It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 09:59 AM
a reply to: mOjOm
You are right, I was forming a character judgement. It started out that you seemed relatively pleasant, intelligent, and earnest in your beliefs. Just coming at the "problem" from a very different angle and thus being a bit one sided from my perspective.

Now I'm seeing a different side and having to adjust that judgement because to be quite frank... I didn't think my comment would have such an effect on you.

Who will be showing up on your radar down the road? The people who are most convinced they aren't bigots because right now they share the current socially dominant view on "what is right". There isn't anything magical about it... that's the way it always is. The bigots we perceive of the past didn't perceive themselves as bigots in their time because they were just "right" and those who disagreed with them were just "wrong".

All you have to do is sit back and quietly watch what the most socially safe beliefs of today are and you'll see the umbrella protecting those the future will see were the most aggressive bigots of our day. There are bigots in all groups and beliefs, but only certain ones at any one time have government protecting their particular form.

Why do I consider it lucky we get to communicate? Because we're not isolated from each other the way we would be without this network. Nothing more. But feel free to assume the worst if you wish.
edit on 21-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:12 AM

originally posted by: SnarkySheep
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.

If a gay waiter hears a customer making disparaging remarks about a gay couple at another table...??? Or a black person hears a racist remark directed at a nearby table?

Do they get to claim hate speech? Or should they be just an employee who should keep quiet and do their job?

When I'm remarking in this thread... I'm trying to raise awareness of when these "protections" start getting turned against the people who thought they were being protected but didn't realize their own mirror of it.

For example... the student being suspended for saying "Bless You". Well guess what's coming down the pipe. Students being suspended for saying they don't know if god exists, or don't believe god exists. Can't ban one without the other.

You are right, it is a grey area and those trying to use the state to make it black and white are creating the very monster that's going to start chomping on them eventually. Well more like their children because it's always the children that pay the price for their parent's short sightedness.
edit on 21-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:25 AM
If the groups that will soon be arguing with the "help of a therapist" [sic] that they were "born that way" and thus have a right to live "that way" happen to be any of the following:

1. Pedophiles
2. Zoophiles (Bestiality)
3. Necrophiles

... then the argument flatly fails on its face. In each of those three cases, the "non-violent, non-harmful actions between consenting adults" idea fails miserably.

There is nothing similar about these darling betes noires of the rabid-right-wing and equality for homosexual American citizens.

Good heavens, that argument, whether implicit or overt, is getting tiring.
edit on 10Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:27:34 -050014p102014866 by Gryphon66 because: Gilding the lily

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:33 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66
None of the above. Not once has non-consensual activity even been hinted at and your assumptions reveal more about you than anyone else.

One activity in particular has been called out specifically because of it being deemed "obscene" by many despite being legal and consensual. Thus not much different from how homosexuality was/is considered "obscene" by some even if it is legal.
edit on 21-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:55 AM
a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight

Are you familiar with the idea of "conditional" statements, those that take the basic form beginning with "If" and continuing at some point with "then"?

You may note, on second glance, that my comment that you are replying to is a conditional statement.

Here's another: IF the right-wing trifecta is not what you were referring to with your vague, coy references in the thread, THEN my comments don't apply to you.

Don't paint your specific self with a generic brush, eh? Read more carefully.

And please, don't try to analyze me from one post.

Further, your basic argument is that groups or classes that are discriminated against unfairly should not seek appropriate relief under the rule of law because that law might be used against them in the future seems ... weak, to be honest.

Should we allow injustice to stand in the present because of the possibility of future injustice?

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: SnarkySheep

Thats pretty different though. Refusal of service by an employee is someone acting on their own, not by policy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What the heck are you even talking about? The people of the conservative Abrahamic beliefs often try to say being gay is unnatural thus wrong (which is a naturalistic fallacy) and the easiest way to discredit that is to try to prove it is inborn meaning to people of those religious beliefs would have to conclude god made them that way so thats how it was supposed to be. There are non religious people who do not like gay people sure but they do not seem to be majority. Thats why it comes up on topic a lot.

Nature or nurture should have no weight on the issue at all but people try to act as if it means right or wrong when it doesnt mean that at all. It has no bearing in reality but to the religious who dont think too deep on morals and only get it from a book it does have meaning because it shows some of their preconceptions wrong thenn their other arguments fall apart easier. Its just easier to argue its inborn than it is to argue to treat them right just "because its the right thing to do". Gay people are people and should be treated as people. Its pretty simple but there are many people who are stingy on opening their hearts.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:07 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66
The nature of the groups being referred to had already been brought up. But fair enough... I'll accept your gilded lily softening your intent.

