Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog

reply to post by InhaleExhale


It was a rhetorical question. Read that thread again and see how many people applauded the right of a bussiness owner to refuse service even though it was against the law. Maybe not an exact 95% of ATS (yeah, because I was being literal ) but enough to warrant the question.

Now turn it around and replace "gay" with "veteran with service dog" and the majority sees it as discrimination. Why is that?

Originally posted by tadaman
not if its against the law. The states where businesses refused service do NOT have legalized gay marriage. The state does not license it so really why would the businesses "just know" they HAVE to provide service for an act the very state does not condone.

The discrimination law has nothing to do with marriage being legal in that state or not. The service that was denied was the making of a cake, not performing a gay wedding. And yes, they would KNOW this.

reply to post by HandyDandy


there is a big difference. In this case it is specifically laid out and well explained with consequences as well as conditions by well known and established law.

In the other it went to the freaking supreme court because gay marriage is new and the laws protecting it have not been developed. It is to be expected that until the laws are agreed upon by all that this would happen.

Also it wasn't a refusal of service. The only issue the photo place had was with the ceremony based on religious views. They were NOT opposed to serving the other events of the wedding.

so you really have nothing here trying to compare them for an advantage.

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

there is a big difference. In this case it is specifically laid out and well explained with consequences as well as conditions by well known and established law.

There is no difference in discrimination laws. Either you are discriminating or not. BTW....discrimination of sexual orientation IS spelled in the law books of the said states.

In the other it went to the freaking supreme court because gay marriage is new and the laws protecting it have not been developed. It is to be expected that until the laws are agreed upon by all that this would happen.

We do not need new laws protecting services rendered at a gay wedding when the same services are rendered at straight weddings. It is the service not the event that matters.

Also it wasn't a refusal of service. The only issue the photo place had was with the ceremony based on religious views. They were NOT opposed to serving the other events of the wedding.

So, refusing to photograph the wedding event when hired to photograph a wedding event isn't refusal of service?

so you really have nothing here trying to compare them for an advantage.

What advantage? All I'm trying to point out is that discrimination is discrimination whether be a gay couple or a veteran. But some people think it's ok to discriminate the former.

reply to post by HandyDandy


the very idea of not being able to discriminate someone is well established by law. The act of having to provide a service to something your religious views appose is not. Hence why these cases are going to the supreme courts. Gay marriage is a new concept for our society and like everything needs time to be assimilated.

The act of protecting a disabled person's rights is not. The act of discriminating someone for their profession is not as well. Both are well established and any honest person/ citizen should understand this.

freedom of religion is not respected as it was supposed by the other business owners....but they had no way to know that gay rights supersede their religious rights to decline.

This is learned.

Refusing service based on an animal aid for a handicap is not. This is known.

straws.......

Originally posted by tadaman
there is a big difference.

Here is exactly my point. It is only a big difference if one agrees it is ok to discriminate against gay people and not a veteran with a dog.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

It was a rhetorical question. Read that thread again and see how many people applauded the right of a bussiness owner to refuse service even though it was against the law. Maybe not an exact 95% of ATS (yeah, because I was being literal

) but enough to warrant the question.

Now turn it around and replace "gay" with "veteran with service dog" and the majority sees it as discrimination. Why is that?

A stupid one because no points were made, you assumed I read some other thread you have and have issues with.

No,

I will not read the thread once or again so I cannot discuss it in any intelligent manner and also because its another thread, if i wanted to discuss or give opinions on them I would read them and participate in those threads not go into another that I might think has some similarity and discuss the other thread I have issues with.

Stop comparing the whats in another thread with this one.

Again your asking me to explain to you what other people opinions mean,

Ask them, the people you disagree with, as I said I can speak for myself and no other.

Originally posted by tadaman
The act of having to provide a service to something your religious views appose is not.

Yes it is. Or is it ok for a Muslim baker to refuse making a cake for a Jew simply beacause his religion tells him to hate Jews?

reply to post by HandyDandy


certain religious views Are protected. I could take issue with my wifes menstrual cycle coming into play as to where and with whom she can interact based on her spiritual cleanliness ......

