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.

 

Is your establishment a 'gay bar'? The right to refuse goes both ways.

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Not to mention, the English Common Law (yes, we are all subject to English Common Law - our codes are based on it (including the Constitution)) specifies Public Accommodation.

History might be useful here ... What is a place of Public Accomodation?

The idea that any law of any derivation bestows the right to "do as we wish without regard to others" is insane beyond the age of 2 or 3 years. That's one of the first basic truths we learn.

We have human rights because we are living, thinking beings, not because of some mythology.




posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

It's not the federal government who's telling you. It's your state's laws. Each state has its own anti-discrimination laws. If you have a business operating in a state, you must follow their business laws. If I knew your state, I could point out the exact law.

Federal and State Anti-discrimination Laws - Public Accommodation

ScepticScot is correct here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

YOU, as an individual can discriminate all you like, but BUSINESSES have restrictions as to whom they can discriminate against.


Feds vs State: Actually, both tell me who I cannot discriminate against, although the fed laws deal predominantly with employment issues, as opposed to customers.... and in the end, it's all a farce, because no one can force me to think or believe anything. What they can do is use the force of law to TRY to make me conform to their will against my own. But as we've already discussed, they can only try. In the end, my free will is always going to prevail. So it's an exercise in futility, a violation of my natural rights, and one more excuse for tyranny against the will of the people. The next step is to actually force certain bakers to bake wedding cakes for gays. And now we're talking involuntary servitude. Or, what happens if NAMBLA has its way, and pedophilia is legalized? Are we going to make laws forcing bakers to bake wedding cakes for child molesters too? Just how far does this coercion go? How can any of this be good?

I'm in Arizona. Believe me, I know all about our discrimination laws! It was a huge issue not so long ago with the passage of a bill allowing business owners to honor their conscience in business dealings, altho one would think it specifically addressed only discrimination against gays based on how it was portrayed to the public at large. The bill did not become law tho, because it was vetoed by the Governor.

Re: "BUSINESSES have restrictions as to whom they can discriminate against," again I say, only under color and force of law, and I defer to the 9th Amendment. Indeed, the sole purpose of the 9th Amendment was to ensure that someone could not come along and say, "Hey! That isn't in the Constitution, so therefore you can't do that!" The Constitution limits and restricts the powers of the government, not the people. The founding fathers did not trust each other -- or a centralized government -- and therefore felt it necessary to include the 9th Amendment (and the entire Bill of Rights), to prevent exactly this.

In my crazy little paradigm, I would much rather use carrots than vinegar, empowering the people, not the government. Is there a shortage of gay wedding cake bakers? Then let's help start some gay wedding cake bakeries. It is possible to fulfill the needs of all people without violating the rights of some people.

(FYI: I only focus on the baker issue because it has received so much publicity and/or notoriety recently.)



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
But as we've already discussed, they can only try. In the end, my free will is always going to prevail.


Of course... As I've said, I'm discussing the LAW. I'm not suggesting that you cannot operate how you wish, I'm saying it could be against the law.


The next step is to actually force certain bakers to bake wedding cakes for gays.


That step has already been taken. The baker can bake the cake or stop making wedding cakes altogether. His choice.



And now we're talking involuntary servitude.


Hardly. Government forcing a business owner to abide by the agreements he's made is hardly involuntary or servitude.



Or, what happens if NAMBLA has its way, and pedophilia is legalized?


You had to jump the shark, didn't you?



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
No one attempting to make you think or believe anything, however the law can and does legislate what actions you can take both as an individual and as a business.
Individual rights are not absolute and were never intended to be.
In an ideal world you would be right that all individuals should be able to follow their conscience in business and in private. However the reality of the world we live in is that we needs laws to create a cohesive and functioning society.
The US constitution is really just a manual for government. Just because something isn't mentioned specifically in it does not make it either legal or illegal. That is what we have laws for.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Pedophilia is a crime because a child cannot in any way, shape form or fashion, consent to sexual activity.

