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.

 

Why Denying Access to Public Accommodations IS a Crime

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

They didn't ban the people, they banned the guns.

They didn't ban guns, otherwise they wouldn't let police officers come through the door.
They banned commoners that carried guns.
Now criminals carrying concealed.... They wouldn't know about that until the robbery occurred.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
Clothing isn't an inherent quality either.
Try going into McDonalds naked.
Anti-nudity laws are prudish holdovers from the Puritan times.
Why should nudists be held to your outdated Christian beliefs?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: theantediluvian
Clothing isn't an inherent quality either.
Try going into McDonalds naked.
Anti-nudity laws are prudish holdovers from the Puritan times.
Why should nudists be held to your outdated Christian beliefs?


I think you're confusing what a person is with what a person does.

A nude person is not wearing any clothes, a black person is black.
An armed person is carrying a weapon, a gay person is gay.

A nude person can put on clothes, a black person cannot cease being black.
An armed person can leave the firearm off the premises, a gay person cannot cease being gay.

When is pretending to be oblivious to nuance a viable argument?
edit on 2015-4-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Ironically, while conservative political operatives are scurrying to and fro claiming that concerns over "Religious Freedoms" laws are unfounded, the base is making liars out of them.




GOP pandering to these peoples' prejudices threatens to (temporarily) set back decades of progress made in civil rights. What was it Barry Goldwater, "Mr.Conservative" himself said back in '94?


Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

edit on 2015-4-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Quite a few on this thread supporting legislated morality (at least their version of morality) at every turn scare me. Worse, I do not trust you as you have demonstrated your feeling are more important to you than the basic rights of others.

Sure you are entitled to you opinions and to express those opinions. Facts and distinctions are a different matter but a lack of either do not seem to slow you down.

Do you really, honestly, truly believe making a business owner accept your saintly version of justice via legislation is true justice? Why is a business unwilling to serve customers not allowed to die on the vine quickly, naturally? No opportunity for sanctimonious grand standing with that?

Never mind all this does is perpetuate that which you decry. Instead of those with bigoted views disappearing from the local business landscape, now they become a permanent fixture. Hate and all. But by-God they will fake not-hating by royal decree! Instead of businesses open and willing to serve all, out competing those who are not, now they remain just somewhere in the pack with more competitors. Their noble intentions gain them nothing.

I guess when the pretty words are played to your tune, it just makes halo polishing time that much more satisfying. Never mind who it really hurts.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ABNARTY


Quite a few on this thread supporting legislated morality (at least their version of morality) at every turn scare me. Worse, I do not trust you as you have demonstrated your feeling are more important to you than the basic rights of others.


How isn't enacting a law that amounts to state endorsement of discrimination legislating morality? Why are the feelings of some fundamentalist Christians more import than the most basic right of all others to be active participants in society with equal access to what is open to the rest of society?


Never mind all this does is perpetuate that which you decry. Instead of those with bigoted views disappearing from the local business landscape, now they become a permanent fixture. Hate and all. But by-God they will fake not-hating by royal decree! Instead of businesses open and willing to serve all, out competing those who are not, now they remain just somewhere in the pack with more competitors. Their noble intentions gain them nothing.


What are you even saying? Perhaps you've completely missed who passed what legislation and why? What's happening now has nothing to do with anyone's desire to put bigots out of business and everything to do with the Christian Right deciding collectively that they can use their religion as an excuse to discriminate.


I guess when the pretty words are played to your tune, it just makes halo polishing time that much more satisfying. Never mind who it really hurts.


Are you actually presuming to claim the moral high ground while simultaneously accusing those you disagree with of being self-righteous?
edit on 2015-4-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I wonder how many here truly believe there would be no difference in our history if the original civil rights act wasn't passed.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Don't you know? Free market competition would have eventually caused segregated businesses to fail.

Yea right.

After about 100 years of racial segregation, it took civil rights legislation and Supreme Court rulings to bring it to an end.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
So when a law supports someone's opinion, it's good (customer over business owner). When it does not, it is legalized discrimination (business owner over customer).

Those supporting this legislation in Indiana yell at me with same fervor as those opposing it. Both call the other discriminatory. Both call the other wrong.

If you hate the Christian Right and don't want them in the mix, that's your business. Fight it all day long.

But know this: If the Christian Right has more money and more leverage than you and yours or vise versa, one sides opinion of justice will no longer exist as the high ground because the only metric is the law put forth by the best financed.

Of course I am a crazy a** h*** because I do not accept either one can dictate my morality. According to you I am presuming a moral high ground because I do not accept a law or lack there-of promoted by intolerance (and a large check book) from both sides?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You seem to be oblivious to the point that I made.

Wearing clothing is an option that does not need to be exercised. You might support the laws that force people to do it, but by doing so, you are just supporting outdated religious beliefs.

Were you born wearing clothing?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: SlapMonkey
This is also very true. In this case, I would argue that a law that is ostensibly about protecting religious freedom is actually laying the groundwork for legislating away civil rights.


But nothing in the 1st Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, gives anyone the right not to be offended, but there is that right to offend. And that's okay, because adults should be able to deal with this constructively, not sue a baker because they won't make them a cake. Our so-quick-to-take-to-court society is a much bigger problem than is any RFRA law that a state puts out.

We need to stop babying everybody's feelings in this nation and start letting free people be free (even though America's ideal of freedom has been tainted over the years). Free doesn't mean getting everything you want in life, but it does mean you can run your own private business the way you want...and if you do so in a racist, bigotted fashion, then society is free to drive your business into the ground for you crappy views and business practices.

