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.

 

Refusing to Serve Gays, The difference between discrimination and forced Participation

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
the current headline news today has a Michigan man refusing to fix the Automobiles of Gays because he objects to their life style.

Michigan Auto Shop Owner Faces Backlash After Declaring He Won’t Serve Gays

However, this man is not required to participate in that which he conscientiously objects seeing he just repairs their cars. In this case he is wrong to deny service.

But if he was to cater a wedding with food or photographs then he is involved deeply in the planning and participation of an event he conscientiously object to and should not be forced to participate.

This is the difference between violating the rights of Gays or being forced to participate in Gay events.

At the same time Gays should respect a persons freedom of association, a right supported by the constitution. If they are Christian, Muslim gays should know they are not associated with them and thereby go to a business that associates well with them and leave the Christians and Muslims or others alone.

This is the live and let live rule.


edit on 16-4-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Exactly how many other mechanics shops are there? More than enough to quit heir bitching. Store owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Don't like it go somewhere else.
edit on 5301242015vAmerica/Chicago04bAmerica/Chicago by 5thNovember because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
It seems like the United States is coming up with every reason it can for people to not start their own businesses.

Gee, I wonder why...



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
I think I agree in principle with what you are saying but don't think it is practical in terms of a legal distinction. Two difficult to always draw a clear line between service and participation.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I should be able to avoid taxes because I object to the activities of the sovereign collecting them. But I can't. The sovereign puts a gun to my head.

What's my point? If you are pinning your hopes for fair treatment on state intervention, you are winning a battle and losing the war.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I'm soooo tired of this debate. Don't ask, don't tell.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 5thNovember

Nope, you don't.

The first civil rights act and why it had to be passed shows why that does not work.

OP, I'll say what I always say, if they want to go the "It goes against my beliefs" route then they better not cherry pick what those beliefs are.

There are many more rules to marriage then just not same sex according to the big thee of religions.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I still don't think that what goes on in a person's sexual life is any business of anyone else, except their partner/spouse.
To know enough to refuse service is still butting in on their sex life. No pun intended.
Even if it's obvious (like everyone knows they're gay), it's still none of the business of anyone to refuse service.
It's like runaway voyeurism the way everyone is in everyone else's bedroom business.

Anyone judging another is putting themselves a little too high on their own pedestal.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
But if he was to cater a wedding with food or photographs then he is involved deeply in the planning and participation of an event he conscientiously object to and should not be forced to participate.


If he doesn't want to "participate" in every legal wedding, then he should not go into the business of participating in weddings...

Taking pictures or catering a wedding is not "participating". It's "working for" the wedding party. Being the best man, maid of honor, mother of the bride, or the groom is participating. The only thing a caterer is participating in is catering, which they do every day.

Whatever a business does for one group of citizens, they should do for all groups of citizens.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5thNovember
Exactly how many other mechanics shops are there? More than enough to quit heir bitching. Store owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Don't like it go somewhere else.


Exactly my thoughts.

I can not be forced to work for anyone I choose not to work for.

That is outlawed by the 14 th amendment.

Forcing one to serve another against their will is in fact slavery.

These douche bags can just go to another place.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I think the shop owner is not a good businessman.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
He has every right to refuse service to whomever he chooses.

People have the right to bring about a discrimination case against anybody they feel has discriminated against them.

Let the judge decide, but don't bitch about the outcome, the law is the law.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
I think the shop owner is not a good businessman.


I agree, it is not a very intelligent business practice, and will likely cause him to lose plenty of business.

But it is the owners business, and their right to run it as idiotically as they like.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: 5thNovember
Exactly how many other mechanics shops are there? More than enough to quit heir bitching. Store owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Don't like it go somewhere else.


Exactly my thoughts.

I can not be forced to work for anyone I choose not to work for.

That is outlawed by the 14 th amendment.

Forcing one to serve another against their will is in fact slavery.

These douche bags can just go to another place.


No slavery is forced labor without compensation. Being forced to cater a gay wedding then the wedding party paying for it isn't slavery. There is compensation involved.
edit on 16-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Trueman




I think the shop owner is not a good businessman.


Yeah until he raises $800,000 because bigots like to donate to other bigots.

Think how many people are going to hear about this story and think "Oh good, no fags here! Wouldn't want my car to catch the gay."



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

slav·er·y
ˈslāv(ə)rē/
noun

a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Excallibacca

That definition doesn't apply to a businessman being told (by the state) to serve all customers equally.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
So, if a mechanic refuses to work on a specific make/model/year of car, or type of work on a car, would that be OK? I would assume yes...as it is related to lacking the skills for the job. However, if the refusal is based upon the car owner, that is a slippery slope. If the car owner is a raging, screaming, person, they can refuse their business, can they not? Like a police officer can "interpret" your response as evasion and resisting arrest, so can a shop owner refuse to do business with someone based upon their interaction as well....regardless of the type of interaction?

It is a very grey area here....and legislation is not going to resolve it at all. I am frankly torn on this issue since I can see both sides do have merit. Interesting this will be if it goes to a court IMO. It truly is a conundrum, and no side is 100% in the right. I wonder why we cannot simply just drop all this crap and put our petty bickering aside. If a retailer refuses to serve you, and you think it is discrimination, then the burden of proof is upon you to prove that in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. And attacking that retailer in retaliation is even worse than the refusal of business IMO.

Forcing someone to cave to your demands is like sending food back for no good reason...don't be surprised if is not 100% satisfying. That is reality.

edit on 4/16/2015 by Krakatoa because: Added addendum comment



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: 5thNovember
Exactly how many other mechanics shops are there? More than enough to quit heir bitching. Store owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Don't like it go somewhere else.


Exactly my thoughts.

I can not be forced to work for anyone I choose not to work for.

That is outlawed by the 14 th amendment.

Forcing one to serve another against their will is in fact slavery.

These douche bags can just go to another place.


No slavery is forced labor without compensation. Being forced to cater a gay wedding then the wedding party paying for it isn't slavery. There is compensation involved.


Compensation is not even involved in slavery.

It doesn't matter if they are or aren't compensated.

Some slaves were paid, how do you think they could buy their way out of slavery?

They were still slaves though, because it wasn't their choice who when or where the worked.

Slavery is taking ones right to decide who what where and when one must perform services for another.

Have you ever even read about slavery?

Do you even understand the concept?

Sure my work can tell me who where what or when to work.

But I can quit any time I decide I don't want to.

If the gov is given the right to order me to fix your car, I am enslaved by the law to do so, against my will.

That is in fact slavery.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Comparing civil rights to slavery?

Wow..

Problem I have with that logic is no one forced you to start the business where you would be serving the general public.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join