouldn't do.

Rather, they are refusing to bake gay wedding cakes because to do so violates their conscience. So there's a First Amendment component to their argument that would be otherwise lacking.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Meh, it's not the 50's any more. Any business that put a sign up saying 'no blacks' would probably have a UN resolution filed against it lol. This is the age of racial hypersensitivity, so any business that did such a thing would be out of business in a week.

Thats a poor analogy for gay wedding cakes anyway. Racial animus is racial animus. But business owners who have a religious objection to baking cakes aren't refusing to serve gays---I'm sure they'd be more than happy to sell gays 10 dozen donuts. Something a racially bigoted store owner wouldn't do.

Rather, they are refusing to bake gay wedding cakes because to do so violates their conscience. So there's a First Amendment component to their argument that would be otherwise lacking.
Click to expand...
Well that's because we have laws in place prohibiting such descrimination now! If we didn't, AS I SAID, history has proven otherwise.


As for using religion as a façade to discriminate in the public sphere....sell that crap to some one dumb enough to believe that. That lousy excuse isn't going to fly with anyone who can think. Those are the same arguments that were made by racist who opposed integration and bigots who opposed interracial marriage. It's just seriously flawed reasoning.
 
Cowgirl Tuff said:
I don't disagree that it would probably hurt your business to openly discriminate or exclude people but all I'm saying is that it should be their right in my opinion. I wouldn't expect a business that doesn't serve black people to last very long before they change their tune but it's their business to let tank.
Click to expand...

But how does that square with my comment regarding what the New Testament teaches (see above, which I made after your quoted post in this response) as to "love thy neighbor," "love thine enemy," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Understand that I'm not having a go at you, here. I'm asking honestly: When the New Testament, which is the basis for the Christian faith and contains Jesus' teachings of tolerance and love, tells you that you should not discriminate, how can one claim to have "firmly-held beliefs" when they run entirely contrary to what the faith is intended to be - according to itself?

How do you square that circle?

Or is it that the "firmly-held beliefs" in question aren't Christian ones at all?
 
Stelakh said:
But how does that square with my comment regarding what the New Testament teaches (see above, which I made after your quoted post in this response) as to "love thy neighbor," "love thine enemy," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Understand that I'm not having a go at you, here. I'm asking honestly: When the New Testament, which is the basis for the Christian faith and contains Jesus' teachings of tolerance and love, tells you that you should not discriminate, how can one claim to have "firmly-held beliefs" when they run entirely contrary to what the faith is intended to be - according to itself?

How do you square that circle?

Or is it that the "firmly-held beliefs" in question aren't Christian ones at all?
Click to expand...

because you can love your neighbor without participating in activities which you deem to be contrary to God's teaching.......to show love to your neighbor you don't have to bake them a gay wedding cake......any more than to show love to an alcoholic you have to give them a fifth of vodka........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
because you can love your neighbor without participating in activities which you deem to be contrary to God's teaching.......to show love to your neighbor you don't have to bake them a gay wedding cake......any more than to show love to an alcoholic you have to give them a fifth of vodka........
Click to expand...

But you are still discriminating against them, which is expressly commented on myriad times in the New Testament.

Baking a cake isn't participating in the wedding.

As to the alcoholic reference, it's really irrelevant to the issue of discrimination and plainly a bad comparison (to show love to an alcoholic you'd actually want to not give them a fifth of vodka - but that's not discrimination).

I'm afraid that the circle is still unsquared.
 
Stelakh said:
Baking a cake isn't participating in the wedding.
Click to expand...

no....not baking a cake isn't participating in the wedding.......baking one is.....as is photographing it, decorating it with flowers, preparing the invitations, acting as the preacher, etc..........not participating in the wedding is sitting at home watching a baseball game.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....not baking a cake isn't participating in the wedding.......baking one is.....as is photographing it, decorating it with flowers, preparing the invitations, acting as the preacher, etc..........not participating in the wedding is sitting at home watching a baseball game.......
Click to expand...

But that still doesn't mean that not participating in such an event is not based on discrimination.

Refusing to participate solely because someone is different than you is a discriminatory act and, again, such a judgmental and discriminatory act is a big no-no per the teachings of Jesus and the new Testament.

And unless a baker is actually at the wedding baking the cake (I think you'll find this doesn't happen very often), they are not participating in the wedding.

Do you believe that my participation in THIS thread means I am participating in ALL threads of this forum? It doesn't, and I'm not, any more than a baker is participating by baking a cake and not attending the wedding itself.

As to the preacher - if there is one - clearly they would be participating as the person who facilitates the marriage. Is a photographer participatory? It could be said so, but also could be said not. You can go to an event, take photos of it, but not participate in it.

But the bottom line is that whether or not participation is involved, it all swings back to the reason for not participating being discrimination. And that's the real issue I'm talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top