Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

Because it restricts me from buying a Cake, and would force me to go to another Bakery, and what if they refused? i would have to go to another one, so essentially you want to make that choice for me?

But you want to make that choice for them? Going to another bakery is such a hardship?

Like I said. I believe that you have the right to do whatever you like in life. It would be hypocritical of me not to extend that to everyone, wether I agree with their choice or not.

NavyDoc: You're right, I should answer your question about the Jewish Holocaust Survivor and the Nazi Cookout (or whatever absurdity you're imagining.)

What do you think the average age of an actual Holocaust Survivor would be now? 75? 80? 85? 90?

How long do you want these poor souls to work?

Anyway. Under the laws of public accommodation, yes, anyone conducting business in the United States should be willing to face unpleasant circumstances in the course of their business. Perhaps you're exempt from it in your line of work, but most of us have at least one customer each day that we'd just rather not serve, for reasons ranging from trivial to extremely valid. (Like the Octogenarian Deli Owner in your example not wanting to cater a Nazi Cookout.)

But as usual, you only offer two options, and there are many others. Non-Holocaust Surviving, Non-Jewish employees could handle the prep and delivery to the cookout; Deli 1 could contract with Deli 2 (owned by an Italian Buddhist) to prepare the food and deliver it, as a subcontractor, etc.

So, the answer to your question to me, no matter how absurd it is, is that I believe in the rule of law. Public accommodation means businesses (particularly inns and restaurants) serve the public.

I can't wait to see what you do with that. Let me guess, I'm anti-Semitic? I'm a Nazi?

What extreme will you carry it to this time?

a reply to: NavyDoc

But, you want them to make that choice for me?

Going to a different bakery, or selling me a cake both hardships?

we can play this both ways, i understand you are ok with legal discrimination, that is your view.. i, someone who has been discriminated against multiple times would rather live in a world where there is no discrimination because people Don't Want To discriminate, since that will never happen because apparently people view discrimination as Freedom we have to be protected..

you know who i blame for that, not the Government, but the People

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah, you're really good at assumptions. Good Samaritan laws vary from State to State and country to country. They are all intended to promote assisting others in peril. Perhaps you overlooked that aspect of these styles of laws in your haste? Also, some statutes do require that an individual render aid if they are able to do so.

Good Samaritan statutes in the states of Minnesota and Vermont do require a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a person in need. This assistance may be to call 9-1-1. Violation of the duty-to-assist subdivision is a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota and may warrant a fine of up to $100 in Vermont.

Vermont
Minnesota

Perhaps you should make sure of your own ignorance before you cite someone elses?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
NavyDoc: You're right, I should answer your question about the Jewish Holocaust Survivor and the Nazi Cookout (or whatever absurdity you're imagining.)

What do you think the average age of an actual Holocaust Survivor would be now? 75? 80? 85? 90?

How long do you want these poor souls to work?

Anyway. Under the laws of public accommodation, yes, anyone conducting business in the United States should be willing to face unpleasant circumstances in the course of their business. Perhaps you're exempt from it in your line of work, but most of us have at least one customer each day that we'd just rather not serve, for reasons ranging from trivial to extremely valid. (Like the Octogenarian Deli Owner in your example not wanting to cater a Nazi Cookout.)

But as usual, you only offer two options, and there are many others. Non-Holocaust Surviving, Non-Jewish employees could handle the prep and delivery to the cookout; Deli 1 could contract with Deli 2 (owned by an Italian Buddhist) to prepare the food and deliver it, as a subcontractor, etc.

So, the answer to your question to me, no matter how absurd it is, is that I believe in the rule of law. Public accommodation means businesses (particularly inns and restaurants) serve the public.

I can't wait to see what you do with that. Let me guess, I'm anti-Semetic? I'm a Nazi? What extreme will you carry it to this time?

But exactly ALL of the same answers you used could be used for anyone who didn't want to compromise their principles, be it the Jewish person, or a black man not wanting to cater a KKK event, or a Columbine parent not wanting to cater an NRA event, or a religious person not wanting to cater a gay wedding.

