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.

 

Should gay people fight for the right for anti-gay businesses to take their money or just boycott?

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Annee

It's okay for you to practice your religion until I come along and demand services that contradict your religious views. Screw your freedom! You will serve me while I wipe my bum with your religious convictions! Your only recourse is to close down your business while the government bankrupts you and destroys your life with fines.

/sarcasm /nowaronchristianity /tolerance


Disclaimer: You = Generic "You"


Secular government.

Your business is not a church. Keep it to yourself.


I don't see anywhere in my second post where I mentioned a church. And keep what to myself? Surely you don't mean my opinion...

I love how people think the hypocrisy with this tolerance nonsense is okay.



"Practice your religion" --- do not make your public business your church.

Your post below.



It's okay for you to practice your religion until I come along and demand services that contradict your religious views. Screw your freedom! You will serve me while I wipe my bum with your religious convictions! Your only recourse is to close down your business while the government bankrupts you and destroys your life with fines.


edit on 5-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien
You mean the same Constitution that says the President is to get Congressional approval before using the military to attack a foreign nation, but Obama attacked Libya anyways. That Constitution? Seems like you don't understand the new rules.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



People don't like Christians forcing their viewpoints on others. But that's the exact same thing people expect a Christian to take by forcing them to go against their beliefs.


No one is forcing them to do anything against their beliefs. As others have stated, a business is not a church.

This is all about equality for customers.



was that even though a church isn't a public business, it does provide public services. These services span from food banks, soup kitchens, to sometimes housing and etc. Could those public services open the door to liability when it comes to crossing the line of a "public business".


No. Those services are voluntary and paid with donations and tithes. It is non-taxable.



If a church has a fundraiser in which it bakes cakes, a gay couple requests to purchase one for their wedding, and are refused, are they liable as well?


Nope.



In my opinion, it's a rabbit hole that's starting with individuals that don't have the financial resources to fight this in the nations highest courts.


Rest assured that it will never happen. We have the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
I think you using the word genius is a little above your pay grade.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

"Practice your religion" --- do not make your public business your church.



So it's okay to practice Christianity and live by its principles so long as it stays in the church? Once again, forget the Christian business owner who tries to run their business according to their principles. They have no right to do so!



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Enochstask
a reply to: Grimpachi
I think you using the word genius is a little above your pay grade.



It looks like you didn't comprehend what I said. lol



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
I'm sorry were you speaking, what is it you would like to say child?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Ok enough vitriol people. Back off take a breather and come back, it's getting juvenile.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien


Will anyone dare to remove the law and allow businesses to discriminate anyone?


I would remove all of them.


What do you think would happen? Sure many people would boycott those types of businesses but are we sure that will work?


People would boycott those businesses, and it would work, but not in the way people want it to.

It would cause the re-arranging of society where communities that support the discrimination of group X would flourish, but at the same time, other communities would be formed where businesses that discriminate against any group would go out of business.

The issue I have with American society is the forced uniformity of culture by creating laws that make non-criminal behaviors criminal. Typical pyramid-structure of authority.


Will we go back to what it was like in the 50's and 60's?


Laws that force discrimination are just as repugnant as laws that take away the individual's right to choose to discriminate.

It would not be the same. In the 50's and 60's the same issue existed--laws were written that turned non-criminal behaviors into criminal behaviors (like making it illegal for black people to sit at the front of the bus).

All laws that attempt do this should be broken.

We have yet to try just not writing laws. Let communities form laissez-faire.

But, today's modern liberal just like today's modern conservative (in the US), can't stand the thought of the individual having the right to choose to engage in behavior that is not criminal, but that they subjectively deem immoral.

Which is why the business owner can't choose to discriminate, which is why gays can't marry, which is why drugs are illegal, etc...


Will it be for better or for worse? Will the internet help shut down those types of businesses?


It would be better to finally live in a nation that actually values liberty and the individual's right to choose.

The internet is a communication-medium that allows instant connections to anyone around the world. So, yes, it would help.

[quoute]Will anyone really want to dare?

I would dare with the passion of 1000 burning suns.
edit on 5-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Forcing a business owner to participate in an activity that is against their religious convictions isn't forcing them to do anything?

Equality for customers... Seems like equality for all should take precedence. A customer shouldn't be able to trample over a business owner's faith.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Laissez-faire capitalism has been proven not to work. So don't go there.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolRozenberg
In California, ( according to Bill Handel form Handel on the Law - the funniest radio show I have ever heard ) you can fire someone for any reason.


