[Soon]

Originally Posted by betenoire

And what if it's not about moral convictions. What if that person is just an asshole - is it still okay then? Are we okay with a "Heterosexuals Only" sign but not with a "Whites Only" sign? What's the difference? Is it because the first is (in some cases) based on religion and the second is based on rampant jackassery?

Originally Posted by betenoire

Doesn't Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the US already make it so that business owners can't decide not to serve a customer based on race, color, religion, or national origin?

So why then, if we all agree (or do we? do you guys all want to repeal that part of the act or something?) that businesses can't discriminate based on race - why are we okay with businesses discriminating based on sexual orientation?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

So...b/c I made it specific regarding serving people of sexual orientation and gender identity, does that stand for other groups of people?

For example, would it be ok for an owner who hates women or dislikes a certain religion or appearance, due to their personally held convictions, to deny them service based on these factors?

Even though WE KNOW the law doesn't allow it; doesn't the same principle apply?

What other statuses would it be ok to deny service to?
Besides ours?


Those who believe that it is ok to discriminate based on gender orientation and sexual orientation, why is it NOT OK to discriminate against others based on their religious/moral convictions?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

From what I understand, slavery/segregation/anti-miscegenation laws were largely based on people's personal value systems with a lot of biblical justifications. This owner just didn't morally agree with their type of family and refused them service.

This could happen to any of us couples. How is this ok?

However, some are agreeing that it would be fine, and within his rights, for that gas station owner to look at the composition of us as couples and families and agree that it is his right to deny us service based on our sexual orientation or gender identity.


Would it be fine for a woman to be denied access to a private singing school (and shared that she is a church soloist to the owner) b/c the owner believes in the words within the Bible that a woman should remain silent in church?

I remain curious if people would support the removal of the current USA Federally protected classes (age, gender, creed, disability, race? i might be missing something) b/c, these categories, as well, could infringe upon a business owner's personal/religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

What if there is one grocery store in a small town.


No food for us?

Originally Posted by betenoire

Thirdly - I want to know, then, since you think it's okay to refuse services to people just for being gay - do you think that there should be no protected classes of people at all? Do you think that business owners should get to turn people away for being Asian? Hindu?

And if you don't think that business owners should be able to turn people away because of their race or their religion - why do you think it's okay to turn people away because of their sexual orientation?

Originally Posted by betenoire

- Is it okay to deny services to someone because of who they are (not because of what they do)

- Even though sexual orientation is not an official protected group in many places, should we be afforded the same protections that people are afforded due to race and religion

- If we should not be a protected group - should there be ANY protected groups?

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I'd be really interested in hearing the answers to these questions on refusing someone based on race vs. sexual orientation from those who do think that business owners should have the right to deny service based on religious beliefs/morals.


One could just as easily state that it is morally wrong (according to their religion) for them to provide their service to Jews (sound familiar?) or Muslims. They could do this with people of different ethnicities as well. Should they be legally able to deny their service based on their religious views? Why should they be allowed to refuse service? Whatever happened to equal access and opportunity?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

If you are going to deny the queers, you might as well take back all other groups of people who are already federally protected.

What is the difference b/w refusing someone b/c they are queer and refusing someone because they are a woman (etc.)--as long as that person has deep religious or moral objections to a certain class of people, they are entitled to refuse service?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Several of us have asked those who believe that businesses have the right to refuse service based on religious or moral objections, if they are then ready then ready to give up the notion of protected classes ALL TOGETHER?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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.

Originally Posted by BullDog

.

Why are people arguing against having laws that protect homosexuals/same sex couples from being discriminated against and being denied goods and services?

....................

Thanks, in advance, to anyone who will respond to any/some of these questions.