I've been stating nothing more than the fact that using the state to solve our problems always turns against everyone... and those most surprised by it are those who thought the state was their friend. Especially when things get tense and faith in the system and economic strength starts breaking down. *Looks around*

Do I think injustice should stand? Of course not. I try to not practice it myself and extend support to someone being given the shaft if I see an opportunity.

But I also don't delude myself into turning a blind eye to the very real long term consequences of using the state to solve these problems.

If a group of people can get a law changed or passed so that a homosexual must be allowed shop at a bakery and can force it whether the baker wants to or not... that same group of people have other methods to ensure the homosexual has whatever cakes they want without creating a weapon.

A weapon that will later be used against them when the government is run by someone the homosexual disagrees with who has an agenda, voters, directives from above, and people with more money than the homosexual has to pander to.
edit on 21-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:17 AM
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

WE ARE THEIR BOSS, not the other way around.

I agree that should be HOW it works and its BS that a gov't gets involved in such things in a so called free market enviroment.

BUT that is NOT true at all. Look at the facts: They work for the lobyiest plain an simple. Of the top of my head.

1. Did constituent ask congress to please don't tell us if we are buying GMO products or please make it illegal to tell us? Or did lobbyiest draft those laws and our congress robosigned them?

2. Did constituent ask congress to please reverse net neutraility because we hate getting equal service from small sites to coporate sights, we want prices to go up. Or did lobbyiest draft those laws and our congress robosigned them?

3. Why is it that nobody on the MSM media which is sponsored by the biggest lobbying industry talking about stronger enforcement against the very industries that are hiring illegal immigrants? Is it possible that the immigration topic and laws are being drafted by the lobbying industries who don't wan't the problem to be really fixed and our congress goes along with it?

4. Pick any industry or issue and you will see that coincidently the lobbying firms are always on the winning side. When they loos they still win and get bailout money.

Also for the life of me I can't understand why people think that our congress is sitting their in DC trying to come up with ways to fix things when the lobbiest are spending billiions in law firms to draft the solution for them?

Do our politicians look like the ethical eager types?

Sorry but WE ARE NOT their boss, the lobbyiest are their BOSS.

The lobbyiest are the ones that our elected officials depend on to help raise the half billion dollars that it takes to run for office.

The lobbyiest are the ones our elected officials depend on to become part of the election pool via the RNC , DNC, and the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)

The lobbyiest are the ones our elected officials depend on to help get positive media coverage on the news.

We are only along for the ride.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:24 AM
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic And to a reply to: Aural

This is true, and you make an excellent point that I honestly really did over look. Sadly for people like me who would live in a small town, I would have to pack up and move. Sad I know. I have been absolutely FORCED to live a way I was very unhappy with. I was fired from jobs for being gay. All I was left with was to run. Run and find a place better suited for myself and my partner at the time. If we stood up and fought these bullies we would have been killed, as it was constant harassment.
Sadly I do not have an answer for that, as it stand we live in a country that does not treat other human beings with respect. They spew their vile hate upon us, and put us in a cage. (The city cage, where we have more options.) Some countries would just HANG my ass, or stone me in public.

I feel you, I really do. And maybe my point was to broad and over the board. Maybe it is because I feel defeated most the time. Was not until a little while ago I found the strength to really start just facing those things. And trying to understand why I have been so defeated. So bullied. But then again I am not looking for pity.

It may be a contradiction to my first post on here. But I was honestly trying to play to the other side base of those in this thread. I get tired of being attacked at in condescending ways. Ive been on the front lines before, and had to jump back into the back ranks and try something new.

I thought maybe if I could find some "common" ground with these people who hate on us so much, maybe I could reason with them. Sadly this is not working either, as then my own side comes at me, and is like WHAT gives?

If it is not apparent from my posts here, I am on the side of gay rights and myself I count myself along with them.
But truth be told, I was born with both genders. So am I gay if I love a woman. Am I gay if I love a man. I was born with both parts. Its confusing as hell. While I do have more female qualities than my other side, I still have to fight along side with fellow LGBT as they are in the same boat. Every application out there says gender. Male or female.
They make NO special foot notes for people born like me. I am forced into one or the other, when I am BOTH.
I really hate even saying this in this thread.. As I see it coming, the name calling, the confusion.
But I like you BH I always have. So I figured I would give you an honest reply the best way I could.

