The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

A govt. employee, providing a govt. service, absolutely, your personal views are irrelevant. But in the private sector, a business owner should have the right to operate as he sees fit. If you force him to do otherwise, you're elevating the rights of someone else above his. So much for equal rights, or equal treatment under the law.

No, you are not. That is not the way the law works. Again, can I deny service to someone for being a woman or being black?
Privately owned businesses absolutely do not have the right to pick and choose their clients when they operate within the public sector, all they can choose is what services they provide. Even your example of "ladies night" does not cut the mustard as the club/pub/bar does not deny service to men, in merely offers a discount for women. How would you like it if everywhere you went you were denied service because you were gay?

These "service laws" as they are written allow anyone to discriminate based -not on you being gay-, but that you -could be gay-.
I see you walk up for petrol?
You gay, can't serve you.
Food?
You gay.
Beers?
You gay trying to corrupt people to your gayness
A loan?
You gay.

I can deny you -anything- in this world based on the argument that "you gay", and that's NOT a slippery slope argument, that is based on the wording of anti-gay legislation, it already exists in some states. Best yet, I don't have to prove you are gay, I just have to -think- you are gay to deny you service. It's not that someone else won't care about you being gay annoyed and serve you, it's just that you being gay should not matter.

[garhkal]

Exactly. It's called separation of church and state.

You do realize that
A) The whole BS with the separation of church and state is based on a BULL **** argument, that came about cause people MISREAD what Jefferson wrote to a NEWS PAPER in relation to them asking about their state.. NOT something in the actual constitution..
and B) The whole thing with 'not establishing a religion' aspect of the argument people use, ONLY APPLIES TO CONGRESS making an official state religion..

[Annoyed]

No, you are not. That is not the way the law works. Again, can I deny service to someone for being a woman or being black?
Privately owned businesses absolutely do not have the right to pick and choose their clients when they operate within the public sector, all they can choose is what services they provide. Even your example of "ladies night" does not cut the mustard as the club/pub/bar does not deny service to men, in merely offers a discount for women.

Then how do you account for bars/clubs that select who is admitted and who is not? Their bouncers/gatekeepers go through the waiting line, handpicking who gets in. They are denying service to those that are not chosen. If your theory is correct, how is that legal?
As I keep saying, that is discrimination too, the only difference is who is being excluded. Seems you can discriminate against some people, but not others. But the bottom line is if those business have the right to deny service to people they don't want to serve, so does any other business. But the law as it stands now, doesn't seem to realize that.

[aretood2]

The Masterpiece Cakeshop owner is referred to as Christian, so the answer would be no.

My point still stands. This does nothing to contradict it.

I can't find anything about any text either.

A short bit about the case:

"In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages.

Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. After the Division issued a notice of determination finding probable cause, Craig and Mullins filed a formal complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of CADA.

The Administrative Law Judge issued a written order finding in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the Commission's ruling."

I don't think there was any text involved.

That bolded area is the one that gives me pause. If they just wanted to buy a catalog cake or something, I don't see how you could claim much of anything in denying it. But that designing a custom cake thing...to me that's an important detail related to speech. The owner's argument is that he would be sending a message contrary to his beliefs in making that custom cake, that is speech. It doesn't necessarily have to do with religion, it's an issue of free speech. You don't have to like someone's speech to recognize it as such.

Exactly. It's called separation of church and state.
No matter what you believe or how deep your believes are, as long as you offer a puplic service, be it government or private, you have to/should serve everyone equally even if it goes agains your believes. Whatever the other person believes/not believes or does/not does, lives/not lives, it's not your business. Everything else is plain discrimination. And there I thought you were an advocate of equality.
Besides, if someone offers a puplic service, but refuses a group of people his services because of their believes, lifestyle, whatever, wouldn't that also prohibit THEIR exercise of free religion, speech, whatever?

I don't think you understand how that works. The constitution limits government actions, not actions of its citizens outside of making sure government actions are equally distributed. For example, students don't always have free speech because they are not allowed to scream random rants in class since it is a government facility designed to provide education. If the ranter is not stopped, the government's ability to provide education equally to all is impaired.

