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: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SnarkySheep

Here's your story. Let's not generalize it.




“I heard the man say, ‘Special needs children need to be special somewhere else,’” Garcia told NBC affiliate KPRC-TV in.“My personal feelings took over, and I told him, ‘I’m not going to be able to serve you, Sir.’”

t.today.com...




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You hit th nail on the head. Not everyone has a choice when it comes to where to shop or eat. The people who don't understand this obviously don't live in a small farming community that has a grocer/gas station/ barbershop store. At the same time, they can't think of an answer to your question. That's why they avoid it.

While I am all for less government, it does have a place in life. That place is to make us use common sense- I.e. wearing your seatbelt, not stabbing a person, allowing a citizen to purchase from you. Common sense stuff that unfortunately people don't comprehend.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: lonweld
I assure you not all of us are unfamiliar with being an outcast if we were to be our honest selves and having to learn to work with a community that would reject us if we expressed ourselves fully.

Some of us just recognize both sides of the coin... in particular the predators that prey on the outcasts promising to make the world more fair for them, while in fact using them so they can lay the legal framework for the complete opposite foundation.

This world is not being built to make it fair for everyone to be themselves. It's being built to make it so you don't have a personal preference and you will be who and what you are told you are needed to be. You'll likely never experience it personally... but the current generation of school kids are being conditioned to be much closer to that state of mind.
edit on 21-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
We're not in favor of equality. We're open to trying for a certain kind of balance.

Equality means leaving people equal opportunity to be exactly who they are regardless of the outcome. Nature is about equality... and it achieves its own form of balance in the process.

You are seeking people to voluntarily limit themselves and their options so other types of people have an opportunity to exist and thrive thanks to a social technology/machine. That's not equality. It's a mechanical and artificial balance. It's up to each person to decide if it's going somewhere good or not based on the evidence around them.

I personally think it's still an open question and depends on a few things being brought out in the open finally.
edit on 21-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: GetOutOfMyLight

General equality is something different than equal treatment under the law, which is what this case is about. A business operates in a state and must abide by the laws of that state. It's really simple.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Do you think I disagree with the facts of your statement?



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Do you think I disagree with the facts of your statement?


I honestly don't know. But this story is about equal treatment under the law, not "leaving people equal opportunity to be exactly who they are regardless of the outcome."



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
This story is about the government having the power to dictate forcing one private citizen to conduct business with another private citizen upon threat of punishment.

I'm looking beyond the part of the story that makes people feel good about themselves for supporting and casting a flashlight on the cockroaches waiting in the wings down the road.

But oh well. At this point I'm just waiting for the cockroaches to dispense with their charade.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: Gryphon66
We're not in favor of equality. We're open to trying for a certain kind of balance.

Equality means leaving people equal opportunity to be exactly who they are regardless of the outcome. Nature is about equality... and it achieves its own form of balance in the process.

You are seeking people to voluntarily limit themselves and their options so other types of people have an opportunity to exist and thrive thanks to a social technology/machine. That's not equality. It's a mechanical and artificial balance. It's up to each person to decide if it's going somewhere good or not based on the evidence around them.

I personally think it's still an open question and depends on a few things being brought out in the open finally.


1. I'm sorry, perhaps I missed the earlier references to the group you are here representing ... who is "we" in your statement?

2. That's your definition of "equality" not anyone else's. Useful perhaps in your own rhetoric, fairly meaningless to most.

3. Nature, even in the generic/metaphoric sense you're striving for isn't about equality. Equilibrium perhaps.

4. I have made no statements about what I am "seeking," and frankly, you don't know me well enough to make such a grandiose generalization based on your own belief structure.

5. As noted above, you may define equality for yourself however you like. That has no relevance for the rest of us. Equality before the law means certain well-defined things, none of which are expressed in your musings here.

6. What is an open question? Equality, sexual preference, some other vague item you want to be coy about rather than discuss outright?

Thrill us with your acumen!



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
This story is about the government having the power to dictate forcing one private citizen to conduct business with another private citizen upon threat of punishment.


Not really. It is about government power, but they aren't forcing a "private citizen" to conduct business with anyone. They're forcing a business, which complies with the business laws of the state, to conduct business with everyone equally.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did I miss it, or do we need to review what "public accommodation" means again for this audience?

I sometimes feel like we're rehearsing for a play, running lines, repeating the same thing over and over, LOL.
edit on 15Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:23:52 -050014p032014866 by Gryphon66 because: Yep



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did I miss it, or do we need to review what "public accommodation" means again for this audience?


Perhaps. People don't seem to know a lot about the law.


I sometimes feel like we're rehearsing for a play, running lines, repeating the same thing over and over, LOL.


LOL! Exactly!
edit on 8/21/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: SearchLightsInc
They weren't disagreeing with you.

Yet you still felt the need to respond in a defensive manner.

Worth contemplating.


Actually i was just pointing out that it was not my sign and that it was an actual sign that was used up and down the UK before discrimination laws were passed...

You're confusing defensive for transparency... Easily done i suppose....



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did I miss it, or do we need to review what "public accommodation" means again for this audience?

I sometimes feel like we're rehearsing for a play, running lines, repeating the same thing over and over, LOL.