My family made the choice for me, and raised me as a boy. Once I got into my young teens, I questioned that choice they made for me. Yet on all my records it says male.(I have 2 sisters, and they really wanted a boy, but I was half that, so they FORCED me into that before I had the chance to grow into who I really was, I was BORN this way.)
Hence when I go for a job interview, I am told.. You need to cut your hair.
I did that ONE time, and donated my hair to locks of love. 6 months later, I was Laid off, as they found out I lived a different lifestyle. And found a way to legally get rid of me. As much of a boy I was trying to be, it just was not me.
And I came across as a very femme boy. But that was me being forced into something just to pay my bills and live like everyone else. Total BS. (Sucks to as a female, I would make LESS money, so I chose to work as a guy to make MORE money, total BS, and a whole other topic there. Just so you can understand that part, as I would have picked Female gender if it was given that choice, I wasn't. so now its permanently on my records.) I could change it, but its lots of hoops to jump through, and have my name plastered all over local news papers, freaking wrong IMO.)
After that I grew my hair back out, and said F them. I am not being discriminated against anymore.
Sorry I really went off topic here, but had to make my point of view very clear. So you can understand my place and spot better.

Back to your question.
If a person lives in that small of a town, that is that vile. In a perfect world it would be nice for everyone to "play" nice and get along. The reality is, people are hateful, spiteful human beings, who are very DANGEROUS.
Ive got my fill of death threats. And by that time, its best to move on, and find a place that is more willing to take you in.
Yeah its not right, I do not agree with it. I have barely made it out of some places with my life. Being called a freak, Or asked to drop my pants. Or WHAT ARE YOU!!
Sigh, its very tiresome. And sometimes I just give in to the greater hate that this world has used to oppress me.

Sorry I do not have a REAL answer for you, but that is the best I can do here, and was being freaking honest as hell, and I may end up paying for that. As members on the other side will read this, and all start pointing fingers, and snicker in the background. Not that I care, but I know human nature. And 80% of the time it makes me sick.
And sometimes pushes me back into a corner, where all I am left with, its to just give into that vile base, and let them have their way for now.

I am sure I am going to feel the blow back from this post here.. but I am done hiding, and done having to walk on egg shells.
So sorry for what seemed to be an anti gay post.. It really was not. I am just a city girl.. And I have not lived in any small little hateful villages that do not give me options to choose from.
I would NOT live in any little place that brewed that much hate.. I would leave right away. And it is not fair or right. But it is the world we live in today.. I am just being honest. NO one wants to play nice. They think its a GAY agenda. to depopulate the earth, or to go against GODS will.. what ever you name it, they have their reasons for being such jerks.
edit on 23214222885 by zysin5 because: spelling edit
I just ask nicely of all members to please respect my post here, and not to use this against me else where. Thanks.
edit on 23214114085 by zysin5 because: Edit 2

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: intrepid

That's BS it shouldn't be called a hate crime. We pay there salary and it's the owner who is not making money buy refusing them. So what someone doesn't like you because you gay, big deal. If your gay or not, not everyone is going to like you deal with it.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: zysin5


I don't believe people should have to move to somewhere that accepts them. That's why we have such segregation today. All of "this kind" live in this area because they are hated and misunderstood by others. I think freedom means we can live where WE choose to live, marry who WE choose to marry and have the wedding cake WE choose to have.

When a persons reaps the benefits of having his own business in a state, and offering services to the general public, that means everyone. If they don't want to live in a state that has anti-discrimination laws, THEY can move. Probably to Texas.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: zysin5
Outstanding post.
You'd be pretty chilled in my town on the SW coast of England, plenty of openly transgendered people, and if there are any bigots who have a problem I not heard of it in the qtr century I've lived here. Bigots keep their bigoted opinions to themselves and other bigots here because the majority are chilled about such things...until we see any bigotry, and then the majority are not so chilled when we challenge it.

I hope your world becomes as chilled as mine, I hope that for all of the world...and it will happen eventually when the older bigoted generations die off.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:01 PM
a reply to: grainofsand a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks so much guys. I was honestly slightly worried about posting that..
I could only hope things become more chilled for sure. Where I live right now, its pretty cool, I work my job and run into no issues, I am helping people. And go out of my way to be the better person.

Yeah BH, its come down to that, either I walk away and move, or they walk away and move. Sadly they will concrete themselves in and yell at the top of their lungs. Discrimination, if we tell them to find a place more suited to their lifestyle. Its like we are dead locked here. hence me playing to their base.
I was trying a new tactic, sadly it back fires on me all the time.

Thanks for you reply guys, I feel much better now.

I so did not want to be that "one" to come in and fight against my fellow friends and members of this world. I just want to love everyone, and my empathy allows me to see that other side, even if it does put me down. I still have room in my heart to try to see it their way, no matter how wrong I might think it is. That is what makes me, who I am.
And allows me to rise above those, not sinking to their level.
But yeah, Ive had to run, when they should be the ones running. I just don't want to fight, I am to passive. And my friends tell me. Why you let people bully you so much, You gotta stand up to them. Maybe they are right.
edit on 23214040485 by zysin5 because: spelling edit

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:02 PM
The question then becomes..

Why would you not want to serve a lesbian couple? If they were clean, not obnoxious, good paying customers, why would you not want to serve them?