Religious freedom is already protected--the only reason these laws are seen as necessary is because every whiny-@ss person who thinks they should get everything they want throws a civil temper tantrum in a court of law if they don't get their way.

I'm absolutely anti-racism, anti-discrimination, and pro-everyone who wants to be whatever they want to be (that doesn't harm me or my family...not a fan of armed robbers), but I'm also pro-freedom, and sometimes that means I might get my feelings hurt. I'm 5'5" tall--I can't shop at the big-and-tall stores. Should I take them to court because they don't cater to the attributes of my being over which I have no control? Should a wedding planner who models her business on her religious convictions be forced to plan a gay wedding if she finds it against her own morals?

The answer to both should be "no". The answer to all questions like that should be "no."

The government should not be able to force the hand of private companies in a free society.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey




I'm 5'5" tall--I can't shop at the big-and-tall stores. Should I take them to court because they don't cater to the attributes of my being over which I have no control? Should a wedding planner who models her business on her religious convictions be forced to plan a gay wedding if she finds it against her own morals?

The answer to both should be "no". The answer to all questions like that should be "no."

The government should not be able to force the hand of private companies in a free society.


If the big and tall shop only sells large clothes, then they shouldn't be forced to sell smaller clothes. But, if a customer wants to buy their large clothes and have adulterous sex in them, that is none of the store owner's business. If you sell big and tall clothes to the public, then you should sell big and tall clothes to ALL of the public, not just to certain groups of the public that you like better than others. If you just can't do that, then don't get in the business of selling to the public.

If a wedding planner only wants to service people who follow her religious convictions, then she shouldn't be open to the public -- she should have a private wedding planning club where you have to apply for membership.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


engaging in commerce with the public, a business owner benefits from society.


And society benefits from the business owner. It's a symbiotic relationship--the benefits go both ways.

There is no crime in refusing to service someone, only nazis want to force people to do what they want.

The rational for not serving group X by any business owner is irrelevant. A commercial transaction is a contract between two parties, it is immoral to force someone into a contract against their will.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


But nothing in the 1st Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, gives anyone the right not to be offended, but there is that right to offend. And that's okay, because adults should be able to deal with this constructively, not sue a baker because they won't make them a cake. Our so-quick-to-take-to-court society is a much bigger problem than is any RFRA law that a state puts out.


This is a strange argument for two reasons.

1. The baker in your scenario isn't being sued for offending anyone but rather for refusing service.
2. The person the law is actually intending to protect from being offended is the baker.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I disagree with your reasoning completely. Both fictional store owners live in a "free" society--or, at least, a society that was created based on individual freedoms in lieu of an oppressive government. While my analogy may have been faulty (and your correction of it was deserved...it's not about what they sell, but to whom), I think the logic behind your stance is faulty as well.

Private businesses should not have to make people apply for membership in order to sell their goods in accordance with their belief system. Being open to the public should not, by default, mean that you have no control over which customers you will and will not service.

Again, I disagree with the discrimination, but we really need to stop relying on the government to hold the hands of the general public and ensure that none of their feelings get hurt.

There is another post that was recently started that asks a very good question: Would you really want to eat the cake from a baker who was forced against their will to bake it for you?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Strange argument or not, it's still valid.

The person who was refused service got their feelings hurt, so they went and 'lawyered up' and sued, causing an over-reaching gov't hand to come down on them and force them to do something against their religious convictions.

Someone got their feelings hurt, sued, and caused big government to come in and tell a private business what they must do.

The baker in my scenario IS getting sued for offending someone BY refusing service. The law doesn't protect the baker from being offended, it protects the baker from a gov't that disregards their first-amendment rights and comes in and tells them what to do.

Both sides--the baker and the complainer--are the problem, in my book. The difference is that one of them has a constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs, whereas the other does not have the right to not be offended. I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


There is another post that was recently started that asks a very good question: Would you really want to eat the cake from a baker who was forced against their will to bake it for you?


And I will answer that by pointing to what happened in the South during Jim Crow days and the Civil Rights movement. The white South was quite happy to have signs outside their business saying "whites only". When laws were made to force those businesses to serve blacks, the white South was not happy at first. Too bad, so sad. A few generations later, and no one in the South thinks twice about selling to a black person.

There will be a period of adjustment. As time passes, the vast majority of people won't think twice about selling their products and services to a gay person.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well, there goes what I was going to say, although far less clearly. Awesome and on point for this whole argument.




peace



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Maybe I'm just a little simpler on this topic. A person can not be forced to use a particular business. A person can not be forced to take a job from a particular employer. A person can not be forced to buy something from someone. Regardless of their color or the reason the person doesn't want to use their services.

Therefore, to be fair...a business owner has the same rights to refuse to do business with someone for any reason. It is their business after all and how it fares or fails MUST be based upon their choices, not those forced by a government.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Why did you skirt the question?

Would you eat a cake baked by a person who was forced against their will to do so, and who has apparent disdain for you or your life choices?

The baker is not refusing service based on race, or even (imo) on homosexuality--what they're opting out of is participating in an event (in this instance, a homosexual wedding) with which their constitutionally protected exercising of religion conflicts.

It's about not participating, not about hating because of their life choices. I'd bet money that if that same gay person walked in and just asked for two-dozen cookies, they would be served without delay. But this is all hypothetical and unprovable, but I contend that your equating this scenario to a 'straights only' placard in their window is hyperbole.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join