Private Companies Cannot Refuse Service

[ElFenix]

Well, if that's who you guys are, then yes, though I think you might be overstating how much of a problem that could be. I've already addressed the essential services concern in a previous post.

The freedom of a private business owner to refuse service to someone, for any reason, is more important than the stupid hurt feelings of a gay, black or any other person. It's stupid to feel bad about someone's irrational hatred towards you. Laugh at them and find another cake shop.

Forcing them to serve gays does nothing to solve the problem of bigotry, as long as they still don't want to. Isn't that the problem? 73% of you lot identify as christians, for example. Maybe work on education, and then you won't need these idiotic laws, which can only strengthen their faith and resolve.

it's amazing how much has been forgotten that happened within living memory.

 

[justoh]

You realize that these laws came about precisely because there was mass discrimination against minorities that was seriously impacting people's lives, right?



The freedom of a business owner to refuse service isn't more important than making sure that every citizen is protected from that kind of mass discrimination.



The laws aren't intended to solve the problem of bigotry.

not getting your first choice of wedding cake store shouldn't amount to a serious impact. Why doesn't applying the law to essential services, instead of all stores open to the public, cover this concern?

I didn't state they were intended to combat bigotry. There's something sinister about compelling people to sell something to other people they don't like. And it ignores the underlying problem of religion and stupidity in america.

Also, wouldn't you rather know who the bigots are? And do you honestly think a business could get away with being openly racist? Only in the tiniest, most backward communities probably.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it's exactly what's going on in this case. Someone is being refused service due to their inherent characteristics, as verified by the courts. It couldn't be simpler.

I think we all get it at this point. You are utterly unable to address the facts.

Somehow I doubt if the court came to a conclusion you disagreed with you would mindlessly parrot "as verified by the courts".

But hey, maybe you do think the Christian woman in Sudan really did renounce Islam, as verified by the courts, and is being justly executed in accordance with the law.

 

[nehalem256]

You realize that these laws came about precisely because there was mass discrimination against minorities that was seriously impacting people's lives, right?

The freedom of a business owner to refuse service isn't more important than making sure that every citizen is protected from that kind of mass discrimination.

Being refused the purchase of one kind of baked good hardly constitutes "mass discrimination".

 

[fskimospy]

I think we all get it at this point. You are utterly unable to address the facts.

Somehow I doubt if the court came to a conclusion you disagreed with you would mindlessly parrot "as verified by the courts".

But hey, maybe you do think the Christian woman in Sudan really did renounce Islam, as verified by the courts, and is being justly executed in accordance with the law.

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't change them. Everything I said is perfectly accurate and is backed up by the courts.

 

[fskimospy]

not getting your first choice of wedding cake store shouldn't amount to a serious impact. Why doesn't applying the law to essential services, instead of all stores open to the public, cover this concern?

How are we determining essential services? What if you live in a small town and there's only one of that kind of store? Etc. etc. Again, these laws exist precisely because the things you're trying to minimize happened.

I didn't state they were intended to combat bigotry. There's something sinister about compelling people to sell something to other people they don't like. And it ignores the underlying problem of religion and stupidity in america.

There's no requirement to sell something to people you don't like, there's a requirement that if you choose to create a business that is open to the public that you must serve the public. There are plenty of types of businesses that are not subject to public accommodation laws.

Also, wouldn't you rather know who the bigots are? And do you honestly think a business could get away with being openly racist? Only in the tiniest, most backward communities probably.

I don't really care who the bigots are, personally. In American history many many businesses got away with being openly racist.

 

[nehalem256]

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't change them. Everything I said is perfectly accurate and is backed up by the courts.

Wrong. What you said is in direct conflict with reality.

The guy had no problems providing services to gay people for any baked good other than wedding cakes.

Therefore clearly he was not discriminating "purely" based on sexual orientation.

Its simple and plain English. Something liberals seem to have a problem with.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. What you said is in direct conflict with reality.

The guy had no problems providing services to gay people for any baked good other than wedding cakes.

Therefore clearly he was not discriminating "purely" based on sexual orientation.

Its simple and plain English. Something liberals seem to have a problem with.

Quoted for self ownage. You just acknowledged my argument was completely correct.

 

[nehalem256]

Quoted for self ownage. You just acknowledged my argument was completely correct.

Quite the opposite. I feel sorry for your continued problems with the English language

 

[fskimospy]

Quite the opposite.

The best part is that in that post you complained about people not being able to understand plain English, and then couldn't understand the plain English implications of what you wrote.

You're like some sort of meta idiot.

 

[justoh]

There's something sinister about compelling people to sell something to other people they don't like.

There's no requirement to sell something to people you don't like, there's a requirement that if you choose to create a business that is open to the public that you must serve the public. There are plenty of types of businesses that are not subject to public accommodation laws.

I don't really care who the bigots are, personally. In American history many many businesses got away with being openly racist.

If you're a person with a business open to the public, then you're a person, and you're being compelled to sell to people you may not like. but yes, nobody is compelled to be a business owner.

One of the big catalysts for change was the media coverage, beginning in the sixties, showing the rest of the us and the world the terrible civil rights situation in the south and other areas. Today we have a much more pervasive media, and the internet. How could this be a serious concern nowadays. Seems like not having these public accommodation laws would have a negligible impact in the modern world.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't need to have a business that is a public accommodation. There are many other businesses to have.