You are not a Nazi or an antiemetic, I sincerely think that you are decent person who does not want to hurt people. Of that, I have not a single doubt.

We just have different views on what causes the least damage to private persons. I say private persons because we can both agree that the government, be it state, federal, or local must treat everyone the same. IMHO, if I support a private person to choose their own life, be it marrying someone of the same gender or refusing to own a gun or eat meat, they have every right to do so. I recently was ignored from a previous screenplay because the producer did not like my politics. Did I sue? No , I went to the next producer and, having kept my lesson, avoided all political questions. Should I sue that producer or go 'Meh, it is his opinion and move on?"

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

But, you want them to make that choice for me?

Going to a different bakery, or selling me a cake both hardships?

we can play this both ways, i understand you are ok with legal discrimination, that is your view.. i, someone who has been discriminated against multiple times would rather live in a world where there is no discrimination because people Don't Want To discriminate, since that will never happen because apparently people view discrimination as Freedom we have to be protected..

you know who i blame for that, not the Government, but the People

But you want to make that choice for them? You don't want them to make that choice for you, so why do you want to make that choice for them?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Haven't we gone through this? and you are picking what part of my post to repeat over and over again.. let me say this again

we can play this both ways, i understand you are ok with legal discrimination, that is your view.. i, someone who has been discriminated against multiple times would rather live in a world where there is no discrimination because people Don't Want To discriminate, since that will never happen because apparently people view discrimination as Freedom we have to be protected..

you know who i blame for that, not the Government, but the People

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah, you're really good at assumptions. Good Samaritan laws vary from State to State and country to country. They are all intended to promote assisting others in peril. Perhaps you overlooked that aspect of these styles of laws in your haste? Also, some statutes do require that an individual render aid if they are able to do so.

Good Samaritan statutes in the states of Minnesota and Vermont do require a person at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance to a person in need. This assistance may be to call 9-1-1. Violation of the duty-to-assist subdivision is a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota and may warrant a fine of up to $100 in Vermont.

Vermont
Minnesota

Perhaps you should make sure of your own ignorance before you cite someone elses?

Petty misdemeanor in 2 of 50 states that are not even part of the "good Samaritan" statues in those states where you obviously confused the two.

Subd. 2.General immunity from liability. (a) A person who, without compensation or the expectation of compensation, renders emergency care, advice, or assistance at the scene of an emergency or during transit to a location where professional medical care can be rendered, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions by that person in rendering the emergency care, advice, or assistance, unless the person acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance. This subdivision does not apply to a person rendering emergency care, advice, or assistance during the course of regular employment, and receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering the care, advice, or assistance.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the scene of an emergency is an area outside the confines of a hospital or other institution that has hospital facilities, or an office of a person licensed to practice one or more of the healing arts under chapter 147, 147A, 148, 150A, or 153. The scene of an emergency includes areas threatened by or exposed to spillage, seepage, fire, explosion, or other release of hazardous materials, and includes ski areas and trails.
c) For the purposes of this section, "person" includes a public or private nonprofit volunteer firefighter, volunteer police officer, volunteer ambulance attendant, volunteer first provider of emergency medical services, volunteer ski patroller, and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.

(d) For the purposes of this section, "compensation" does not include payments, reimbursement for expenses, or pension benefits paid to members of volunteer organizations.

(e) For purposes of this section, "emergency care" includes providing emergency medical care by using or providing an automatic external defibrillator, unless the person on whom the device is to be used objects; or unless the person is rendering this care during the course of regular employment, the person is receiving or expects to receive compensation for rendering this care, and the usual and regular duties of the person include the provision of emergency medical care. "Automatic external defibrillator" means a medical device heart monitor and defibrillator that:

(1) has received approval of its premarket notification, filed pursuant to United States Code, title 21, section 360(k), from the United States Food and Drug Administration;

(2) is capable of recognizing the presence or absence of ventricular fibrillation or rapid ventricular tachycardia, and is capable of determining, without intervention by an operator, whether defibrillation should be performed; and

(3) upon determining that defibrillation should be performed, automatically charges and requests delivery of an electrical impulse to an individual's heart

So yeah, a person who is trained and licensed by the state as a healthcare professional is expected to render aid, not Joe-six pack.