The government is only allowed to violate these rights if there is a vested interest for the state to do so, in which case it has to balance everyone's rights. The store next door can play religious music, have Mormons at the door with religious literature, and hang posters telling everyone that divorce is a sin and they'll go to hell for it. The DMV (Driver's license center) can't do any of that.

As for selling things, why is it that everyone ignores that he does sell baked goods to gay people?

No, you are not. That is not the way the law works. Again, can I deny service to someone for being a woman or being black?
Privately owned businesses absolutely do not have the right to pick and choose their clients when they operate within the public sector, all they can choose is what services they provide. Even your example of "ladies night" does not cut the mustard as the club/pub/bar does not deny service to men, in merely offers a discount for women. How would you like it if everywhere you went you were denied service because you were gay?

These "service laws" as they are written allow anyone to discriminate based -not on you being gay-, but that you -could be gay-.
I see you walk up for petrol?
You gay, can't serve you.
Food?
You gay.
Beers?
You gay trying to corrupt people to your gayness
A loan?
You gay.

I can deny you -anything- in this world based on the argument that "you gay", and that's NOT a slippery slope argument, that is based on the wording of anti-gay legislation, it already exists in some states. Best yet, I don't have to prove you are gay, I just have to -think- you are gay to deny you service. It's not that someone else won't care about you being gay annoyed and serve you, it's just that you being gay should not matter.

So if prostitution is legal, and I pay a prostitute for service and she decides not to want to, I can sue her for not having sex? So the state will either force her to abandon her business or have sex with me (which at that point it would be state mandated rape)? You want to go to extreme arguments let's do that...

[Falcon Horus]

Annoyed -- I went and looked up your example of the nightclub and where it fits in with the right to serve/not to serve and discrimination laws, and guess what, it's not legal to refuse one person but not the other when both are f.e. not within the dresscode, or trying to discriminate against one subset of people.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

You’ve probably seen these signs at restaurants: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Or, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”

But what do these signs really mean? Can a business just refuse service to someone? Can they throw you out if you forgot your flip-flops on the beach? When is a refusal to serve someone justified and when is it discrimination that could lead to a lawsuit?

[...]

What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

[...]

[Note: article was first written in 2007 and updated in 2016 so the following might already have changed -- discrimination because of sexual orientation, I mean]

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

[aretood2]

I wanted to share these three videos. It's basically Libertarians taking shots at liberals and conservatives. It's not always obvious what is a shot against who,
but I wouldn't be surprised if some thought that what was a shot at liberals was actually a shot at conservatives. But they are hilarious. They range from the past election, issue of drone strikes, social issues, pork barrel spending, and so on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojubI-sYwho

[Womble]

So if prostitution is legal, and I pay a prostitute for service and she decides not to want to, I can sue her for not having sex? So the state will either force her to abandon her business or have sex with me (which at that point it would be state mandated rape)? You want to go to extreme arguments let's do that...

Oh, that is a beautiful can of legal worms!

[Annoyed]

Oh, that is a beautiful can of legal worms!

Canned worms are very easy to find when the basic premise of an argument is false.

[Gatefan1976]

[COLOR="#000080"]
So if prostitution is legal, and I pay a prostitute for service and she decides not to want to, I can sue her for not having sex? So the state will either force her to abandon her business or have sex with me (which at that point it would be state mandated rape)? You want to go to extreme arguments let's do that...

I believe laws already exist for people paying for legal products and then not getting them. As for my example being extreme, it's not actually, it was part of the NC religious freedom laws, sorry.

[Annoyed]

Annoyed -- I went and looked up your example of the nightclub and where it fits in with the right to serve/not to serve and discrimination laws, and guess what, it's not legal to refuse one person but not the other when both are f.e. not within the dresscode, or trying to discriminate against one subset of people.<SNIP You know what you wrote. >

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Ya know, maybe you haven't seen this, maybe they don't do it in your country.

Starting in the 70's, with the disco era, some nightclubs and bars started selective admittance.
Fri. / Sat. nights at least, sometimes all the time, these places would have lines of people waiting to get in. The bar's staff would go up and down the line, manually selecting who was to be admitted, with the selection criteria being whatever the bar operator wanted.