Is there anyone on ATS who, if they owned a business would refuse service just because of sexual orientation?

I'm calling you out. Don't be a coward. If you truly believe something, stand up and shout it. Living in fear is not an option.
edit on 21-8-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)

We know you wouldn't refuse service because you don't like their lifestyle choice, because we know it's much more complicated than a simple choice. So it's not that.

We know it's not because of 2 thousand year old religion, because, basing your life on centuries old pre scientific belief and with outdated moral principles is silly, for example I don't go around worshipping he nature gods on my pyramid and practicing human sacrifice like the Ancient Mayans. What makes your religion better or more valid than that.
edit on 21-8-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:05 PM
a reply to: Aural

"What am I talking about?"

I could ask you the same question.

If you have followed the arguments here and in general media regarding equality, I think you would have realized that one of the most common vectors of attack is to suggest that because 30 or 40 years ago, homosexuality was considered (at least officially) to be a mental disorder and was criminalized, and because our society has evolved in the intervening years to realize not only that 1) Homosexuality is a naturally occurring human characteristic (your argument) but that 2) love, affection, sexual interaction when expressed between two consenting adults (who are capable of consent, unlike children, animals and corpses) is not harmful or damaging to society in anyway, thus removing the State's interest in legislating against it.

If equality depended merely on a generally accepted belief that "gays are born that way" I fear we would be far, far away from equality, as there is still, after 30 or so years of looking, no CONCLUSIVE SINGULAR evidence in that regard.

Just for your reference, I am a strong advocate of equal rights for all.

EDIT: Addendum

I'm a 48 year old gay man. I find it really strange to say that these days, because it's been so long since my love life has been an issue in any way. I wanted to clarify what I said above because it seems misleading, as any short comment on such a wide-ranging subject would be.

I do not believe that sexual preference is "a choice." That statement is patently, effectively and evidently incorrect. However, the claim that "folks are born that way" would not hold up as an acceptable statement of LEGAL IDENTITY as is evident from all the rabid-right-wing attacks on that statement. A gay or lesbian or bisexual or [insert sexual orientation here] American should have equal rights not because of their sexual orientation, but indeed, in SPITE OF IT. Studies, and millions of people living healthy, happy and productive lives in homosexual relationships have proven conclusively that there is no compelling interest for the State to intervene in our relationships.

We have rights because we are human and American, not because we're a certain gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.
edit on 12Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:30:59 -050014p122014866 by Gryphon66 because: EDIT: as noted. Sorry to blather on.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:09 PM

originally posted by: danny13
a reply to: intrepid

That's BS it shouldn't be called a hate crime. We pay there salary and it's the owner who is not making money buy refusing them. So what someone doesn't like you because you gay, big deal. If your gay or not, not everyone is going to like you deal with it.

Don't give a damn if someone is bigoted today. Just can't refuse service. You can dislike whoever you want. You just can't treat anyone differently.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:11 PM
a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight

This is probably not the place to debate basic political theory, so I'll have to say in general "no contest."

However, there's more than one way to look at the place of government in society, and not all orbit around libertarian/anarchist ideals.

Glad to see you're a supporter of equality.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:52 PM

originally posted by: intrepid
You just can't treat anyone differently.

Totally agree, and 1 page back I was pandering to the base, the other side. Something I have tried to use as a tool to help those who are so bent on not seeing things in the light it should be seen.

Ive seen lots of no shirts no shoes. But those are dress codes! Apples and oranges.
You CAN not treat people different for the color of their skin, or the way they live their life.
Its wrong, and sometimes I feel bullied so bad, that I just end up putting my foot in my mouth.
Thanks for reality check guys! I needed that. No more pandering to these people, they are not giving me that benefit, they never have, and seems this comes to a BIG divide. And I will stand strong with "side".
Even if I do have empathy for those who hate my guts for who I am, and will deny me service, or not allow me to work in their workplace. I will always have empathy for them. Its just who I am.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:55 PM
No Shirt - No Shoes - No Service is a function of public health concerns, and thus, a reasonable exclusion.

Treating someone differently because one doesn't like fantasizing about their private lives is not.

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:57 PM

originally posted by: zysin5
There are plenty of "flower" shops out there, no need for this.

My mother was disabled from polio. You are saying its perfectly acceptable that she drag her 10 pound brace, 2 crutches, and 3 kids under 10 around town to find a business that doesn't reject her?

And yes --- that is exactly what happened prior to the disability anti-discrimination act.

People have their prejudices. Those prejudices are unacceptable in a service business (any business for that matter).

Neither god belief or belief you will catch polio by being in contact with someone who has it are acceptable for denying service to a customer.

Pretty damn sad that the government had to "powerball" people into treating the disabled equally --- don't you think?

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in