NAMBLA and its philosophies have been denounced by gay rights groups for more than 30 years, basically from the founding of the organziation.

Necrophilia is a crime because of general health and welfare concerns.

Zoophilia is a crime because of animal mistreatment and/or abuse.

No system of government, anytime, anywhere has argued that the individual is not subject to legal limits on behavior.

Tom Paine didn't argue that, and neither did John Locke or Thomas Hobbes or Rousseau or any of the advocates of "the natural rights of Man." Those rights are now known more accurately as HUMAN rights.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Not to mention, the English Common Law (yes, we are all subject to English Common Law - our codes are based on it (including the Constitution)) specifies Public Accommodation.

History might be useful here ... What is a place of Public Accomodation?

The idea that any law of any derivation bestows the right to "do as we wish without regard to others" is insane beyond the age of 2 or 3 years. That's one of the first basic truths we learn.

We have human rights because we are living, thinking beings, not because of some mythology.


Common Law: Yes, Common Law is quite relevant throughout our legal system. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse (hence my use of "legal" system, rather than "justice"). We are imperfect beings just doing our best. Most of us at least.

Public Accommodations: I appreciate the link. Thank you. I don't have time to read it now, but I will. It may not change my mind about anything (I confess -- I'm a stubborn old crone!), but it can only help me to further understand all the nuances of the debate.

Right... "do as we wish": I would say that's probably the most fundamental truth! Throughout my childhood growing up in a big family, it was constantly drilled into our heads that our rights end where someone else's begins, and vice versa. I can do as I wish for and to myself -- no one else. Likewise, no has to do a darn thing for me; but cannot do anything to me either. And that's probably why I staunchly defend everyone's right to do as they please for themselves, and I am so vehemently against the use of force by others to make people do as they wish.

Human rights: Agreed. I've always appreciated the use of "Creator" rather than "God" in the Declaration of Independence because it affirms that these rights belong to ALL humanity, regardless of faith or religious affiliation or lack thereof, while also reaffirming my personal spiritual beliefs at the same time.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I have no use for the word "Creator" personally, as to me that merely refers to the natural processes of the universe. Paine particularly was scrupulous to use the term "Maker" as the origin of human rights as was the extent of scientific understanding in his day.

IN modern terms, the origin of human rights arises because we are human. It is a necessary tautology.

There is a practical limit to what one person (the individual) can accomplish in the world alone.

No society, culture or civilization has ever arisen which concentrates solely upon the One as opposed to the Many.

There are, obviously, good and practical reasons for this. One person cannot build a bridge across a river, or divert a stream to water crops, or learn enough to treat the sick, teach the young, settle disputes between people fairly, etc.

The greatest political, ethical, moral or philosophical system is a mixed system that balances individual rights with societal needs.

The grand experiment in the United States was to have that balance incorporated in the concept of The People.

"We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity ... DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH ..."

Notice, there is one reference to individual freedom, one to the authority of the state, and four to the concept of a balance between the two.

The power of government arises from The People, which is, like it or not, a collective.
edit on 11Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:15:10 -060014p1120141266 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Boadicea
But as we've already discussed, they can only try. In the end, my free will is always going to prevail.


Of course... As I've said, I'm discussing the LAW. I'm not suggesting that you cannot operate how you wish, I'm saying it could be against the law.


The next step is to actually force certain bakers to bake wedding cakes for gays.


That step has already been taken. The baker can bake the cake or stop making wedding cakes altogether. His choice.



And now we're talking involuntary servitude.


Hardly. Government forcing a business owner to abide by the agreements he's made is hardly involuntary or servitude.



Or, what happens if NAMBLA has its way, and pedophilia is legalized?


You had to jump the shark, didn't you?