That is exactly what they are doing. Randomly refusing entry or service to someone because they don’t like the way they look or dress.

And it is perfectly legal. So why is it legal then, but illegal if it a business refuses to serve / bake a cake for anyone, for whatever reason the business operator wants? It's the exact same behavior. The business owner operating his business as he sees fit. The only difference is the excluded party.

[Falcon Horus]

Starting in the 70's, with the disco era, some nightclubs and bars started selective admittance.
Fri. / Sat. nights at least, sometimes all the time, these places would have lines of people waiting to get in. The bar's staff would go up and down the line, manually selecting who was to be admitted, with the selection criteria being whatever the bar operator wanted.

That is exactly what they are doing. Randomly refusing entry or service to someone because they don’t like the way they look or dress.

And it is perfectly legal. So why is it legal then, but illegal if it a business refuses to serve / bake a cake for anyone, for whatever reason the business operator wants? It's the exact same behavior. The business owner operating his business as he sees fit. The only difference is the excluded party.

It's not legal, unless the bar you are referring to has a specific dresscode and clearly states as such at the door. Kinda like how some places want you to wear shirts and shoes to come in to their establishment.

[Annoyed]

It's not legal, unless the bar you are referring to has a specific dresscode and clearly states as such at the door. Kinda like how some places want you to wear shirts and shoes to come in to their establishment.

I'm sorry, but that actually got me to laugh.

It's been going on since the disco era, starting late 70's. It's so common that it has been adapted into our culture where you will see occasional references to it in media. For example, although I can't remember what show it was (Castle?) a male cop and a female cop wanted to get into such a club, w/out going in as announced police. The female simply flirted with the gatekeeper to get selected for entry. The male cop, of course, couldn't get in.

How in the name of whatever deity you do or do not believe in can you think it's not legal?

[aretood2]

I believe laws already exist for people paying for legal products and then not getting them. As for my example being extreme, it's not actually, it was part of the NC religious freedom laws, sorry.

Sorry, I "misspoke" so let me clarify. I didn't pay. She's refusing me service because of (take your pick) my race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other protected class. Does the state shut her down or does she accept to be what is essentially raped to keep her business and any wealth that I may claim as damages?

As for the NC law, exaggeration of a word or two here and there to try to find a slippery slope is that, an exaggeration.

[Gatefan1976]

Sorry, I "misspoke" so let me clarify. I didn't pay. She's refusing me service because of (take your pick) my race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other protected class. Does the state shut her down or does she accept to be what is essentially raped to keep her business and any wealth that I may claim as damages?

Well, now you are getting into that legal quagmire that Womble was referring to. Does making a cake or selling you a sandwich because it is against your beliefs the same as inflicting physical violence on someone? If I go into hobby lobby for some stuffing, and they will not serve me, do I legally have the right to beat the hell out of the person denying me service? Is this not wandering into the realm of what differentiates a secular state and a theocratic one?

As for the NC law, exaggeration of a word or two here and there to try to find a slippery slope is that, an exaggeration.

"§ 143-422.2. Legislative declaration. (a) It is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees. (b) It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the State of the fullest utilization of its capacities for advancement and development, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general. (c) The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement upon an employer pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment, except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law." SECTION 3.2. G.S. 143-422.3 reads as rewritten: "§ 143-422.3. Investigations; conciliations. The Human Relations Commission in the Department of Administration shall have the authority to receive charges of discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to an agreement under Section 709(b) of Public Law 88-352, as amended by Public Law 92-261, and investigate and conciliate charges of discrimination. Throughout this process, the agency shall use its good offices to effect an amicable resolution of the charges of discrimination. This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein."

[garhkal]

Sorry, I "misspoke" so let me clarify. I didn't pay. She's refusing me service because of (take your pick) my race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or any other protected class. Does the state shut her down or does she accept to be what is essentially raped to keep her business and any wealth that I may claim as damages?

As for the NC law, exaggeration of a word or two here and there to try to find a slippery slope is that, an exaggeration.

Since prostitution's illegal anyway, the state can't tell her squat, in who she 'services'.... BUt they can arrest her for servicing!