First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Indiana: First Amendment Rights or Bigotry?
5052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I done some searching up and it appears that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

So wait...basically you're saying it's okay for private businesses to deny services to black people or gay people? O_O



Civil Rights Act of 1964, good research. Then I guess I'm beat, but I honestly think the general public in the year of 2015, with the internet being capable of spreading news of ill will instantaneously, is enough to root out issues like this now. But still, why buy a cake from a guy who hates your guts? It's like antagonizing a chef, and then expecting him to not spit in your lasagna.


5052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


camelbackcinema wrote:

Civil Rights Act of 1964, good research. Then I guess I'm beat, but I honestly think the general public in the year of 2015, with the internet being capable of spreading news of ill will instantaneously, is enough to root out issues like this now. But still, why buy a cake from a guy who hates your guts? It's like antagonizing a chef, and then expecting him to not spit in your lasagna.



I guess I could see where your coming from.




At the end of the day, even if there is a law forcing service, I don't think people will change because the law tells them to. They just bottle it up and let that distrust and hate grow. I wish we lived in a world without block buttons, and people weren't afraid to talk to people they disagreed with, but we can thank the internet for allowing people to segregate themselves digitally.
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15

camelbackcinema wrote:

Civil Rights Act of 1964, good research. Then I guess I'm beat, but I honestly think the general public in the year of 2015, with the internet being capable of spreading news of ill will instantaneously, is enough to root out issues like this now. But still, why buy a cake from a guy who hates your guts? It's like antagonizing a chef, and then expecting him to not spit in your lasagna.



I guess I could see where your coming from.

dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15
That's weird are we losing posts? I swear there was more here a minute ago.
dsjb 
55639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15

camelbackcinema wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


camelbackcinema wrote:

Civil Rights Act of 1964, good research. Then I guess I'm beat, but I honestly think the general public in the year of 2015, with the internet being capable of spreading news of ill will instantaneously, is enough to root out issues like this now. But still, why buy a cake from a guy who hates your guts? It's like antagonizing a chef, and then expecting him to not spit in your lasagna.



I guess I could see where your coming from.




At the end of the day, even if there is a law forcing service, I don't think people will change because the law tells them to. They just bottle it up and let that distrust and hate grow. I wish we lived in a world without block buttons, and people weren't afraid to talk to people they disagreed with, but we can thank the internet for allowing people to segregate themselves digitally.


I have some sympathy for both approaches long term yes the market and a younger more accepting generation will sort the problem out. I aslo think its important to talk to people you disagree with otherwise you get stuck in a echo chamber. However this does nothing to help real people facing discrimination now for reasons generally considered beyond their control. If we have a law it marginalises these views and offers protection to the minority so they can get on with their lives, there will be some idiots who go looking for trouble and to get in fights, then use the law as their backup. Its shitty and frankly allot of its going to be trivial lawsuits that should be thrown out but it helps build a legal president for what is and is not acceptable meaning these battles wont have to be fought again.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 3/31/15
Privately owned businesses do reserve the right to refuse services, but not because of gender/sex/sexual orientation/race. For example, I've worked at a privately owned motel before, and I was allowed to refuse service to people who were clearly under the influence of drugs. As I did on several occasions. In that case, however, you don't blatantly refuse service. When someone would come to rent a room and was obviously high on something, I would work around it.

'I'm sorry, but we're booked for the night' is a common line. I was actually told by the manager to do this, as otherwise you risk room damage. It's even worse if they were to do drugs in the room, because some of those things would leave a bad smell that was horrible to remove.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 3/31/15

Phersu wrote:

Privately owned businesses do reserve the right to refuse services, but not because of gender/sex/sexual orientation/race. For example, I've worked at a privately owned motel before, and I was allowed to refuse service to people who were clearly under the influence of drugs. As I did on several occasions. In that case, however, you don't blatantly refuse service. When someone would come to rent a room and was obviously high on something, I would work around it.

'I'm sorry, but we're booked for the night' is a common line. I was actually told by the manager to do this, as otherwise you risk room damage. It's even worse if they were to do drugs in the room, because some of those things would leave a bad smell that was horrible to remove.


Damage, smells, annoying other customers etc. are perfectly good reasons to refuse service. some places insist on a dress code, from "no shirt no shoes no service, to "black tie only" none of these transgress on everyone's right to be treated like human beings.
5052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Phersu wrote:

Privately owned businesses do reserve the right to refuse services, but not because of gender/sex/sexual orientation/race. For example, I've worked at a privately owned motel before, and I was allowed to refuse service to people who were clearly under the influence of drugs. As I did on several occasions. In that case, however, you don't blatantly refuse service. When someone would come to rent a room and was obviously high on something, I would work around it.

'I'm sorry, but we're booked for the night' is a common line. I was actually told by the manager to do this, as otherwise you risk room damage. It's even worse if they were to do drugs in the room, because some of those things would leave a bad smell that was horrible to remove.


