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.

 

The hypocrisy of those against the proposed AZ law (regarding gays)

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


The difficulty is if you are the baker and you have regularly served the customer, making cakes, and the one day you the customer comes in and orders and cake and you are most of the way through the order process assuming this will be a cake like the ones he's ordered in the past and when you ask what the cake is for ... it winds up being a gay wedding cake ... then how do you refuse service at that point?

If you've already said I can make a cake and gotten through most of the order, you can't gracefully back out by saying, "Oh wait, no way to get that done in time."




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

ketsuko

Kali74
reply to post by totallackey
 


A gay person doesn't have the right to refuse service to a member of the WBC if they aren't being disruptive and their business is open to the public. You guys really need to read up on laws and the Constitution especially if you own a business open to the public.

You, by law, cannot refuse service to someone if they aren't disrupting your business.


So if I'm a caterer and the local swingers club comes through my door and wants their next party catered, I have to do it. Nevermind that I would prefer to have a business clientele. Then, when the swingers get done with me, they like me so much, they start sending over referrals like porn shoots and other business of the sort that makes me less and less acceptable by reputation to the business clientele that I want, but since I have no right to select what sort of clientele I get and will serve, I'm now stuck catering sex parties and porn shoots for the rest of my professional days?

Seriously?

I think you need to get a new perspective on the right of a business owner to pick and choose his or her clientele.


No, I really don't need a new perspective, the one I have is the legal one. If you have a problem with it, it isn't with me but the laws. I'm not positive about how it works with businesses that are required to attend functions or leave their office/work space in order to provide a service and I think further protections are in place for exactly the type of situation you describe. It may be tied to how you bill yourself as well. For instance if you advertise as a Photographer you may have less ground to stand on than someone who advertises themselves as a family portrait photographer.

Now I support these laws so you can go ahead and have a problem with me but seriously what is hard for you to understand about the fact that once you advertise to the public, you are open to the entire public? Make your business decision based on that knowledge before you open. If you are going to take advantage of being in the public eye, and the public tax dollars that built the infrastructure where your place of business is... YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THAT PUBLIC AND WHO IS NOT. If you cannot handle the risk of having to associate with people you deem icky then don't open a business to the public, go another route.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Kali74



No, I really don't need a new perspective, the one I have is the legal one. If you have a problem with it, it isn't with me but the laws. I'm not positive about how it works with businesses that are required to attend functions or leave their office/work space in order to provide a service and I think further protections are in place for exactly the type of situation you describe. It may be tied to how you bill yourself as well. For instance if you advertise as a Photographer you may have less ground to stand on than someone who advertises themselves as a family portrait photographer.

Now I support these laws so you can go ahead and have a problem with me but seriously what is hard for you to understand about the fact that once you advertise to the public, you are open to the entire public? Make your business decision based on that knowledge before you open. If you are going to take advantage of being in the public eye, and the public tax dollars that built the infrastructure where your place of business is... YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THAT PUBLIC AND WHO IS NOT. If you cannot handle the risk of having to associate with people you deem icky then don't open a business to the public, go another route.


Serious question, and the answer can be as short or long as you like if you want to quantify it.

Do you believe that a business MUST serve anyone who walks in?

If so, do you believe they should be forced to do so?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

ketsuko


If you've already said I can make a cake and gotten through most of the order, you can't gracefully back out by saying, "Oh wait, no way to get that done in time."


There are always ways to do it, and in food service it could be as simple as something like "we are out of x, and if we order more, it wouldnt get here in time". Be it frosting, coloring, fondant, a certain decoration, there are numerous possibilities on the methods of doing it. It can even be done after the order is placed....call customer back the next day and explain the product shortage.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

doubletap

Kali74



No, I really don't need a new perspective, the one I have is the legal one. If you have a problem with it, it isn't with me but the laws. I'm not positive about how it works with businesses that are required to attend functions or leave their office/work space in order to provide a service and I think further protections are in place for exactly the type of situation you describe. It may be tied to how you bill yourself as well. For instance if you advertise as a Photographer you may have less ground to stand on than someone who advertises themselves as a family portrait photographer.

Now I support these laws so you can go ahead and have a problem with me but seriously what is hard for you to understand about the fact that once you advertise to the public, you are open to the entire public? Make your business decision based on that knowledge before you open. If you are going to take advantage of being in the public eye, and the public tax dollars that built the infrastructure where your place of business is... YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THAT PUBLIC AND WHO IS NOT. If you cannot handle the risk of having to associate with people you deem icky then don't open a business to the public, go another route.