I mean you can have an endless list going on discriminatory practices of certain religions which are respected.

what about my gender prohibiting me to see my daughters swimming meet because muslim girls are not properly covered and so it would violate their religious purity for me to participate as an observer....because I am a man. We do that in this country ....

so no.

Supreme court ....because its not cut and dry.

Now we know gay peoples rights supersede the religious rights of others.....we shall see if it is with ALL religions.

reply to post by HandyDandy

But some people think it's ok to discriminate the former.

And this thread is about gay discrimination is it?

If you cannot discuss whats in this thread why are you trolling?

reply to post by InhaleExhale


My reference to the other thread has more to do with the OP of this thread than it does you. I could have sworn the OP posted in one of the other threads that a bussiness has the right to refuse service as they see fit.

If that is not the case and/or you think this irrelevant, then I kindly ask that you ignore me and go about your bussiness.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If you cannot discuss whats in this thread why are you trolling?

My posts (except for my original post) has been in answering your or others posts to me. If that is trolling then you are doing the same.

reply to post by Zaphod58


exactly my point, this story is the same as the others i mentioned, the others discriminated because of their sexuality, and this because of his Animal, so the reactions should be equal if not hypocritical

reply to post by HandyDandy

Yes it is. Or is it ok for a Muslim baker to refuse making a cake for a Jew simply beacause his religion tells him to hate Jews?

How can you not understand after how simply Tadaman has explained it and why these cases are going to the supreme court.

reply to post by Darth_Prime


But that's where it gets into a grey area because religion becomes involved. To use the example in a previous post, of the Muslim baker making a cake for a Jewish wedding, if it's ok for them to refuse because of their religion, why is it not ok for a Christian to refuse to photograph a gay wedding, using religious scripture, because it goes against their religion?

That's why the Supreme Court has to be involved, and we have to set guidelines as to what can and can't be refused.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
How can you not understand after how simply Tadaman has explained it and why these cases are going to the supreme court.

The reason these cases went to the supreme court is because the bigots that were charged to begin with appealed to the supreme court cause they didn't like the verdicts of the lower courts that told them they were discriminating.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But that's where it gets into a grey area because religion becomes involved. To use the example in a previous post, of the Muslim baker making a cake for a Jewish wedding, if it's ok for them to refuse because of their religion, why is it not ok for a Christian to refuse to photograph a gay wedding, using religious scripture, because it goes against their religion?

That's why the Supreme Court has to be involved, and we have to set guidelines as to what can and can't be refused.

So, if my religion says that dogs are dirty and disgusting animals, I can discriminate against a veteran with a service dog?

reply to post by HandyDandy


if it was a pig and you were a jew or a muslim...yes

you see?

apples and oranges.

one is legal limbo and the other is explicitly illegal


settled?

Originally posted by matafuchs
What would be the difference if it was left out that he was a veteran? How could it make any difference? It is just laying the groundwork for why he has the dog. So if he was blind it would be different to some of you.

This is not about what he may have went through, or what he had to do in the service or why. It is about human beings being civil to one another. Plain and simple. Compassion. Putting yourself in someone elses shows and not being a schmuck.

I don't think this story would have gotten the attention it has from the media if the man was just a civilian. The fact that he's a veteran illicit's an emotional response from readers, and is exactly what the writers of the original piece wanted.

It is a violation of the ADA to kick the guy out for having the dog. That much is pretty obvious.

What really bothers me is how the "veteran" heartstrings are being pulled. The fact that ATS members are focusing on THAT aspect (the veteran thing) instead of the violation of the ADA just shows what the intent was when the article was written.

And lastly, he has a dog for PTSD? If he's so bad that he needs a dog, what is he doing out in public -- at a restaurant even? I know people with bad PTSD (to the point they pretty much stay at home). They don't have service dogs...

reply to post by HandyDandy


No, because the Supreme Court already ruled you can't discriminate against disabled people.