|
Quote:
I wrote that you DID had the right to refuse them service based on their actions. The question I posed in the poll does not say anything about the laws in where you or I reside. My question is do you BELIEVE (regardless of what is or is not on the books), that business owners have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections. I am not beating anyone down. I am responding to posts and expressing my opinion. Yes, Ender, Bete and myself are from Canada; however, the USA DOES have protected classes for some groups (and not for others), so I am unsure wherein lies the discrepancy in attitudes towards protected classes. Just b/c Canada has laws protecting sexual orientation and, soon, gender identity, doesn't mean that citizens of the USA don't understand the idea of protected classes. You already have federal (and local -- some more for others) protections--they are already in place to prevent discrimination based on certain characteristics of the population. Are you willing to give up laws that currently protect certain classes b/c you believe that the moral and religious objections of a business owner trumps those of a customer? To me, those who voted yes they do agree with the right to refuse service based on a business owner's moral or religious objections, then it would make sense to remove all current local and federal protections and certainly not work for the inclusion of any other protected classes. |
OMG A shiny object.
I hit the wrong CHOICE. I said YES... NO NO NO NO -- |
Quote:
You can tell the bigot no. That is a behaviour in which an owner can legitimately refuse service. It's like a person coming into a store w/o a shirt. It is a behaviour that an owner can legally refuse service. |
Quote:
Seriously though anything that would jeopardize equality for gay and transgender people is always going to have to take a backseat. |
I think we need to come to some sort of consensus of what we mean by "discrimination". When I use that word I am talking about somebody who is from an identifiable group: ethnic, linguistic, sexual orientation, religion - I'm sure there are others. If a particular business decides not to serve somebody because they're an asshat - is that discrimination? *I* think it's just deciding who you want to serve - NOT discrimination. A good example would be singers who have performed privately for undesirables: dictators, crime bosses etc. When this is made public their reputation suffers. I would think they'd have a right to say no. Is that discrimination? No.
In Canada we are fortunate to have laws protecting us from hate and discrimination. Not that it's a fail-proof system mind you, but it's certainly better than it was before. But if we're looking at the question of whether or not a business "should be able to discriminate", well aren't we looking at a NEED for legislation to protect minorities - whether or not it presently exists where you live? I seriously doubt that refusing to make cupcakes adorned with the confederate flag would be punishable under Canada's laws - nor should it be. |
Quote:
I'm just teasing with that! My goodness! Bete said she would make the cupcakes anyway because that is her job and that might be due to her Canadian sensibilites. It would not be punishable here either. I am not talking about the law per se there. Just a business refusing service. But as Jo pointed out her example is specific to discrimination of protected classes. |
Quote:
From my last post: Quote:
Quote:
My argument is also: that you do yourself (or the LGBT community or any other marginalised community) no favours by supporting laws that allow private business owners to refuse service based on their own religious morals/beliefs. I would also argue that supporting those laws would actually be indirectly supporting a government that has yet to adequately address LGBT rights. Because having the right not be evicted/fired just because you're gay goes hand in hand with having the right to not be denied services just because you're gay. Your examples were to try to show us why you said that businesses should be allowed to refuse anyone service for personal reasons. But those kinds of laws are just as harmful as laws that allow workplace or housing discrimination. |
Not personal reasons, moral reasons as stated in the OP question.
The reason I used the church as an example is because we do have laws on the books about religious discrimination. Suppose ole Fred Phelps came to me and wanted me to write him an application that keeps track of all our military personnel who are killed overseas so he knows where to send his people to picket or he wants some kind of program to track LGBT events in his state/nearby states so again he can send his folks to picket. If I tell him to shove off, hell no, he can take me to court and sue the ever living daylights out of me for religious discrimination. Would he win? Probably so, his lil group of kids boasts 3 lawyers and he was once one himself and a damn good one at that. This is how they make their money to travel. So why shouldn't I have the right to refuse to do business with this man and his religious entity? Remember he's won all kinds of lawsuits against cities as it is in their attempts to stop him from picketing, the Supreme Court just upheld his right to do so. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
From what I understand, you do have the right to not do business with Fred Phelps if you wish due to the ACTIONS of his group. You are not saying, "I am not serving you because you are Baptist." You would might serve other Baptists, but you are not willing to serve Phelps--the person--b/c of his actions. I really don't think there would be a case. |
Quote:
If one IS intent on supporting private business owners' right to refuse service based on their moral objections, then how can you agree with any other protections afforded to anyone or being presently fought on our behalf--job protection, housing etc? |
The Masters it's held at Augusta national Club it is a world wide event that is held where one could say it discriminates NO WOMEN are allowed to join..
