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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Sadly i'm a roll-up smoking non meat eater who finds vegetarians intensely annoying. Back to the drawing board for me



edit on 18-8-2014 by skalla because: fracking keyboard




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Many people agree that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. So let me ask you, does that include clinics and hospitals? They are "for-profit" businesses after all. Should they be allowed to turn away someone in an emergency situation? How about non-emergency situations? Or does this "right" only extend to certain businesses?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
Okay, here's the deal. Being Gay is a lifestyle and a sexual orientation. As the President says "it's who you love". Do you not see how allowing business owners to get away with this is ridiculous?

What next? Anybody who has sexual relations outside a marriage, outside the privacy of their bedroom, and in anything other than the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is "not allowed". Same thing.


Well that disqualifies 99% of christians right there.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: lonweld

Maybe I should start a business and not serve anyone with an IQ of less than 120.

nah. I'll be out of business in a week.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: lonweld
Many people agree that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. So let me ask you, does that include clinics and hospitals? They are "for-profit" businesses after all. Should they be allowed to turn away someone in an emergency situation? How about non-emergency situations? Or does this "right" only extend to certain businesses?


Christians have exemptions, churches, Christian book stores, Christian hospitals. Christian schools, and probably much more than anyone is aware of. I don't think they should, but I do not have the power to change it. hospitals should not be exempted, too many religious hospitals already, why do I say that? look up "admitting privileges" to see how religion controls hospitals.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight
a reply to: grey580
Nowhere does Jesus say to use the state upon threat of punishment to force people to behave his way.

Either you obey the commandments because you choose to, or you don't and risk the consequences once your run on the planet is over.


this country isn't set up to be run by what Jesus says, that's why it has a constitution. I don't obey any mythical being, nor do I want to live in a country that does.


you live in CA....So welcome to the country that does believe in what you call a "mythical being"...

You ever read a paper bill? Anyone will work...$1, $5, $10, $100 whatever....IN GOD WE TRUST!!

ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, Indivisible......

There are a lot more examples, but hopefully your eyes are open now to where you say you don't want to live..


really??... go pick up a history book, or at least go out on the internet and do some research on those two examples...your eyes are the ones that need to be opened


What in the world do you mean by pick up a history book when you are talking about not living in a country that believes in God and I am saying you do?

Sorry my eyes must be closed here, but I don't see what the hell you are trying to say here....

I understand if you all of a sudden just found out that the USA believes in God and don't know what to say, but if you are trying to defend your stance somehow I would appreciate an explanation because I have no clue what you are trying to defend from the above statement...


the USA is not a person, it is a country made up of different and unique people...a country can't believe in a god, people can. I am a citizen of the USA, who does not believe in god, because to me, god is a mythical being. but, I am still an American. to me, if for some reason, I assume another plane of existence after physical death, I will deal with that at that time....maybe you can tell me how a "country" can believe in god. if we eliminated all the people from the USA, would the USA still believe in god?


That is the belief of the people who reside in "their" country....In God we trust...If you don't like it, move to a different country.

You must also if you fly an American flag, our anthem includes "under God"....Your currency that you work for has In God we trust stamped on every bill....It is the country whose people believe in God....From your first statement this answers your question and if you don't like it....Move



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
Okay, here's the deal. Being Gay is a lifestyle and a sexual orientation. As the President says "it's who you love". Do you not see how allowing business owners to get away with this is ridiculous?

What next? Anybody who has sexual relations outside a marriage, outside the privacy of their bedroom, and in anything other than the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is "not allowed". Same thing.

The people you are asking to solve the problem are involved in MUCH MORE harmful, deadly, dangerous, destructive things than these business owners could possibly dream of engaging in. You don't experience the brunt of it because your tacit support is required currently, but won't always be.

All you have to do when asking what powers you want to give the government to have is "How will I feel if the person I most disagree with is in charge of it?"

I can totally see "TPTB" flipping the switch and handing the government over to a heavily faux Christian theocratic individual and all of you who cheered and begged it for more and more control over people's lives will be baffled at what just happened when the people you disagreed with are suddenly in charge. Chomping at the bit to start dictating what is moral and immoral from their point of view using all these fancy new powers and armed departments. Can't you sorta kinda see it already brewing?

We can, and mostly are, solving these problems ourselves. The government is a hanger-on claiming credit after the fact. The people who seek to divide and collapse us think multiple steps ahead and love being a buddy protector today and a "I dunno what happened... ooops!" the next.
edit on 18-8-2014 by GetOutOfMyLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
Okay, here's the deal. Being Gay is a lifestyle and a sexual orientation. As the President says "it's who you love". Do you not see how allowing business owners to get away with this is ridiculous?

What next? Anybody who has sexual relations outside a marriage, outside the privacy of their bedroom, and in anything other than the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is "not allowed". Same thing.


That is not the same thing.....For the purpose of procreation is the key term....A huge difference in what you are saying in your statement...



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Does it say anything about human society that we are still debating our rights to discriminate against others based on the fact that we dont like/accept who they are?