Serious question, and the answer can be as short or long as you like if you want to quantify it.

Do you believe that a business MUST serve anyone who walks in?

If so, do you believe they should be forced to do so?


If YOU advertise in any manner, yes. YOU have advertised to anyone that looks at YOUR advertisement. YOU have implied that YOU have offered them a service or good in exchange for money. YOU have placed YOURSELF under obligation to anyone that looks at YOUR advertisement.

Force? No one forced YOU to open a business to the public. YOU chose. YOU obligated yourself. If YOU choose not to honor that obligation then YOU have chosen to subject YOURSELF to lawsuit and or criminal charges.
edit on 3/1/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Kali74



If YOU advertise in any manner, yes. YOU have advertised to anyone that looks at YOUR advertisement. YOU have implied that YOU have offered them a service or good in exchange for money. YOU have placed yourself under obligation to anyone that looks at your advertisement.

Force? No one forced YOU to open a business to the public. YOU chose. YOU obligated yourself. If YOU choose not to honor that obligation than YOU have chosen to subject YOURSELF to lawsuit and or criminal charges.


Could you point out what section of the Constitution authorizes government to force people to give up their property rights and the right of association simply because they open a business?

Unless of course you believe that property rights cease to exist because one starts their own business. Is that the case?

If someone smells bad, do you believe a business owner has no right to kick them out of their store?

How about if someone comes in acting belligerent or offensive? Must a business owner still serve that person?

You were right on one thing: I CHOSE to open my business, and as such, I also CHOOSE who I do business with. YOu act as if the act of opening a business means I give up my rights as well, and you couldnt possibly be more wrong. Then again, you dont own a business

edit on 1-3-2014 by doubletap because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


In what way are your property rights being violated by being disallowed to discriminate? Are you being deprived of:

1. the right to use the good?
2. the right to earn income from the good?
3. the right to transfer the good to others?
4. the right to not have your property seized by the government?

If a person smells bad, you can require them to leave your business because it's disruptive to your business.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

doubletap

beezzer
reply to post by mOjOm
 


I'm just saying that you appear to be okay with a business to deny service to someone that has a Constitutional Right.




Such is the right of BWW to deny entry to people wearing guns. In Vegas, Jack in the Box had similar signs, so I stopped giving them my money. They are perfectly within their property rights to do so, just as bakers are perfectly within their rights to refuse cakes for gay weddings.


edit on 26-2-2014 by doubletap because: (no reason given)


Actually, your argument here is pretty flawed. You can still do business with Jack in the Box and they will still serve you... through the drive-thru. There is no "drive-thru" option for someone denied service because of their colour, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. You are being mildly inconvenienced, not outright barred.


doubletap

deadcalm


I couldn't agree with you more. I find this whole subject absolutely disgusting. That there are people in the world so bigoted, so intolerant....well, it makes me lose any small faith in humanity that I had left.

Perhaps they will do as the Nazis, and enact a law that you have to wear a rainbow band around your arm to signify you are gay....may seem like an extreme example...but one that is totally applicable. It's such a slippery slope. What will be next....Muslims refusing to serve women...Satanists refusing to serve Christians....Hindus refusing to serve Bhuddists....that is just such a step back into the dark ages.

I don't know how many Americans I have talked to that deride Muslims for their intolerance....their fanatical religious beliefs...yet here they are doing their best to emulate them....wanna talk about hypocrisy.


Having a different opinion than you do doesnt make people "intolerant". That word is right below racist in terms of overused ridiculousness.

Where is your tolerance for their opinions?


I have a difference of opinion with the idealism of the Nazi Party. Does that mean I have to be tolerant of those beliefs?

Hell no.


doubletap
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


With limited personal freedoms and confiscatory tax rates, you can keep your eurogarbage system over there


Just remember who saved your asses 7 decades ago


You mean Canada, Australia and all the other countries who jumped into the war in 1939 right? 'Cause I'm pretty sure they did more to help.




edit on 3/1/2014 by MonkeyFishFrog because: Grammar



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


Also Freedom of Association doesn't apply.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Kali74


In what way are your property rights being violated by being disallowed to discriminate? Are you being deprived of:

1. the right to use the good?
2. the right to earn income from the good?
3. the right to transfer the good to others?
4. the right to not have your property seized by the government?

If a person smells bad, you can require them to leave your business because it's disruptive to your business.


Do I actually need to explain how property rights are being violated by not being allowed to use my property as I see fit?