Amid much criticism of exclusive and discriminatory admissions, Augusta accepted a black member in 1990.[5] Notable members Notable current members include: Bill Gates, co-founder and chairman of Microsoft[6] Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway[6] Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric[6] James D. Robinson III, former CEO of American Express[6] Harold "Red" Poling, former CEO of the Ford Motor Company[6] Carl Sanders, former Governor of Georgia[6] Sam Nunn, former United States Senator from Georgia[6] T. Boone Pickens, Jr., oil tycoon[6] Hugh L. McColl Jr., Former CEO of Bank of America[6] Lou Holtz former College Football coach[7] Steve Spurrier, current head football coach at the University of South Carolina[citation needed] Lynn Swann, former NFL player[8] Pat Haden, former NFL player and current athletic director at the University of Southern California[9] 2002 membership controversy Augusta National and Chairman Hootie Johnson are widely known for a disagreement beginning in 2002 with Martha Burk, then chairwoman of the Washington-based National Council of Women's Organizations, over admission of female members to Augusta National.[10] Burk contended that hosting the Masters Tournament at a male-only club, constituted sexism[11]. Johnson characterized Burk's approach as "offensive and coercive",[12][13] and responding to efforts to link the issue to sexism and civil rights,[12] Johnson maintained the issue had to do with the rights of any private club.[12] “ Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish.[14] ” Burk, whose childhood nickname was also Hootie,[15] claims to have been "called a man hater, anti-family, lesbian, all the usual things."[11] According to former CEO and Chairman of Bank of America Hugh McColl (friend [16] and member of Augusta National),[6] Johnson was portrayed as a Senator Claghorn type[16] (i.e., a blustery defender of all things Southern) despite Johnson's progressive social record.[17] Following the discord, two club members resigned: Thomas H. Wyman, a former CEO of CBS, and John Snow, when President George W. Bush nominated him to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.[11] Pressure on corporate sponsors led the club to broadcast the 2003 and 2004 tournaments without commercials. The club has women on its membership waiting list, but will not allow them to circumvent the regular membership process to appease those outside the club. By 2010, no woman had been admitted to Augusta National. The controversy was discussed by the International Olympic Committee when re-examining whether golf meets Olympic criteria of a "sport practiced without discrimination with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play."[18] Unfortunately loop holes will and can be found if someone really wishes to enforce what patronage they want in their place of business. In my opinion it's pretty close to hate considering mysoginy and sexism are super close friends. Matter of fact they are one in the same. |
Augusta National is a private club and therefore Title II of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to them or any other private club.
"(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b)." While it may appear that Fred Phelps may not have a case against DomnNC (or any business) for refusing service that determination would be left up to the Courts. Baseless lawsuits are filed all the time far too many in the hope that the deep pockets will open rather than spend thousands on legal fees. Sadly far too many companies/corporations/individuals would rather rollover and pay someone to go away than stand up and fight back. Didn't many of us think there was no way Phelps would prevail before the Court? You never know what Courts will do...another reason why people would rather settle than fight. If we (as in the entire LGBT community in the US) put half as much energy into fighting for our equal rights that we do in fighting with each other (or whining about things) we'd have our equality in record time and this discussion would be moot. |
Quote:
|
Hence my loop hole comment, they found a way to discriminate, be classiest up to 1990 racist, sexist mysiginistic elitist and this is an event watched and supported by millions (including women).
Anyways I'm off the merry go round I've a spring break to enjoy with 2 of the handsomest guys around. Latah! |
Just b/c someone can go through the backdoor or find a loophole to defy existing protection laws, does that mean that they are not valuable and necessary?
For example, a company may not give the reason that they will not hire someone with a disability...they will say they don't meet the qualifications necessary for the job. Just b/c we know this unethical and illegal practice is still done, I still would not want people with disabilities to be excluded from Employment/Housing protections. |
Quote:
http://www.ada.gov/ |
Quote:
Miss Scarlett, I realize that which is why I used it as an example. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As well, Ontario, in particular, has its own Disabilities Act. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:22 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018