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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: johnwick

That forced people to serve people they didn't want, wasn't that your definition of slavery?


You contradict your self at the end of your post, the first civil rights act was the gov forcing people to preform services against their will...



Just for example until the ACA passed, insurances companies discriminated against the disabled every day.

Not sure how this helps your case, people hated this fact and it was one of the few things praised in the ACA by both sides.



Because, that is proof that even federally protected groups can still be discriminated against, based entirely on nothing but their supossed protected status.

Gays aren't even a federally protected group.

Why should they get some special concession even federally protected groups don't?




posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Yes... and people thought it was wrong, very wrong. It was a corner stone of what was wrong with our health care system. So again, I fail to see your point, outside of "well since they did it, others can do it too".

And at this point it is moot cause it is no longer the case.

I think I have wrestled in the mud long enough.
Keep thinking in the pre civil rights mentality, we all saw how well that worked out for people.



Um yes, you do have a right to be a dick.
Going to address this as well, I will agree in the way you painted it you have the right, as in your personal life.
When you are serving the general public, you lose that right which is my point.
When you benefits from the tax payer, you need to serve them or not refuse based on their persons alone only their actions as I said before.

edit on thThu, 16 Apr 2015 14:26:54 -0500America/Chicago420155480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

It's funny that you talk "rights" as if the universe has decided what they are and it's opinion conflicts with federal law. You do not have the right to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin. Legally speaking in many states it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as well. So it is not a universal "right".



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
So if I clean houses or babysit for people, I should be able to pick and choose whose house I clean and whose kids I watch. I think that is the same with any job that you do. I also may cater to weddings or do some photography but its my call on which ones I prefer to do.

If I work for a corporation and I am not a contractor for them then I would do as their policy states.

Bottom line if I do not want to do it then my performance is going to show it. Then that opens another can of worms for lawsuits. If I am refused service then I would move on and find someone that does want my business.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: johnwick

It's funny that you talk "rights" as if the universe has decided what they are and it's opinion conflicts with federal law. You do not have the right to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin. Legally speaking in many states it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as well. So it is not a universal "right".


But you see, that's just the thing... the baker isn't discriminating based on the sexual orientation of the customer, nor is he discriminating at all.

If I walk into a black-owned bakery that makes custom cakes and ask for a cake in the shape of a white hood or a noose, would the baker be discriminating against me based on my race if he refuses to make the cake?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Okay first off. Discriminating against gays is still discrimination. You are not providing a service because the customer is gay . That is discrimination. Second, and more importantly, the baker probably will probably apply the no racist cake policy to all races and not just white people. That is the same as no shirt no shoes policies. If he didn't then he would be calling afoul of anti discrimination laws.
edit on 16-4-2015 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Dp
edit on 16-4-2015 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar

You are not providing a service because the customer is gay . That is discrimination.


Wrong. If the gay guy was marrying a woman, the baker would make the cake. If the gay guy is a wedding planner who is ordering a cake for Mark and Cindy's wedding, the baker would make the cake. Therefore the baker is not discriminating based on the sexual orientation of the customer.


Second, and more importantly, the baker probably will probably apply the no racist cake policy to all races and not just white people.


the "NO gay cake policy" is no different than the example you just provided. If straight wedding planner Sally asks for a cake that says "Congratulations Mark and John" on top, the baker will refuse because he doesn't make cakes for gay weddings... regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   


Store owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Don't like it go somewhere else.


Pretty much my stance on it. Their choice. (and their choice to have to deal with the societal backlash)... Have fun with that....

These things really sort themselves out...no need for government to step in.
edit on 16-4-2015 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok

Just interested in your take on the case where there's only one florist or one bakery in a small town that refuses to serve gay weddings. That's my only issue with the idea of "go somewhere else". What if there isn't somewhere else?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
So once again...are we all ok now if I open a store with a no blacks sign on it?

And precisely how many more of these threads will we need? It seems to me (yet again) we have a group of folks who are crying foul and telling people who don't like discrimination that we are "only saying that because we support LGBT or because our politics"

All I see is a bunch of threads that propagate hatred while pretending to sit behind "laws"

In some other thread I recall someone asking if atheists can refuse Christians and the answer being No...they aren't a "state sponsored religion"

interesting

but back to my point. Can I go ahead and hang my no blacks sign now?

OH! What about when I start my own private psychotherapy practice?

Can I go ahead and ban everyone but Wiccans?

And of course my favorite...Christian hospitals? Why can't they disallow gays?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

When you figure out a way to tell Christians from non Christians let me know



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Isn't it a similar skill to determining who is or is not gay? Besides, those crosses hanging from their necks are usually a dead give away (no pun intended).



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Madonna where's one and she isn't a Christian



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Baking a cake isnt being 'involved deeply in the planning and participation of an event' in this or any other universe.

The OP fails at hiding their obvious bigotry and prejudices.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join