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.

 

Left Hypocrisy on Serve / No Serve; Don't Tell Me 'Both Sides Do It'

page: 14
40
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
They are angling to make churches places of public accommodation, so yes, under that description the pastor, priest, imam, rabbi, et al, would indeed be working in a place of public accommodation.


Who is 'they'? Congress? When it happens let me know.

I also asked if you felt a business could refuse service for any reason.




posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

Can anyone guess who the next protected class will be?


I hope it's ugly people. I could use a little protection...

and a puppy

somebody get me a puppy


edit on 31-12-2016 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I already addressed that. It goes to court, if the customer feels they were treated in a discriminatory manner. The court decides.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   


Can anyone guess who the next protected class will be?


Robots.

They need a living wage,equal pay, and 6 weeks of vacation.

Holiday pay,triple time, and the right to vote!

Robot RIGHTS!

Cause Robots R PEEPLE!



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
They are angling to make churches places of public accommodation, so yes, under that description the pastor, priest, imam, rabbi, et al, would indeed be working in a place of public accommodation.


Who is 'they'? Congress? When it happens let me know.

I also asked if you felt a business could refuse service for any reason.


I owa has done it.


An Iowa church has challenged the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) over its interpretation, as published in “A Public Accommodations Provider’s Guide to Iowa Law,” that churches may be included as a “public accommodation” subject to the Iowa Civil Rights Act (Act).


Basically the rules as written would define churches as "public accommodation." I think they ended up having to walk it back, but this is being pushed now.

Legally, a business cannot refuse a service for any reason.

But in a free market, the business could. Yes, that means atheists could deny someone for being a person of faith, whites could deny persons of color and persons of color could deny whites and so on and so forth ... but at the same time, if you do all the work and take all the risk to invest in and run your own business, shouldn't you set the terms under which you will own and operate that business and extend your services?

As I said, if you want to open a business and only and exclusively serve midgets wearing strap-ons in your public accommodation, then you should be able to be like the bartender in Star Wars and tell anyone else who walks through your doors that you don't serve their kind.

Maybe there are enough midgets who wear strap-ons to keep you in business and maybe there aren't. Maybe the public tolerates your exclusive business model and maybe it doesn't, but that's the risk you run when you make that kind of business model and exclude that much business.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I already addressed that. It goes to court, if the customer feels they were treated in a discriminatory manner. The court decides.


Not that simple.

The owner can say, "He was being a jack wagon."

And the defendant can say, "You just didn't want to serve me because I'm ..."

And the jury can objectively see the protected class. They don't get to see the defendent being a jack wagon. Which one wins do you think?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Which is why you have other evidence, like witness testimonies, store cameras, etc.

You think this hasn't happened before? It happens a lot. People being jack wagons, being thrown out, then suing the store for supposedly being treated unfairly. The courts are used to these kinds of cases.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

This is what the ICRC brochure actually says:


Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues,
mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa
law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of
worship engages in non-religious activities which are
open to the public.


So no, it is disingenuous to claim that Iowa has made churches places of public accommodation which must do things like allow gays to worship there or perform gay marriages. The brochure does not say that at all.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I owa has done it.


No, they have not:


Court rules Iowa churches not subject to intrusive law, ADF dismisses suit
Court says churches are not “public accommodations,” facility use and speech activity out of reach of state agencies



Yes, that means atheists could deny someone for being a person of faith, whites could deny persons of color and persons of color could deny whites and so on and so forth ...


Fair enough, I wanted to know where we stand.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
from what I read...
the member of the mormon group decided to quite instead of perform....
and the member of the rockettes that don't want to perform won a small bit in that the company that they work for has made it so it's not mandatory, but they are still wondering if they won't lose their standing in the group if they opt out...

so, why all the griping by the right? both groups seem to be bound by contracts... that as far as I see they have every intention of fullfulling. and it seems that those members who find it morally wrong for whatever reason, don't have any special legal protections to prevent the management from firing them or taking other disciplinary measures against them...

my god, it's not like they are have any religious beliefs that should be protected or anything, like those catholic hospitals that are giving women crappy healthcare because of their beliefs to the point of endangering lives.. while agreeing with the gov't to provide adequate healthcare for all for gov't funds!!! nor are the business owners refusing to sign papers notifying the gov't that their religious beliefs prohibit them from providing coverage of birth control...
they are just employees.... and their moral convictions just don't jive with what the gov't has deemed as being true religious beliefs... they don't have any protections!