Can you point out anytime who has been charged under the statues?

And that get s back to the point you made--do you think teenagers should be charged for not calling 911 if they see an accident?

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

Haven't we gone through this? and you are picking what part of my post to repeat over and over again.. let me say this again

we can play this both ways, i understand you are ok with legal discrimination, that is your view.. i, someone who has been discriminated against multiple times would rather live in a world where there is no discrimination because people Don't Want To discriminate, since that will never happen because apparently people view discrimination as Freedom we have to be protected..

you know who i blame for that, not the Government, but the People

I've been discriminated against (why do you think you are the only victim of discrimination in the states?) but since Esurasian half breeds are not a protected class, I had no complaint. Too tough. SO sorry. It wasn't the mom and pop stores that I did business in every day, it was the US government who did it--not the people.

Again, you put it disingenuously. It is not "freedom to discriminate" it is freedom to make your own decisions--the exact same thing you should have--the freedom to make your own choices.

a reply to: NavyDoc

"Compromising principles" is the standard now? Not even religious conviction? So, I am a White Supremacist and it is my principle that Black people are subhuman. Does the strength of that principle allow me to treat Blacks as animals (or property?)

C'mon.

All of your examples involve situations of violence or a history of violence done by the second party to the first:

Nazis killing and imprisoning Jews.
KKK lynching Black men (and children) and burning houses and churches of Black people.
Columbine parents have suffered at the hands of violent offenders with guns. (Bit of a stretch there, mate.)

And you want to EQUATE those to

A Gay person who wants to buy a cake from a Christian.