The Law: Yes. You are talking about civil laws... I'm talking about natural laws... You are talking about laws which directly violate the letter and spirit of natural laws. I am saying there are ways to fulfill the needs of everyone without violating the free will and conscience of others. You are talking about using force -- even the force of a gun -- to violate the free will and conscience of people to conform to the will and conscience of others. There is nothing good or noble or righteous about that. It is a gross abuse of power and authority under color of law.

Involuntary servitude: Would you prefer involuntary labor? Obviously, if a baker is FORCED to bake a cake, there is no agreement on their part. If the baker is FORCED to bake a cake for someone he/she does not want to bake for, that is INVOLUNTARY by definition. If a baker is FORCED to perform a job, that is involuntary labor.

Why force? Why not just fill the void with those happy to do the job? We could just have easily passed laws which helped create bakeries that are happy to bake gay wedding cakes, thus empowering some and still respecting and honoring the rights of others... rather than some using the color of law to bully and coerce others.

Jump the shark: My profoundest apologies. And thank you for being much gentler than you maybe should have. I did not intend to equate the gay community with NAMBLA in any way, but I see that's exactly what I did. May I try to redeem myself?

What if the Los Angeles school district has it's way, and pedophilia of teens is legalized just so schools don't have to protect their students from teachers? Planned Parenthood also seems to have a problem reporting underage pregnancies (and therefore statutory rapes); I'm sure they'd like to just do away with those pesky age of consent laws too. According to Corey Haims and Jerry Mathers and others, many Hollywood big shots would also be happy to lose age of consent laws. There are also the Warren Jeffries/FLDS types who would be thrilled to see age of consent laws gone. Sadly, I could go on ad nauseum infinitum. There are too many people sexually abusing children to count who would love to see age of consent laws gone.

I would happily bake a wedding cake for a gay couple (altho I can almost promise they wouldn't be happy with the result!), but I would NEVER bake a cake for any of these disgusting people marrying their victims.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Boadicea
No one attempting to make you think or believe anything, however the law can and does legislate what actions you can take both as an individual and as a business.
Individual rights are not absolute and were never intended to be.
In an ideal world you would be right that all individuals should be able to follow their conscience in business and in private. However the reality of the world we live in is that we needs laws to create a cohesive and functioning society.
The US constitution is really just a manual for government. Just because something isn't mentioned specifically in it does not make it either legal or illegal. That is what we have laws for.



No one can make me think or believe anything -- natural law will always prevail. However, under color of law, bakers are being told what they MUST do... what they are being forced to do.

True rights -- as in natural rights -- are indeed absolute. It is only under color of law that they are violated. Natural rights are inalienable rights, not subject to transfer in any way. That's the fact. Only those rights created and granted by govt are subject to change (read: entitlements).

In an ideal world, we would find and create ways to fulfill the needs of everyone without violating the rights of anyone. It can be done. It is much easier -- and much more beneficial to all -- to create bakeries that would cater to gay weddings than it is to force established bakeries to violate their conscience. I can also almost guarantee that the end product would be of far greater quality, everyone would be happy, and it would be a win-win all the way around, empowering a cohesive and functioning society. Not causing legal chaos, financial ruin, and spiritual crisis for those who dare to exercise their free will and conscience.

Yes, the Constitution is the manual for government! It tells the government what it can and cannot do -- not the people!!! The 9th Amendment makes it clear that the Constitution does not tell us what the people can and cannot do.
edit on 11-12-2014 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

I have no use for the word "Creator" personally, as to me that merely refers to the natural processes of the universe. Paine particularly was scrupulous to use the term "Maker" as the origin of human rights as was the extent of scientific understanding in his day.

IN modern terms, the origin of human rights arises because we are human. It is a necessary tautology.

There is a practical limit to what one person (the individual) can accomplish in the world alone.

No society, culture or civilization has ever arisen which concentrates solely upon the One as opposed to the Many.

There are, obviously, good and practical reasons for this. One person cannot build a bridge across a river, or divert a stream to water crops, or learn enough to treat the sick, teach the young, settle disputes between people fairly, etc.