I'm not sure if you are fully understanding what Bill Handel is saying.

Of course there are ways to beat laws, but CA has one of the oldest and strictest anti-discrimination laws in the Unruh Civil Rights Act 1959.



The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. This law applies to all businesses such as hotels and motels, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.

The law was enacted in 1959 and was named for its author, Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified as California Civil Code section 51.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



edit on 5-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

They aren't being forced, they can either uphold the contract they willfully signed or they can close up shop. Having a business is a privilege not a right. No one is putting a gun to their heads.

Also they aren't participating, participating would be taking part in the ceremony, which they are not doing anymore than the store the wedding napkins were bought from are. They're only selling stuff to someone, that's it. That's not encouraging, promoting it, participating in it, or stating any opinion on it, it's an exchange of cash for a good, that's it.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



Forcing a business owner to participate in an activity that is against their religious convictions isn't forcing them to do anything?


A baker publicizes that he makes cakes for weddings. That means... the cakes are for everyone that wants it. So why would he lie and not sell to certain people? See it now?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Annee

"Practice your religion" --- do not make your public business your church.



So it's okay to practice Christianity and live by its principles so long as it stays in the church? Once again, forget the Christian business owner who tries to run their business according to their principles. They have no right to do so!


America is a secular government and that's what they signed up for when they got a business license.

Principles don't cross over to discrimination.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove



Stop pretending like people are forced to run a business and like the contract they sign with the state to run their business stating they cannot discriminate is forced.


You and I have two different perspectives on what is a right and what is a privilege.

I believe that engaging in commerce and trade are natural, human rights. Which means that the state doesn't have the authority to force people to seek permits to start businesses.

But, that has nothing to do with the individual's right to choose to discriminate.



No one is forcing them to do anything but follow the laws set forth in the constitution.


If you are implying that forcing someone to engage in a business transaction with someone they would choose not to is a "constituonally protected right" you would be surprised to find out that it's not.

While you do have the right, in the role of customer, to spend your money as you see fit, you don't have the right to force someone to take your money in exchange for goods or services.


It's not slavery, they chose to run a business in the united states and in doing so also signed the papers stating they would uphold the constitution of the united states, which protects individuals from discrimination.


The 14th amendment doesn't do what you think it does. It makes us all equal under the law. It means that laws that discriminate cannot be written.

And, yes, not allowing a business owner to choose with whom they would do business, is using the law to force involuntary servitude.

The "contract with the state" is irrelevant, we do not need them to engage in commerce.


It's not slavery or closed to it, no one is being forced to do anything. If they don't want to follow the laws required in owning a business they can close their doors at any time.


Yes, actually, they are being forced to do business with people that they'd rather not do business with.

That is a form of force.

Your position, that the law should be used to enforce what you subjectively view as "morally right," is no different than the people who supported Jim Crowe laws because they saw them as "morally right."

You are fascist just like they were.



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove




They aren't being forced, they can either uphold the contract they willfully signed or they can close up shop.


Sounds like being forced to me.


Having a business is a privilege not a right.


So much for living in America where entrepreneurship is a freedom.


No one is putting a gun to their heads.


I'd say the gun to their heads is the closing of their business and the ruining of their financial means.


Also they aren't participating, participating would be taking part in the ceremony, which they are not doing anymore than the store the wedding napkins were bought from are. They're only selling stuff to someone, that's it. That's not encouraging, promoting it, participating in it, or stating any opinion on it, it's an exchange of cash for a good, that's it.


Catering is participation.

I've said my peace. Tolerance folks... tolerance. Such a one way street.
edit on 4/5/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Laissez-faire capitalism has been proven not to work. So don't go there.


I said laissez-fair communities. I was not talking about economic models. I was talking about the immoral use of law by two sides of the same coin to force people to behave the way they want them to.

Why are you ignoring the rest of what I said?



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace



Catering is participation.


They don't go to weddings. They only sell cakes at the store.

-
Well if you guys really believe this so much then make a petition and get involved in politics and debate. Let us see how far you guys go.
edit on 4/5/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon



I said laissez-fair communities.


What the heck does that even mean?



Why are you ignoring the rest of what I said?


Because of that! And also your questions and statements have been answered many times by me and others. I'm tired of repeating.

What does communities have to do with business and law?
edit on 4/5/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join