It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Right to Refuse Service" but not to Gays?

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
I see where you're coming from and the best answer i can give is this.

And the beat goes on...

You seriously can't see why it should be enforced?




posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I think what many tend to try to ride the coat tails on is the ministerial exemption clause in the law.

In the law, as it is written and been verified by the congress and the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is a bit where it allows for a minister, who is in charge of a church, some legal protection from lawsuits, where accusations of discrimination could be levied.

What it means is in short, the government, no matter of the level, can not interfere with the running of a church. If a minster decides to hire or fire a person, they are the only ones allowed to use religion as an excuse and walk away without fear of prosecution. The federal government can not force a church to hire someone or make them do anything that would violate their tenant of faith. This even extends into the US military, where the Chaplins have to answer to 2 bosses, those who are above them in rank and their superiors outside of the military.

As a result, only ministers get away with not having to go through the drills of shooting or firing a weapon, as it would invalidate a core tenant of their faith. It is what protects them, with say the Geneva convention, similar to say a doctor.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
You seriously can't see why it should be enforced?

By the people responsible for all the wars of aggression overseas, gun and drug smuggling worldwide, pension embezzlement, hyper inflation of the currency, letting bankers who ruin hundreds of thousands of homeowners and investors lives walk while people with a tiny bit of "happy plant" go to prison, profit from increased prison populations, militarizing our police force to protect against the very organizations they created, shooting kids with wii controllers and flashbanging babies because there weren't any "toys visible" when they entered, system welfare structure that makes it harder to get off welfare than to stay on, etc etc etc?

By the people who let "their own" off without any punishment but don't think twice about sending a black or poor white person to prison for the same crime?

You have been sold a LIE that things are better now than they used to be. They are on paper... but not in practice. It's an illusion. It's school house and TV propaganda. People in the future will wonder how we could be so blind and stupid.

Let me ask you this... how on earth were there black and gay authors and business owners before 1950? Were all black and gay people "perfect citizens" who were just sitting around like innocent children before? Is it possible there are people who are harmless NOW that are absolutely discriminated against that you aren't even aware of because you are a product of your time and they have no capacity to speak out because of the ignorance and "laws" in place now?

All of the real progress you actually see has been done on the personal generational social change level and was in progress before government jumped on the band wagon because it was a good way to get votes. Primarily by people who realized they could make more money than their bigoted competitors. The vast majority of usage of legislation has been a weapon between people that if you actually met in daily life you probably wouldn't want to spend much time. Especially *false* claims against competitors.
edit on 20-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
You seriously can't see why it should be enforced?

By the people responsible for all the wars of aggression overseas, gun and drug smuggling worldwide, pension embezzlement, hyper inflation of the currency, letting bankers who ruin hundreds of thousands of homeowners and investors lives walk while people with a tiny bit of "happy plant" go to prison, profit from increased prison populations, militarizing our police force to protect against the very organizations they created, shooting kids with wii controllers and flashbanging babies because there weren't any "toys visible" when they entered, system welfare structure that makes it harder to get off welfare than to stay on, etc etc etc?

By the people who let "their own" off without any punishment but don't think twice about sending a black or poor white person to prison for the same crime?

You have been sold a LIE that things are better now than they used to be. They are on paper... but not in practice. It's an illusion. It's school house and TV propaganda. People in the future will wonder how we could be so blind and stupid.

Let me ask you this... how on earth were there black and gay authors and business owners before 1950? Were all black and gay people "perfect citizens" who were just sitting around like innocent children before? Is it possible there are people who are harmless NOW that are absolutely discriminated against that you aren't even aware of because you are a product of your time and they have no capacity to speak out because of the ignorance and "laws" in place now?

maybe you should create an anti-government thread and leave this one be.
You went from asking why government should enforce discrimination laws to this



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut
This isn't anti-government necessarily. It's "contemplate the truth" of government so we can use it appropriately and realistically. No different from a gun or a stick of dynamite.

I don't think a single person in here has supported discrimination. They've been trying to discuss the correct manner in going about dealing with those who *do* decide to discriminate.

I've made it clear that people SHOULD be loud and vocal when they see unfair discrimination if it matters to them... and if it *really* matters to them setup their own competing businesses and prove how poor of a choice it is.

I'm pointing out less about anti-government necessarily... and more about WE are the ones with the actual ability to change things but so many people are used to throwing things they don't like over the fence saying "government should fix it for us" despite there being no time in history that government has shown itself genuinely capable of being in our best interest, especially in the long run.

Government is just us... but turned against us by its very nature no matter how well intentioned... and a powerful magnet for the most destructive traits in all of us.
edit on 20-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut
This isn't anti-government necessarily. It's "contemplate the truth" of government.