Damage, smells, annoying other customers etc. are perfectly good reasons to refuse service. some places insist on a dress code, from "no shirt no shoes no service, to "black tie only" none of these transgress on everyone's right to be treated like human beings.




What if that person has a condition that causes those issues though?
51253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 4/20/15
Are people here seriously saying that being gay is the same as actively being rude to the store owner? That's no different than denying someone service just because they're black or Muslim. I have Latino skin. Does that mean my very existence is a burden to people who hate Latinos? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Obviously if someone walks into a store and starts vandalizing the place or picks fights with other customers or whatever, the owner has every right to kick that person out. If someone walks into a store minding their own business, the owner shouldn't be allowed to deny that person service just because they saw them making out with someone of the same sex.

If you're a store owner and you're opening your services to the public, you have no right to deny ordinary customers your service. What's next? Jim Crow Laws for gay people?
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 3/31/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

Are people here seriously saying that being gay is the same as actively being rude to the store owner? That's no different than denying someone service just because they're black or Muslim. I have Latino skin. Does that mean my very existence is a burden to people who hate Latinos? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Obviously if someone walks into a store and starts vandalizing the place or picks fights with other customers or whatever, the owner has every right to kick that person out. If someone walks into a store minding their own business, the owner shouldn't be allowed to deny that person service just because they saw them making out with someone of the same sex.

If you're a store owner and you're opening your services to the public, you have no right to deny ordinary customers your service. What's next? Jim Crow Laws for gay people?


I'm not saying anything of the sort. since I get thrown under the homophobia bus along with the gay folk I'm against Indiana's new law. I'm simply conceding that there are some reasons under which proprietor can reasonably refuse service.

7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / No Stalking
Offline
Posted 3/31/15
People have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Refusing to service anyone because of their sexuality, gender, race or other trivialities only makes you a horrible person. If there were a law that prohibited servicing only specific kinds of people, it would be meaningless. People should service anyone not because the law says so, but because you are a decent human being.
51253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/31/15 , edited 3/31/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:

Are people here seriously saying that being gay is the same as actively being rude to the store owner? That's no different than denying someone service just because they're black or Muslim. I have Latino skin. Does that mean my very existence is a burden to people who hate Latinos? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Obviously if someone walks into a store and starts vandalizing the place or picks fights with other customers or whatever, the owner has every right to kick that person out. If someone walks into a store minding their own business, the owner shouldn't be allowed to deny that person service just because they saw them making out with someone of the same sex.

If you're a store owner and you're opening your services to the public, you have no right to deny ordinary customers your service. What's next? Jim Crow Laws for gay people?


I'm not saying anything of the sort. since I get thrown under the homophobia bus along with the gay folk I'm against Indiana's new law. I'm simply conceding that there are some reasons under which proprietor can reasonably refuse service.



Don't worry. I wasn't talking about you. I'm taking about the 2 or 3 people here saying that being LGBT is the same as spitting in a store owner's face. If someone really did spit in another person's face, that's a reason to kick them out of the store. Denying someone service just because you don't like their sexuality shouldn't be tolerated.

The reasons you listed before were valid reasons to deny service. If someone is destroying property or being rude to the other customers, it's reasonable to not want to serve them. People should be judged by their actions, not their race, sexuality, gender, nationality, etc.
5052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 3/31/15

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:

Are people here seriously saying that being gay is the same as actively being rude to the store owner? That's no different than denying someone service just because they're black or Muslim. I have Latino skin. Does that mean my very existence is a burden to people who hate Latinos? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Obviously if someone walks into a store and starts vandalizing the place or picks fights with other customers or whatever, the owner has every right to kick that person out. If someone walks into a store minding their own business, the owner shouldn't be allowed to deny that person service just because they saw them making out with someone of the same sex.

If you're a store owner and you're opening your services to the public, you have no right to deny ordinary customers your service. What's next? Jim Crow Laws for gay people?


I'm not saying anything of the sort. since I get thrown under the homophobia bus along with the gay folk I'm against Indiana's new law. I'm simply conceding that there are some reasons under which proprietor can reasonably refuse service.




Fuck the homophobia bus, or the anti-homophobia bus. I always hear people preach tolerance, but tolerance for bigots is something that has to be realized as well. You cannot change the mind of a man who has lived his whole life believing that homosexuality is wrong. You act civil towards him, accept the fact that he will never change, and look towards future generations to make the changes necessary. It's like people thinking the middle east can be fixed overnight. Centuries of teachings cannot be overturned quickly, no matter how many tweets you make. Act civil, disregard those who cannot return your civility, teach children how to tolerate, and carry on.

14058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/31/15
Laws that do not benefit the many and alienate the few, should not be called laws.
21295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44
Offline
Posted 3/31/15
Been the law in the District of Columbia since 1993
Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/31/15
To make a law about what businesses can or can not do is silly. There shouldn't be a law at all. Owners should decide for themselves who they want to serve.

I can sum this up fairly easily:

Mind your own business.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.