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

tell me, which, in your mind is worse...

a person gets a call asking them to pick up and tow a car that was in an accident in another state by a competing towing company that is too busy to do it and you agree to do it.. the person who is asking you to said that they would do it, but well, the person is disabled and they don't want them left on the side of the road so they are calling you. so you head out to the place where the accident occurred and proceed to hook the car up to your tow truck and you see a bumper sticker on the car supporting a political candidate... so you go and you inform that person that you just can't do this, you are a christian and this would just not be a christian thing to do. so you unhook you tow truck and drive home empty handed leaving the women on the side of the road on a hot summer day with no air conditioner.
the lady ends up being disabled and unable to even walk to the nearest off ramp!

how about a women who begins miscarrying and goes to the hospital two times to get help and is sent home both times, even though she is has a fever and is showing signs of infection, and comes back the third and is again sent home but she collapses on the floor before they leave, and they admit her and then still do not much of anything till the heartbeat stops and then they remove the baby.. after the women has developed a severe infection?

or a president elect gets turned down by a few entertainers who refuse to perform for him???
oh, yes... poor, poor super rich president elect....

seems to me the religeous right has been pulling out the religious card for quite some time now to make a statement by refusing service, some of which has endangered lives... sorry if I don't take your cries of hypocrisy seriously now!!!
all it is telling me is that you just can't take near the amount of crap that has been dished out by your camp!






A religious card? Absolutely! I agree with you on that. But...no one should be given special rights...period. While you point to religion on one side, that side can point to a hell of a longer list.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElGoobero

originally posted by: kaylaluv
The difference is, the entertainers aren't discriminating against Trump because of his race, nationality or his sexual orientation. They are refusing to deal with him because of his actions and comments.
in other words, his political beliefs.


The left doesn't have a problem with a baker or pizza maker turning away someone who comes in with obnoxious, unruly and disruptive behavior. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to refuse service to someone.

so I can turn you away if I think you're rude, but I have to throw away my Christian/moral beliefs and support behavior I find to be ungodly? and face legal persecution if I don't comply?


Yes. Because only one of those complaints is based in reality.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

really, tell me, just what would be on that long list???



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

am i to understand by your logic that if a baker overheard someone talking about their political and social beliefs and found them to be offensive they could refuse service on that basis?



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The list of who gets special rights? OK. Here are the main ones.

Black (Affirmative action, etc.)
Gay (and all the additional letters)
Illegal (still here...until the 20th.)
Non-Christians (1 person wants the cross down, 500 don't)
Women
Etc.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: kaylaluv

am i to understand by your logic that if a baker overheard someone talking about their political and social beliefs and found them to be offensive they could refuse service on that basis?

Only if it is Trump or some other "ignorant right wing nut-job". Just watch



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

just what special rights do gays have?? just wondering because the only one I can think of is the fact that they are one of the groups that if you happen to do something against one of them, you might be slapped with an extra charge of hate crime...which kind of bugs me since to me beating the heck out of someone, or destroying their property or whatever is, and should be considered illegal, regardless of who is involved...

blacks... ya, affirmative action, but yet, it became because some among us were discriminating against them to such a degree that it became a major problem that needed to be addressed.. what other special rights do they have??

illegals.... yes, still here, still illegal.... nothing special here unless you want to say that some rapists have special rights because they are still allowed to walk the streets after being found guilty and serving rediculously short sentences...

women.... if you wish to dive more into it fine, but it seems to be covered quite well in other topics on ATS.

Non-christians....
governments shouldn't be seen to be supporting one religion above others, what don't you get about that?
and while you are complaining about the gov't not allowing a cross, or not allowing public group led prayer in schools....
can we talk about what they do allow, and how maybe, just maybe... the are actually infringing on others rights to act according to their conscious...
why have been so many discussions about the business's rights to uphold their religious views while running their businesses here? the members of these groups didn't own any business... my guess is that they are either employees of them or maybe just doing so for free...
some of them seem to have had some moral based problem with performing for trump, much like hobby lobby had a problem with providing birth control to women... just like catholic hospitals have a problem with provided certain services to women, even when not doing so would endanger the women!! just like some bakeries have a problem with cakes.

this is an example of what happens to a healthcare provider that might chose to hold the life and wellbeing of the mother above that of a dying fetus she maybe be carrying....

abcnews.go.com...

for any of these performers who chose not to perform the same thing could happen, legally....

it's only when the moral issue is accepted by our government that the an employees is protected, and it does seem that it helps out a great deal if that issue happens to be based on christian ideas.
in many states, a pharmacy worker, a doctor, or nurse, whoever can just opt out of providing birth control or other healthcare by pulling out the religious card!
but happen to be a doctor who happens to be working within that catholic system and sees a valid medical reason for that women not getting pregnant again... and well... there is no protection for him even though he might feel just as right and moral in his decisions as that catholic hospital is...



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tribal

Let me repeat this once again. It is discrimination and therefore against the law for a baker or anyone else involved in public accommodation to refuse service to someone based on their race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation (sexual orientation is not a protected group in all states, so not everywhere).



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: tribal

Let me repeat this once again. It is discrimination and therefore against the law for a baker or anyone else involved in public accommodation to refuse service to someone based on their race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation (sexual orientation is not a protected group in all states, so not everywhere).

So a black baker can refuse to make a cake for a white christian with no repercussions. You are correct...and that is so, so wrong that they are given special rights. It is unfair and unequal. It is discrimination no matter how you look at it.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Not if they refuse based on the fact that the person is a white Christian. Because that would also be discrimination.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join