I don't think a single person in here has supported discrimination. They've been trying to discuss the correct manner in going about dealing with those who *do* decide to discriminate.

I've made it clear that people SHOULD be loud and vocal when they see unfair discrimination if it matters to them... and if it *really* matters to them setup their own competing businesses and prove how poor of a choice it is.

I'm pointing out less about anti-government necessarily... and more about WE are the ones with the actual ability to change things but so many people are used to throwing things they don't like over the fence saying "government should fix it for us" despite there being no time in history that government shown itself genuinely capable of being in our best interest.

Government is just us... but turned against us by its very nature no matter how well intentioned... and a powerful magnet for the most destructive traits in all of us.

I don't disagree with you on that and have no issue with the people solving the problem first as long as it's in a positive manner like boycotting and such. IMO the punishments for these types of things stated in the op should fit the discrimination. For example, the cake issue, the baker should have to make the cake for them and sell it at rate but with an apology for being intolerant. But life doesn't work that way and we have elected officials and laws. some are fair, some are not, some are weapons against the people.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut
Where we disagree is who gets to define who deserves collectively endorsed punishment. It's not a toy despite how casually so many take it right now.

There are significant groups of people that due to the internet 1) realize they aren't alone 2) can reasonably claim they were "born that way" in the same way as homosexuals and 3) currently have no voice in the public education system.

It's going to be fascinating to watch that tidal wave of legal challenges reach the shore and how those who thought they were the progressives react when they realize they are now the conservatives relative to those that are silently smirking at the "quaintness" of those currently calling themselves progressives.

Then there is backlash from those who think they have the "only" way and are just pissed off and tired enough to go for it.

I'm just a silly owl saying "who? who?" and star for you!
edit on 20-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
There is a massive body of people that due to the internet 1) realize they aren't alone 2) can reasonably claim they were "born that way" in the same way as homosexuals and 3) currently have no voice in the public education system.


Well, don't keep us all in the dark here, what group are you talking about that is going to be the Next Big Battle at hand???

This way we can decide if they are in fact a comparable type situation to what we have here.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
Where we disagree is who gets to define who deserves collectively endorsed punishment. It's not a toy despite how casually so many take it right now.


Another thing that I think needs to be pointed out is, at least IMO, you are blurring the line between when Governments regulate people and when they Regulate other functions within "The System".

What we have here isn't Government mandating how People act or think about other People. All these anti-gay business owners can still be anti-gay in their personal lives. What the Government is doing is Regulating the Business Practices between Businesses and the Public. Which is why we even have classifications of Businesses where it's allowed to be Anti-Gay and to discriminate even. But we also have classifications of Businesses where discrimination isn't allowed. These laws about how a business must behave. Not how people behave.

Now, you may say that your business is the same as you if you're the owner. But that isn't always correct. There are some cases where that is true and some where it is not true depending on the classification of the business model.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Well, don't keep us all in the dark here, what group are you talking about that is going to be the Next Big Battle at hand???

This way we can decide if they are in fact a comparable type situation to what we have here.

I had edited my comment before yours came through reflecting more accurately what I was aiming to imply (multiple groups that would fit the same legal definitions). The simplest answer would be "everyone else" that feels they can get a therapist and lawyer to agree they fit the technical definitions of being disenfranchised according to how someone chooses to read the laws.

That said... let me put my other hat on that is far more optimistic than the "Beware the Fundie Tyrant!" monster.

I think many people are likely so bored of watching the battle between male/female straight/gay that they've learned to get on with their life without needing to use the government and are utilizing the fact that there are so many people around now that it's really not that hard to find someone who will agree to do business/work with them.

In other words... rather than overwhelming the legal system with technicalities... simply stepping around the entire system and an entire generation grows up considering the current legal system more work than it is worth. Perhaps from some people's perspectives, having served its purpose and now time to move on to a state of mind that works with the current environment rather than continuing to sustain a battle that an older generation defined itself by and doesn't know how to let go of.

AKA let bigots/jerks on both sides die off and shop elsewhere.
edit on 20-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

Aka let bigots/jerks on both sides die off and shop elsewhere.


If only it were that easy. To some degree you're right. My generation was fairly well Racially Equal. The one behind me, even more so and the ones today certainly even more so. Sexuality as well as Racially BTW.

However, as much as that has progressed there is a whole part of society bringing up a whole other generation of bigots. Some through their own micro cultures. Some though Religious institutions, which is a major one. Some by other methods. Many of them are just as dedicated to their fight against Equality as those who have taught them too.

Religion especially has a huge hand in this. Not all of them. In fact they are most likely a minority, but they have a big and powerful reach within that group and certainly keep things stirred up with it.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
I think you're in for a surprise.

