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.

 

Virginia's proposed anti-gay laws: Far reaching laws for discriminating against non-heterosexuals

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
When special rights are given to one group those rights will be used to discriminate against the other. In the end heterosexuals will be discriminated against and there are no laws to protect them.




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Bad law is bad, in this conservatives opinion.

Sad to think some still think this is ok..



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

I read the second article. The first is 404'd now. I just woke up and mistook something. Apologies.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26
put up signs as they enter the business that say, "permission to pass revocable at any time".



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: FireflyStars

....lol....
It happens.




posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26



I was also discussing private business, not a public company.

If it is a private business or a public company it makes no difference. No inanimate object which a business is has the right to freedom of religion.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I've never understood why people that don't feel welcomed or aren't welcomed by a particular shop owner would even want to give their money to said shop owner....it makes no sense.

When I don't like a service provided or the people providing it are rude and hateful or don't want me there, I take my money elsewhere.
Why is it that the whiny want to spend their money with people that don't want it.....lol



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

It's not about freedom of religion.
It's about freedom of who the hell one wants to engage in commerce with.
It's pretty simple.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jakal26


It is NOT "freedom embracing" to force a private business to do business with ANYONE they choose not to. That's just the jest of it.


It is also not "freedom embracing" to tell someone they can't kill anyone they want, anytime they want. It is also not "freedom embracing" to tell someone they can't take something that belongs to someone else, anytime they want. We have to give up some freedom to protect the rights of others.

So whose freedom has to be given up and whose rights are to be protected in the situation of store owners and gays (or blacks or Jews)? Well, if you have a whole community that doesn't like a particular group, then what's to stop all the store owners in that community from turning away that group? The law states that all people of a community have a right to be a part of that community and any public accommodation within that community, assuming they haven't broken any laws while in that public accommodation. If a person has broken a law (disturbing the peace, or drunk and disorderly, or posed a danger to the public, or broke a health code violation), then the store owner is within their right to kick the person out. This way, both parties have rights that are protected.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

Fair enough, and I can understand why you feel that way. There certainly are many who would get involved with such an opinion and fling around accusations of racism, hyperbole, and intolerance. It's happened to me before.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

Here's my take on this whole issue (and, admittedly, I'm not looking into this particular instance, but have seen a few similar discussions):

I'm a massive advocate of private businesses being able to hire or work with whomever they choose. The reason behind it is irrelevant in my opinion.

See, while individuals have the ability to create a business in whatever sector of the economy and for whatever reason, it should stand to reason that they should be able to run this business however they see fit without massive government intrusion into their business practices. Yes, I fully comprehend that there are extreme cases of employee abuse or customer fraud, and for issues like that, I fully agree that there should be some sort of oversight. Where I draw the line is that the government has the right to tell any privately-owned business--especially if they're not receiving government assistance--who they must serve as a customer.

Take for instance that Oregon bakery that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. I feel they have the right to do that, but if they do, they must suffer the consequences of such a business decision. And suffer they apparently did, as they closed down the storefront and moved to baking from their home supposedly due to threats and harrassment (both things, btw, are illegal to do).

Now, do not misconstrue my support for private businesses being able to choose who they do and do not serve as me being anti-gay, or racist, or bigotted, or whatever. While I agree with their right to do so, I disagree with the Oregon couples' point of view on religion and homosexuality. But here's the kicker--that lesbian couple could have gone to any number of places to get a cake made--it's not their right to expect every business in America to cater to their needs.

It's much like a radio commercial I hear nearly everyday for an investment firm--they only deal with people who have more than $100,000 to invest at once. Now, should they be threatened and harrassed by those of us who are not as financially secure as to have $100k to invest? Are they being fiscal bigots to the lower and middle classes? No, they're simply exercising their right to only deal with high-dollar customers.

It's a similar situation, yet since the bakers touched on a sensitive PC topic, they get lambasted with hatred while this investment firm is left to peacefully do business with only people who I would categorize as being rich.

It could simply come down to my libertarian-minded view that the government does not have this right to dictate to private companies what they can and can't do. While I disagree with the choice to be discriminatory, I smile to know that when businesses act like this, they often get their just reward in the end, as the Oregon bakery did. I think that society will reward those with open minds and hearts, and reject those without.

This long-winded comment is to say that I agree that the freedom to run a business as the owner sees fit should be protected by government--let the locals sort it out when businesses act this way.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




It is also not "freedom embracing" to tell someone they can't kill anyone they want, anytime they want. It is also not "freedom embracing" to tell someone they can't take something that belongs to someone else, anytime they want.


Oh, come on now. This is apples to oranges and you know it.
Your rights end where mine being. Did we all forget that or something?




Well, if you have a whole community that doesn't like a particular group, then what's to stop all the store owners in that community from turning away that group?


Nothing...but what is stopping said turned away group from engaging in their own commerce or creating their own stores?



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, no doubt.
They burned me out yesterday with the "shill", "agent", and "troll" accusations...so, today, I ain't playin'.


Not in the mood....



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Specifying "Homosexuals" in the law is of bad taste...




Bob Marshall, a delegate from the state’s 13th District, in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, introduced a bill last month that would make it legal for business owners to refuse service on the basis of their religious opposition to gay marriage and what the bill describes as “homosexual behavior.”


In fact, the law should be : "...legal for business owners to refuse service on ANY basis"
Someone's business is like someone's house. They can kick out whoever they want!!

This law is overstepping a fundamental aspect of freedom.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26


Yeah well. I knew that was the answer coming.
Sorry, but I say that no matter who it "served" it was unconstitutional then and is now...


I understand your argument but I believe that you're only considering the freedoms of small business owners and ignoring the civil rights of the rest of society. Specifically, the right of people to have equality in public spaces. A privately owned store becomes a public space when its owner makes it open for business to members of the public.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I agree, in many ways. That is what makes this all a more complex issue.
It isn't as simple as I made it out to be with my previous comments, I can admit that and I know that within myself.

I remain conflicted about it all, tbh.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Because the local KKK absolutely has the right to force every African-American businessman back into his place! They must now serve!

Honestly, that's the gist of how people interpret the Civil Rights Act when it comes to business.
edit on 13-1-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jakal26

Not after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law.


Except the USSC has not included LGBTQ in the Civil Rights Act. (Except government employees, I believe).

Activists have definitely been fighting for it.

Until they do, it is 100% legal to make discriminatory laws against LGBTQ.


edit on 13-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
N/M
edit on 13-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join