Anyone who is retarded enough to refuse service based on your skin colour, sexual orientation and gender shouldn't own a business in the first place, you're clearly in it for the wrong reasons.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: lonweld
Many people agree that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. So let me ask you, does that include clinics and hospitals? They are "for-profit" businesses after all. Should they be allowed to turn away someone in an emergency situation? How about non-emergency situations? Or does this "right" only extend to certain businesses?


How is serving food an "emergency" situation? You are comparing apples to pluto



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
Does it say anything about human society that we are still debating our rights to discriminate against others based on the fact that we dont like/accept who they are?

Anyone who is retarded enough to refuse service based on your skin colour, sexual orientation and gender shouldn't own a business in the first place, you're clearly in it for the wrong reasons.


That is NOT the point! It doesn't matter the reason....My point is if you own it, who is anyone to tell you who you can't serve? The right or wrong reasons excluded...



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

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Puppylove
A business is not a club, it's a service. Association has nothing to do with it.


Of course it does. When you engage in commerce with someone, you are engaging in association. A caterer who is for gun control should have every right to refuse to cater an NRA banquet because it violates her beliefs and she does not want to have her business associated with the NRA or she simply does not like the logo.

The Nazis forced people not to do business with Jews. The same principle is in action: the state forcing individuals to do business or not do business with whomever they want.


Not doing business with the Jews was wrong because it ripped their livelihood away from them. Whereas forcing people to do business with the Jews would only ensure that the Jews are never turned away from purchasing food or necessities.

How do you not see the difference between refusal of business and being required to do business? They are two completely different things with completely different results.


No they aren't. They are related in principle--the state dictating who you may or may not do business with. They are two sides of the same philosophical coin.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: lonweld Or does this "right" only extend to certain businesses?


How is serving food an "emergency" situation? You are comparing apples to pluto


They are both businesses. If we are to be fair with everyone, we can't have seperate rules can we?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
Does it say anything about human society that we are still debating our rights to discriminate against others based on the fact that we dont like/accept who they are?

Anyone who is retarded enough to refuse service based on your skin colour, sexual orientation and gender shouldn't own a business in the first place, you're clearly in it for the wrong reasons.


I agree. I'm in business to make money and money from gay spends just as well from straight customers. However, who are we to dictate who or why is in business for what reason? Do we want free thought and free association or do we not?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetOutOfMyLight

originally posted by: angeldoll
Okay, here's the deal. Being Gay is a lifestyle and a sexual orientation. As the President says "it's who you love". Do you not see how allowing business owners to get away with this is ridiculous?

What next? Anybody who has sexual relations outside a marriage, outside the privacy of their bedroom, and in anything other than the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is "not allowed". Same thing.

The people you are asking to solve the problem are involved in MUCH MORE harmful, deadly, dangerous, destructive things than these business owners could possibly dream of engaging in. You don't experience the brunt of it because your tacit support is required currently, but won't always be.

All you have to do when asking what powers you want to give the government to have is "How will I feel if the person I most disagree with is in charge of it?"

I can totally see "TPTB" flipping the switch and handing the government over to a heavily faux Christian theocratic individual and all of you who cheered and begged it for more and more control over people's lives will be baffled at what just happened when the people you disagreed with are suddenly in charge. Chomping at the bit to start dictating what is moral and immoral from their point of view using all these fancy new powers and armed departments. Can't you sorta kinda see it already brewing?

We can, and mostly are, solving these problems ourselves. The government is a hanger-on claiming credit after the fact. The people who seek to divide and collapse us think multiple steps ahead and love being a buddy protector today and a "I dunno what happened... ooops!" the next.


Well put. You don't give power to someone without thinking how it could be used against you.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: lonweld
Many people agree that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. So let me ask you, does that include clinics and hospitals? They are "for-profit" businesses after all. Should they be allowed to turn away someone in an emergency situation? How about non-emergency situations? Or does this "right" only extend to certain businesses?


Christians have exemptions, churches, Christian book stores, Christian hospitals. Christian schools, and probably much more than anyone is aware of. I don't think they should, but I do not have the power to change it. hospitals should not be exempted, too many religious hospitals already, why do I say that? look up "admitting privileges" to see how religion controls hospitals.


Methinks you don't know what "admitting privileges" actually are.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: NavyDoc

meh.

If you really don't want to do business with someone just charge em double.



See, I think that is a lot more unethical than simply saying, no thanks, and not serving them.



WHAT?!?

Now you're saying a businessman can't set his own prices however he sees fit to set them at?!?

Discriminate all he wants but can't set his prices how he wants?

Pffft. what is this world coming to?


I said unethical. Didn't say illegal.

What do you think is more honest? Telling someone outright that you don't want his business 'cause you don't like him or smiling to his face but charging him double because you don't like him?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Nope. Sexual preferences. Same thing. Unless of course, you only engage in sex when you want to procreate. : )
edit on 8/18/2014 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Honesty?
In America?

I think you're asking for too much.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Given your stance it's a bit rich to suggest that these prejudiced individuals have developmental delay, autism and learning difficulties; the hundreds of "retards" i have worked with always needed to be taught prejudice.




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join