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.
originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: rickymouse
I believe that you can refuse anyone, if they are going to damage your reputation or are a danger to you or your business, that includes gay people and black people and everyone else. Being shifty or a danger is equal amongst all shifty people who can come from any group.
However if you take a group and deny them your services because of who they are, then you are very wrong. Being gay or black does not make anyone a danger, even if you personally believe so.
I am just interested on what grounds you decided that someone was not going to pay?
Everyone would understand if you denied a known con man any service, but not letting Gays or Blacks into your shop because they are Gay or Black is simply personal prejudice without any substance.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
Without the public, business owners would have no business to own.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: rickymouse
I've faced similar decisions myself when I owned my own business and even now when I do occasional contract work and so I understand your concerns. While there are few bright line rules for navigating some of these laws, particularly when the business is not among those specifically listed within definitions, on the flip side intent is often (and quite rightly) an extremely difficult thing to prove.
False allegations are a common issue with all crimes but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from enacting laws against them.
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer
They didn't ban the people, they banned the guns.
Semantics. They banned the people carrying the guns.