 

[justoh]

You don't need to have a business that is a public accommodation. There are many other businesses to have.

Ok. If you already have one, established in an area where previous public accommodation laws allowed for discrimination based on sexual orientation, until a recent update, corresponding to public opinion shifts et al, then you'd be a person compelled to either change your business or else sell to people you don't like. Seems flippant to just say you should change your biness.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok. If you already have one, established in an area where previous public accommodation laws allowed for discrimination based on sexual orientation, until a recent update, corresponding to public opinion shifts et al, then you'd be a person compelled to either change your business or else sell to people you don't like. Seems flippant to just say you should change your biness.

Regulations on business change all the time though.

 

[justoh]

Regulations on business change all the time though.

Pretty much any business accessible by the public is a public accommodation. Are you suggesting he sell his cakes online? That's not very practical.

edit: apparently he claims that the only reason he can stop selling wedding cakes is because he's received a lot of support because of the media attention. What if he didn't receive that support. Then wouldn't it be accurate to say that he was compelled to either close or sell to people he doesn't like?

 

[alzan]

If you're a person with a business open to the public, then you're a person, and you're being compelled to sell to people you may not like. but yes, nobody is compelled to be a business owner.

One of the big catalysts for change was the media coverage, beginning in the sixties, showing the rest of the us and the world the terrible civil rights situation in the south and other areas. Today we have a much more pervasive media, and the internet. How could this be a serious concern nowadays. Seems like not having these public accommodation laws would have a negligible impact in the modern world.

You said before "there is something sinister about compelling people to sell something to other people they don't like".

There is also something sinister about someone who agrees to abide by the laws governing his business and then breaking them.

Long before his first straight/gay/white/polka-dotted/winged/etc. customer walked through the shop doors the owner agreed abide by certain regulations and laws; he then chose to break those laws at his convenience.

 

[justoh]

You said before "there is something sinister about compelling people to sell something to other people they don't like".

There is also something sinister about someone who agrees to abide by the laws governing his business and then breaking them.

Long before his first straight/gay/white/polka-dotted/winged/etc. customer walked through the shop doors the owner agreed abide by certain regulations and laws; he then chose to break those laws at his convenience.

according to wiki, sexual orientation and gender identity was only added in 2008 in colorado for public accommodations, which was long after he opened shop?

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty much any business accessible by the public is a public accommodation. Are you suggesting he sell his cakes online? That's not very practical.

edit: apparently he claims that the only reason he can stop selling wedding cakes is because he's received a lot of support because of the media attention. What if he didn't receive that support. Then wouldn't it be accurate to say that he was compelled to either close or sell to people he doesn't like?

I'm just saying that there could be regulatory changes for hundreds of different things that might make a business have to relocate, close, whatever. I don't think there is any special right to be free from regulatory changes that no longer allow you to discriminate against people.

 

[alzan]

according to wiki, sexual orientation and gender identity was only added in 2008 in colorado for public accommodations, which was long after he opened shop?

I'm not sure when his shop opened, but it's a business owners' responsibility to keep up with new regulations that affect how they conduct business.

 

[justoh]

You said before "there is something sinister about compelling people to sell something to other people they don't like".

There is also something sinister about someone who agrees to abide by the laws governing his business and then breaking them.

Long before his first straight/gay/white/polka-dotted/winged/etc. customer walked through the shop doors the owner agreed abide by certain regulations and laws; he then chose to break those laws at his convenience.

I'm not sure when his shop opened, but it's a business owners' responsibility to keep up with new regulations that affect how they conduct business.

...

 

[K1052]

according to wiki, sexual orientation and gender identity was only added in 2008 in colorado for public accommodations, which was long after he opened shop?

A business must operate within all current applicable laws and regulations of the state. Just because you got your first business license in say 1975 doesn't mean you aren't responsible to comply with the laws and regs of 2014.

If for any reason you do not wish to comply with current standards then you get to close your business.

 

[justoh]

A business must operate within all current applicable laws and regulations of the state. Just because you got your first business license in say 1975 doesn't mean you aren't responsible to comply with the laws and regs of 2014.

If for any reason you do not wish to comply with current standards then you get to close your business.

Yeah, that was my point. What's yours? hehe

 

[Victorian Gray]

The courts have already addressed this stupid distinction as well. I don't know why you keep bringing this up.

Because he doesn't actually have an original thought. All he can do is keep repeating the same old meaningless arguments over and over and over again. It's all he has. I must say, though, his disdain for logic is breathtaking at times.

 

[Victorian Gray]

We aren't discussing the law we are talking about your blatantly inaccurate comment.

 

[lotus503]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...ing-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/

On one hand, I'm all for gay marraige etc. On the other hand, it's their company. Why can't they choose who to serve?

I know there are a lot of parallels. I'm sure the quesiton of "what if they said no because they were black?" is going to come up. But this is fairly major religious tenent. I'm certainly not pro-religion, but I do respect people's religion.

I guess it's the right decision, but I'm hesitant to say I like it. It feels a lot like big brother.

The issue is in order to get a business license in a state you have to agree to abide by whatever operating laws/rules they dictate.

Issue is nearly all of these cases is they have agreed to not discriminate in an order to operate a business then discriminate thus breaking the charter.