Have a good night. /salute



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: lonweld

If a biz does not want to serve gays. Fine whatever, there are plenty of other places to spend our money at.

Sometimes I find "gay" movement to be a little pushy, and over bearing.

WE should have learned by now, what it is like to get pushed around, and told how to live.
Take our own advice, and stop pushing people into serving you!

There are plenty of other places to go! It only hurts the personal biz by not taking in money that could be used as profits. They don't want to serve us.. Fine.. We can go else where, and not push this down peoples throats, like we have had done to us for decades!
Damn. Some get it.. Others are just jaded, and down right ready to fight back.
Gotta pick and chose our battles.
And we have to allow these people to serve who they want. It is their right.
Is it right? Morally, no IMO. But I would not want to give them my biz if that is how they feel.

There are plenty of "flower" shops out there, no need for this.

I have dealt with the bullies all my damn life. Yeah its hard not to want to fight back, but there are times and places to fight back.
This is not one of them.
Same with scouts.
Big Gay Al makes a wonderful point in that south park episode. Gay scouts of America! Watch it, learn.
edit on 23114491285 by zysin5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: mOjOm
I think you're in for a surprise.

Have a good night. /salute


That means nothing. You mind explaining that little comment a bit???

Are you planning a Birthday party for me without my knowledge??

Are you claiming that once all the old guys die in the next 10 or 20 years that all racism and sexism will just vanish??

Are you planning on sneaking up behind me and yelling "Boo" in the near future??

What exactly is this surprise you speak of??

I should let you know, that my psychic powers are still very bad and I totally suck at reading minds. In fact, I'm even horrible at taking hints or following clues as well, so I'd appreciate it if you'd just come right out and say what you mean as I find it saves a whole lot of time. Thanx.



posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
By who is going to start showing up on your bigot radar.

Also that I really mean it... hope you have a good night. I consider us lucky to be able to communicate at all.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: mOjOm
By who is going to start showing up on your bigot radar.

Also that I really mean it... hope you have a good night. I consider us lucky to be able to communicate at all.


Yay. Another Non-Answer. I feel like being rude now to you since you're making me repeat myself like this but I'm gonna try and remain civil for now.

Why can't you just answer the question in a way that makes sense???

My guess is that you either don't have one, or that you do have one but it's so ridiculous and/or unsubstantiated that you just don't want to say it.

I can already tell you're making character judgements about me as well which doesn't help either. I don't understand the comment about being lucky we communicate at all either. Is there some reason why communication between us should be difficult??? Other than you avoiding any direct answers that is.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ispyed
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Because the government represent the people. Government is the boss. Its called democracy.



America is not a Democracy.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: zysin5

I've asked this question MANY times and never gotten an answer. What about the gay people who live in a small town with only one bakery? Or one flower shop? Or one grocery store?

People seem to think everyone lives in a city large enough to have 3-4 bakeries or shoe stores to choose from. I live in a small town that has two furniture stores, one bakery, one shoe store and I don't remember seeing a flower shop, but there may be one. If I'm gay, am I supposed to move? Drive a couple hours to the nearest town that will sell me a cake? Am I supposed to check out a town to be sure all their services will accommodate me before I move there?

I would really like an answer to this question for those who say, "Just go down the road to the next bakery"!



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: zysin5

You said people should be allowed to live how they want and not be pushed around but then said people should be allowed to push people out of places they want to be for them being gay and dictate how they live. Don't you see the contradiction there? Letting a gay person into a store has no major negative effect on a service provider or store owners life but pushing a gay person out has a negative effect on the gay persons life. The consequences of what your saying is that if you have enough money to have a business you would be able to dictate other peoples lives. The bigger the corporation the more dictative power they have. Large businesses put small businesses out of business thus a power over all the people can take over.
edit on 21-8-2014 by Aural because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This all brings to mind the story I read online earlier this year...I can't remember the who or where, but it had to do with a waiter who overheard some guests in his restaurant speaking disparagingly about another party which included a special needs child. The waiter took it upon himself to refuse service to the first party because of what they had said.

Basically the internet applauded him as some kind of grassroots hero. But personally, I think he was out of line. A, he was just an employee, not even the owner of the place; who is he to decide who to serve or not?, and B, from the way the story was presented, it wasn't even as though the people were speaking to HIM, but rather among themselves, and he just happened to hear them. So, with that in mind, should people dining in a restaurant have to edit their personal conversations, just in case a waiter overhears and might take offense?

That's one of the issues I see with "right to refuse service"...there are just so many gray areas, and of course, as with everything else in life, every single individual person interprets things differently.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join