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.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
No, not really. If you have customers by appointment only, or do not offer public access, then you do not need to accomodate the public. Lot’s of businesses work like that. Including mine.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari
I am a supporter of public accommodation. I got “taught” during the bakery episode.
If you serve the public, then you serve the public.
So every business serves the public?
Again, the devil is in the details. The cake shop would have let the gay couple buy a cake off the shelf, but they didn’t want to decorate a cake for the gay couple.(which i personally don’t see any difference) but these artists don’t have a “shelf”. They produce custom art for the public. That is the only product they make. It’s the same as if they didn’t want to do art for black people. The point is that these demographics are protected with written laws.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Woodcarver
Why would they?
Not even the florist or the baker stopped gays from buying stuff in their respective stores. They only balked when it came to celebrating a marriage.
My business does not serve the public. I do not have a storefront, or offices that allows access to the public. All of my business is contractual and by appointment only.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
originally posted by: Woodcarver
No, not really. If you have customers by appointment only, or do not offer public access, then you do not need to accomodate the public. Lot’s of businesses work like that. Including mine.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari
I am a supporter of public accommodation. I got “taught” during the bakery episode.
If you serve the public, then you serve the public.
So every business serves the public?
Lets see what DB says, since he's the one claiming that if you have a business you serve the public.
I'm eager to hear what he says about the legal prostitute in Las Vegas and whether or not she is allowed to refuse to "serve" a customer.
It's about not wanting to participate in what they feel is sacrilege.
Where does that line stop?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
For the record, if you serve the public, like any bakery, restaurant, website, you have to factor in public accomodation and serve the public.
In my opinion.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko
It's about not wanting to participate in what they feel is sacrilege.
I've heard the argument before.
Where does that line stop?
Indeed. Can a restaurant refuse to serve a gay couple, can a paramedic refuse to offer aid to a homosexual, can a landowner refuse to rent to a homosexual, can a hotel turn away a gay couple?
Under the auspice of religious freedom can a parent sell their child into service, force a daughter to marry a person of their choosing. Where does that line stop?
originally posted by: LedermanStudio
If the caligraphers decided that they don't work for black people, we'd all likely find that as bigotry. If the black person wanted them to create caligraphy to promote Farakahn's termite extermination...
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck
Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs.
Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”
thinkprogress.org...
UPDATED: State Supreme Court Says Florist Who Refused to Serve Gay Couple Violated Anti-Discrimination Law www.thestranger.com... anti-discrimination-law
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: LedermanStudio
If the caligraphers decided that they don't work for black people, we'd all likely find that as bigotry. If the black person wanted them to create caligraphy to promote Farakahn's termite extermination...
Being black is not a behavior, or is it?
What we are talking about is everyone must accept all behaviors.... Do you accept all behaviors?
originally posted by: visitedbythem
Pendulum swings both ways,
Soon it may be time,
to duck,
for aggressive gays
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
originally posted by: visitedbythem
Pendulum swings both ways,
Soon it may be time,
to duck,
for aggressive gays
How wide does your pendulum swing? Could it be coming for "uppity black" too?