LOL, you two have way more patience then me for circular rhetoric.

There might be a point (somewhere) in those posts, but damn if I'm gonna spend my time trying to pull it out piece by piece.

My simplicity is on overload.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The point is simple.

Smart people are using our honest desires for good to build a platform and manufacturing a collision which will be used against all of us (barring some form of intervention).

You are correct that we are rehearsing for a play and the tragicomedy is on loop.

Thanks for the opportunity to exchange perspectives!
edit on 21-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because:



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wasnt exactly arguing as I understood what points you were trying to make, i was just pointing out that its kind of unavoidable the subject of nature vs nurture because of conservatives using it, although baseless reason for discrimination, forces people for gay rights wind up having to use it too in opposition evenn though many people for gay rights actually have views that sexuality is a mix of nature and nurture together but because of the stigma conservatives put on something being a choice they cant let them think its a choice or else it will just keep with the same thought processes which is a hassle to try to dispel other ways. I originally read into what you said and thought you were more so just complaining how it comes up and saying that its not a good enough argument to support gay people by saying its not a choice but I was just saying its not avoidable easily as a method for support. Do you get what I mean better now?

I didnt know you meant legally, which does clear that up some, but I dont quite see your point because you started talking about rights to act on their desires, how it wouldnt work as an argument well, but this is about refusal of service not really the rights to act on desire. I see how it could be related, i mean only way youd know someone, you dont know personally, is gay is if they are being close to a partner of theirs, but at the same time it seems completely unrelated, which threw me off. (wow so much run on sentences I have going). I mean even a serial killer gets to buy cereal at the store if they aren't locked up.

I dont even know where Im going with this now.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Discrimination against smokers is acceptable.


No, it isn't. But you CAN say that an ACTIVITY isn't allowed in your place of business. Like smoking.


originally posted by: beezzer
So that is acceptable discrimination.


Speaking of firearms... Beezzer, when we're talking about "discrimination" being against the law, etc., we're talking about the legal definition of the word, not the common usage definition. Legal discrimination has nothing to do with objects.

Legal Discrimination



Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

edit on 8/21/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc


Like anything in life, the answer is usually multifactorial, involves multiple issues, and not every answer can describe every person.

Why do you ask?


Because I knew you would answer honestly, and I find your medical and scientific knowledge sound, reasonable and logically applied.

I won't use you as the voice of "medical science" if the argument of "it's a choice" regarding sexual orientation rears it's head.

Best,


/back to radio silence.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Aural

No worries Aural (love your nick btw) I rarely know where I'm going ...

My point is simple.

Is the matter of sexual orientation as a class of people that can be discriminated against (or not) a valid point for making a legal determination of whether a business can refuse service on that basis or not?

The question of ontology or perhaps how/where/when/why someone "becomes" some (sexual orientation other than heterosexual) is an important one culturally as you point out. Arguing that "we" have no choice about our orientation was important at one point when many in society believed that gays/lesbians/et. al. were just willful sinners who for some reason just decided to buck society and act inverse to the norms of heterosexuality.

BUT

In this sense we are talking about the law. It happens that in the question of whether a business has to serve a member of the public comes under the body of law referred to as public accommodation.

The concept goes back into English Common Law about inn-keepers, coachmen, drivers, et. al. regarding the idea that under the law if someone was able to pay your price you couldn't refuse to serve if you opened your business to, again, "the public."

That concept carries over into American law, and varies from state to state. There are provisions in the Civil Rights Acts which extend the definitions and protections nationally.

Sadly, sexual orientation is not included as a protected class at the Federal level vis a vis the Civil Rights Acts.

It is decided state by state at this point.


edit on 16Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:12:17 -050014p042014866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:13:38 -050014p042014866 by Gryphon66 because: Perfection falls again.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Aural

No worries Aural (love your nick btw) I rarely know where I'm going ...

My point is simple.

Is the matter of sexual orientation as a class of people that can be discriminated against (or not) a valid point for making a legal determination of whether a business can refuse service on that basis or not?

The question of ontology or perhaps how/where/when/why someone "becomes" some (sexual orientation other than heterosexual) is an important one culturally as you point out. Arguing that "we" have no choice about our orientation was important at one point when many in society believed that gays/lesbians/et. al. were just willful sinners who for some reason just decided to buck society and act inverse to the norms of heterosexuality.

BUT

In this sense we are talking about the law. It happens that in the question of whether a business has to serve a member of the public comes under the body of law referred to as public accommodation.

The concept goes back into English Common Law about inn-keepers, coachmen, drivers, et. al. regarding the idea that under the law if someone was able to pay your price you couldn't refuse to serve if you opened your business to, again, "the public."

That concept carries over into American law, and varies from state to state. There are provisions in the Civil Rights Acts which extend the definitions and protections nationally.

Sadly, sexual orientation is not included as a protected class at the Federal level vis a vis the Civil Rights Acts.

It is decided state by state at this point.



Personally I think those who are attracted to the same sex have something wrong in their hard wiring (brain) and therefor are mentally disabled.

Therefore their rights are already upheld under one of the other classifications of race, gender, handicap, religion and age.




top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join