The greatest political, ethical, moral or philosophical system is a mixed system that balances individual rights with societal needs.

The grand experiment in the United States was to have that balance incorporated in the concept of The People.

"We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity ... DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH ..."

Notice, there is one reference to individual freedom, one to the authority of the state, and four to the concept of a balance between the two.

The power of government arises from The People, which is, like it or not, a collective.


Creator/Maker -- Makes no difference to me, as long as it's not associated with a specific religion. "Creation" would be fine with me as well. As long as our natural inalienable rights are recognized as belonging to every single one of us. As you stated, human rights are pretty much the same thing in common vernacular. It's about guaranteeing each and every one of us those rights we have simply by virtue of our birth and existence.

Natural rights are individual rights and are indeed absolute, and in no way impede on any others' natural rights. Likewise, no one else's natural rights do not impede my natural rights. No one has a natural individual right to force their will on anyone else. Period. Once that happens, and once it is sanctioned by the state under color of law, it is a gross abuse of power and authority.

Yes, one can rationalize all they want, but it doesn't change the fundamental truths. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


I think I lost a reply from you. If so, I apologize. If you can bring it to my attention again, I will respond accordingly. And if not, if I've just confused myself, then I apologize as well!



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
What a crock - if people don't get the sarcasm in the response from the gay bar, then I don't know what to say.
'gay drinks, gay food, gay loos'. Seriously, they're clearly being ironic.
The people booking were happy to go and had essentially booked in principle until they found out about the 'gayness' of the place and then they had to alert the religious, judgemental bigots in their group just in case they have an issue or maybe they woild catch 'gaybola' from the bar or see lots of naked gay orgies.

I'm glad the owner did what they did.
It's about time people spoke out against these kinds of people, not religion or religious people in general but just these kinds of religious who would have to check if others are ok being around gay people.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I've been reading other articles, travel advisers and reviews. No mention of a gay bar. Alex Proud has a very diverse employee and customer base, so they are open to diversity. It sounds like a great place. I'd love to go.

The problem Alex Proud had with this company's request is that people think it's OK to shun gay people because of one's religion. Like it's completely understandable and acceptable. That's what pissed him off. Because it's not acceptable to him. And I agree.




originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

What if the organizer had asked if it was a "black bar", saying that some of the religious people wanted to know...

I guess Alex Proud just didn't like the idea that many religious people think it's OK to discriminate based on someone's sexual preference. The organizer asked about it, as if it was a perfectly acceptable thing to say. It's really not.

Absolutely! But if I had planned a party and I called to see if the place was "urban" because some of the white people in my party wanted to know... I would fully expect somewhat of a terse response. Especially if some of my employees and customers were black.



Great posts BH... still reading through but yes, great posts.
I think the owners reply was hilarious and reading articles online, others think his response was hilarious and right on too.

"A lot of gay stuff happens here"

LOL



Here's a good article from The Independent.

www.independent.co.uk...



edit on 11/12/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
I am saying there are ways to fulfill the needs of everyone without violating the free will and conscience of others.


Like what? Posting signs on the window? "We do not serve Blacks", "No Christians allowed", "Homosexuals not Welcome"... Stuff like that? Let me ask you this... I live in a small town with one bakery. If they decide not to serve women, am I just SOL? I have to make my own cake? What about the owner of the only grocery store in town? If she doesn't like men, would she post a "No Men Allowed" sign? Please answer this question, as I have asked before, but never gotten an answer.


Obviously, if a baker is FORCED to bake a cake, there is no agreement on their part.


When one gets a business license, they agree to obey the business laws of the state, including the anti-discrimination laws. They are not FORCED.



Jump the shark: My profoundest apologies.


No problem.



What if the Los Angeles school district has it's way, and pedophilia of teens is legalized


No clue what you're talking about, but sounds like it's WAY off topic.



new topics




 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join