You really don't see a disparity there? Burning people in ovens is equivalent to selling the cakes baked in one?

~~~~

Private persons offer a public business. Yes, the difference seems obvious to me.

No one is coming into their home to require anything. If they only want to serve special people then they should offer a membership club. Public is public.

You're phrasing your support of marriage equality (which I thank you for by the way) as if it is merely a matter of personal preference in being able to marry ... but the actual point is that States offer marriage which takes the form of a contract with benefits, and to only offer legal status to individuals based on sex has long been determined to be a violation of "equal protection of the laws."

I can appreciate what you're saying. Trust me, all I need is for someone to offer poor customer service one time, and I take my business elsewhere. If I went in to buy a wedding cake and they didn't want to sell one because they think I'm gay and they are Christian, I'd probably let them know how ludicrous I find their religion and take my leave.

But my personal reaction to a specific situation should not be the only basis for how our laws protect the public.

(PS, I'm sure you're a good and caring person as well.)

a reply to: NavyDoc

(not going to copy all that crap)

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Petty misdemeanor in 2 of 50 states that are not even part of the "good Samaritan" statues in those states where you obviously confused the two.

You didn't even click the links did you?

How embarrassing: line one on link one: Vermont Good Samaritan Act

Lines one and two on link two: MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 604A.01
604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW.


Is a requirement to render aid a part of the Good Samaritan laws in the States I mentioned, or not?

Did I say a kid should be required to report an accident? or that he refuses to call 911 for a man dying on the floor of the place he works. Disingenuous at best there Doc.

Sometimes, it's okay to simply admit that you were mistaken instead of digging the hole deeper and braying from the bottom of it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

but it is the Freedom to discriminate

verb
1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; More
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

Essentially that is what it is, you can make it sound better by calling it someone different but in the end it's freedom to discriminate

and like i said before, if People didn't discriminate, people wouldn't create lawsuits that leads to federal protections, or basically upholding the constitution.. so the more people discriminate the more Government involvement

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

(not going to copy all that crap)

Is requirement to render aid a part of the Good Samaritan laws in the States I mentioned, or not?

Sometimes, it's okay to simply admit that you were mistaken.

In those two states--two out of 50 mind you--, it is a minor requirement in trained professionals to do so but not everyone else under specific conditions, so it does not support your "everywhere for any reason" premise.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

but it is the Freedom to discriminate

verb
1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; More
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

Essentially that is what it is, you can make it sound better by calling it someone different but in the end it's freedom to discriminate

and like i said before, if People didn't discriminate, people wouldn't create lawsuits that leads to federal protections, or basically upholding the constitution.. so the more people discriminate the more Government involvement

Certainty a few might discriminate in a reason you dislike and certainly some may discriminate in a way you agree with (club for drag queens only!) but the bottom line is that if I want you e free to choose to marry a man or dress in drag or whatever your heart takes you, I would be a hypocrite if I did not extend the same to others.

You are a brilliant and funny person. I like your sense of humor. Live your life and be free and let others live their lives and be free.

As for lawsuits, the indication of their being lawsuits have nothing to do if their is a real problem and more of an indication that lawyers are looking for ways to make money.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

(not going to copy all that crap)

Is requirement to render aid a part of the Good Samaritan laws in the States I mentioned, or not?

Sometimes, it's okay to simply admit that you were mistaken.

In those two states--two out of 50 mind you--, it is a minor requirement in trained professionals to do so but not everyone else under specific conditions, so it does not support your "everywhere for any reason" premise.

You're simply either ignorant of the laws I linked or you're misrepresenting the truth.

MN:

Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor

Not limited to medical or emergency personnel ... A PERSON

VT:

A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

Not limited to medical or emergency personnel ... A PERSON.

So, are you wrong or are you intentionally misrepresenting the truth? I have to admit, the second option will hurt my heart a bit.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Awww Thank you making me blush and everything in a conversation...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

(not going to copy all that crap)

Is requirement to render aid a part of the Good Samaritan laws in the States I mentioned, or not?

Sometimes, it's okay to simply admit that you were mistaken.

In those two states--two out of 50 mind you--, it is a minor requirement in trained professionals to do so but not everyone else under specific conditions, so it does not support your "everywhere for any reason" premise.

You're simply either ignorant of the laws I linked or you're misrepresenting the truth.

MN:

Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor

Not limited to medical or emergency personnel ... A PERSON

VT:

A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

Not limited to medical or emergency personnel ... A PERSON.

So, are you wrong or are you intentionally misrepresenting the truth?

Read the entire statute and then get back to me, not just the preamble. They even mention IED's in there. And again, it's rather silly to pull up MInn statutes and hen extrapolate them to the whole country.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

Awww Thank you

making me blush and everything in a conversation...

You are a decent person. That we disagree on a few political points dose not make you less a decent person. I'd be willing to bet that I could trust you with my house, go on vacation, and come back to find everything well taken care of--even better than I left it. Am I right?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Read the entire statute and then get back to me, not just the preamble. They even mention IED's in there. And again, it's rather silly to pull up MInn statutes and hen extrapolate them to the whole country.

Ah. So, sadly it's the second.

First you claim that what I cited is not part of Good Samaritan laws, and now you're utterly misrepresenting the laws themselves.

Neither item that I quoted is a "preamble" but the first item of (and most important item of) these laws.

Silly to extrapolate to Minnesota? What did I actually say in that post again?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah, you're really good at assumptions. Good Samaritan laws vary from State to State and country to country. They are all intended to promote assisting others in peril. Perhaps you overlooked that aspect of these styles of laws in your haste? Also, some statutes do require that an individual render aid if they are able to do so.

Yeah. You're not telling the truth, and I think you know it.

~~~~~~~~

So, moving on. What about the 21 States that have enacted anti-gay discrimination laws?

No State's Rights for those states then?

a reply to: NavyDoc

You are more than right.. well.. you mind find some glitter places

i feel the same about you, like my intent has never been malicious towards you, we just disagree on points