Forcing a business owner to serve people they would choose not to is offensive to the principles this nation was founded upon.

Maybe certain demographics are just disruptive under any circumstance to some business owners



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

doubletap

Kali74


In what way are your property rights being violated by being disallowed to discriminate? Are you being deprived of:

1. the right to use the good?
2. the right to earn income from the good?
3. the right to transfer the good to others?
4. the right to not have your property seized by the government?

If a person smells bad, you can require them to leave your business because it's disruptive to your business.


Do I actually need to explain how property rights are being violated by not being allowed to use my property as I see fit?

Forcing a business owner to serve people they would choose not to is offensive to the principles this nation was founded upon.

Maybe certain demographics are just disruptive under any circumstance to some business owners


Stating that an American Citizen, visitor or legal immigrant is lesser than any other and therefore beneath your service when your business is open to all others is vile. It is repugnant that if I live in the area your business is in and MY tax dollars help your business by paying for sewerage, water pipe infrastructure, roads, snow removal, trash removal and all manner of other tax payer funded things your business benefits from that you won't conduct business with me if I'm gay or any other demographic you deem icky. Thinking that you can subject the entire public to your advertisements, even if it's just signage on your building and then refuse service to any of those same is what's offensive. Your business is not your private residence and you, by law, and by common sense are not entitled to treat it as such. You want the commercial benefit of being in the public eye and advertising to them? Suck it up, put on your big boy pants and be a goddamn human. You chose to do business with the public, now live with it.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Kali74



Stating that an American Citizen, visitor or legal immigrant is lesser than any other and therefore beneath your service when your business is open to all others is vile. It is repugnant that if I live in the area your business is in and MY tax dollars help your business by paying for sewerage, water pipe infrastructure, roads, snow removal, trash removal and all manner of other tax payer funded things your business benefits from that you won't conduct business with me if I'm gay or any other demographic you deem icky. Thinking that you can subject the entire public to your advertisements, even if it's just signage on your building and then refuse service to any of those same is what's offensive. Your business is not your private residence and you, by law, and by common sense are not entitled to treat it as such. You want the commercial benefit of being in the public eye and advertising to them? Suck it up, put on your big boy pants and be a goddamn human. You chose to do business with the public, now live with it.


Rest assured, if you lived in my area, I would most certainly deny service to you. My business is in the firearms industry, and as such, I am legally able to deny sales if I do not feel the customer is being honest, or is mentally sound (which pertains to you).

Your contention that a business owner MUST serve anyone who walks through the doors is both laughable and wrong. There is no right for anyone to be able to shop/patronize any business. They do so at the business owners discretion.

Now, most business owners will gladly welcome just about any customer, afterall that is smart business strategy. That being said, if a business owners wishes to deny service to someone, for whatever reason they deem necessary, that is their right to do. It certainly isnt the best for the business, but ultimately, the business owner weighs the pros and cons of denial of service, and if they feel that is right, then the choice is theirs and theirs alone.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


Attack me all you like, the law states otherwise.


Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability. In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act.

For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference. In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.


Link



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by doubletap
 


Attack me all you like, the law states otherwise.



"Any law contrary to the Constitution is void".

Does that quote mean anything to you?

As I said before, there are plenty of ways to deny service without stating the explicit reason. Countless businesses do it on a daily basis, and there is nothing you can do about it



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


We have come into the age of it is best to just not say why, but to just do what you need to do.

"Hi, we are not currently serving people at the moment".

Or, "I'm not taking new orders today".

Or, "I'm not selling those items right now".



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

macman


We have come into the age of it is best to just not say why, but to just do what you need to do.

"Hi, we are not currently serving people at the moment".

Or, "I'm not taking new orders today".

Or, "I'm not selling those items right now".




Exactly.

"Sorry, we aren't hiring right now" or "the position was just filled" is the appropriate response when an undesirable wants a job.

The case with the gay couple wanting a wedding cake from a bakery couldve been avoided by a simple "Sorry, too many orders right now, your cake wouldnt be done in time"

It's sad that it has come to that, but every ridiculous law designed to placate certain demographics, has ways around it.

Take the NFL for example..any team looking to hire a coach must interview a minority candidate, even if the best guy for the job is white and would gladly accept the offer. The teams have to waste the time and money interviewing someone they know they arent going to hire.

Outright stupidity at its finest.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


True there is hypocrisy by the left and the law doesn't have any reference to gays, but the world isn't mature enough to handle a bill like this so it's better off left alone. I rather not see fifty gay articles all over the internet day in day out.



new topics




 
13
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join