This hardware store who hung a 'no gays allowed' sign highlights the difference between left/right

[shortylickens]

He is a bigot actually. Bigotry shocks people, it's still shock value. Shocked?

Yup.
Yur a dumbass.

 

[Atreus21]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/no-...ling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html

Along with the gay wedding cake controversy, basically conservatives want to refuse service and discriminate against you based on things you can't control (i.e. how you were born). The left wants to deny service to people who want to harm innocent children (or in the case of the Florida AG, throw people off their healthcare who have pre-existing conditions). There is no moral equivalence here. Conservatives being outraged that a shithead like Sarah Huckabee Sanders (who is completely for gays being denied service btw) was kicked out of a restaurant for her support of the immoral and outrageous actions of the Trump administration is fucking stupid as all hell.

The truth doesn't matter I suppose.

The masterpiece cakeshop baker doesn't refuse service to gays, as he has served them before. He declines involvement in gay weddings for religious reasons, just like he declines making cakes for Halloween, or those containing alcohol.

 

[Atreus21]

If your store is open to the public, then you haven't the right to discriminate against members of the public.

Unless you have severe political disagreements, correct?

 

[Vic]

Unless you have severe political disagreements, correct?

It's not discrimination to refuse service to someone because you don't like them personally.
Your implied argument here is disingenuous. A store owner with a sign that says "no gays allowed" has no standing whatsoever to criticize another store owner for refusing to serve him or the politicians who support him.

 

[fskimospy]

Unless you have severe political disagreements, correct?

You are essentially asking if you can refuse service based on someone’s choices in life. Of course you can!!!!

It’s why a black person can refuse service to a KKK member but a KKK member can’t refuse service to a black person. The KKK member made a choice to be a racist, the black person didn’t choose to be of a particular race.

 

[glenn1]

In another post, you said the "act of refusing service" is what is illegal. You were making a spurious distinction between two forms of nearly identical communicative conduct. This "act" that you're referring is unlikely to be anything other than telling a patron that he won't be served and has to leave. That is no different from the sign. You're not going to have one protected by the 1A while the other is not.

Your last sentence I think suggests you do understand. Technically, the sign is evidence of illegal discrimination, not the discrimination itself. However, the sign itself, without anything else, will make the case, so saying it is illegal to put the sign up, while technically incorrect, is close enough for the laity. Your argument that the sign is protected free speech amounts to hair splitting because in the real world, that sign will get you into legal trouble even if there is nothing else to incriminate you.

Both a sign and verbal communication are protected by the 1A. The 1A doesn't provide you with immunity from the consequences if that 1A protected speech is used to further illegal ends such as discrimination in public accommodations. Indeed as both you and I have said, the sign would be piece of evidence #1 presented at trial and used to convict you of breaking that law. It's not hair splitting at all and "close enough for the laity" wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. A state law prohibiting you from putting up such a sign would be struck down near instantaneously; whether the content of the sign was egregiously bigoted doesn't really matter. Again from a legal and business perspective it's very stupid to use your 1A rights to do something which basically by default will lead you to being charged with and probably convicted of a crime but again the freedom to do dumb acts and those acts potentially being illegal are two separate and distinct things.

 

[Vic]

You are essentially asking if you can refuse service based on someone’s choices in life. Of course you can!!!!

It’s why a black person can refuse service to a KKK member but a KKK member can’t refuse service to a black person. The KKK member made a choice to be a racist, the black person didn’t choose to be of a particular race.

He knows that. The MAGA crowd is intentionally obscuring the differences between things people can't control (like their skin color) with life choices (like their political affiliations). Doing so fits all their boxes: it's self-serving, it's tribalistic, and it's paranoid.

 

[fskimospy]

Both a sign and verbal communication are protected by the 1A. The 1A doesn't provide you with immunity from the consequences if that 1A protected speech is used to further illegal ends such as discrimination in public accommodations. Indeed as both you and I have said, the sign would be piece of evidence #1 presented at trial and used to convict you of breaking that law. It's not hair splitting at all and "close enough for the laity" wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. A state law prohibiting you from putting up such a sign would be struck down near instantaneously; whether the content of the sign was egregiously bigoted doesn't really matter. Again from a legal and business perspective it's very stupid to use your 1A rights to do something which basically by default will lead you to being charged with and probably convicted of a crime but again the freedom to do dumb acts and those acts potentially being illegal are two separate and distinct things.

I'm pretty sure a state law preventing the hanging of signs that indicated your establishment was breaking the law would be upheld just fine. The idea that while you can be required to serve people regardless of their sexual orientation but can't be prevented from lying to them in order to make them think you don't is...novel.

 

[Atreus21]

It's not discrimination to refuse service to someone because you don't like them personally.
Your implied argument here is disingenuous. A store owner with a sign that says "no gays allowed" has no standing whatsoever to criticize another store owner for refusing to serve him or the politicians who support him.

You are essentially asking if you can refuse service based on someone’s choices in life. Of course you can!!!!

It’s why a black person can refuse service to a KKK member but a KKK member can’t refuse service to a black person. The KKK member made a choice to be a racist, the black person didn’t choose to be of a particular race.

BonzaiDuck said this:

If your store is open to the public, then you haven't the right to discriminate against members of the public.

Is Sarah Sanders a member of the public or not?

 

[jackstar7]

BonzaiDuck said this:

If your store is open to the public, then you haven't the right to discriminate against members of the public.

Is Sarah Sanders a member of the public or not?

Is BonzaiDuck the law? Wait... is he Dredd?

This thread is really going somewhere.

 

[Atreus21]

Is BonzaiDuck the law? Wait... is he Dredd?

This thread is really going somewhere.

So is he right or wrong?

 

[jackstar7]

So is he right or wrong?

He's wrong, but as usual, abortion-boy, context matters a great deal.

 

[paperfist]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/no-...ling-hangs-discriminatory-sign-000218831.html

Along with the gay wedding cake controversy, basically conservatives want to refuse service and discriminate against you based on things you can't control (i.e. how you were born). The left wants to deny service to people who want to harm innocent children (or in the case of the Florida AG, throw people off their healthcare who have pre-existing conditions). There is no moral equivalence here. Conservatives being outraged that a shithead like Sarah Huckabee Sanders (who is completely for gays being denied service btw) was kicked out of a restaurant for her support of the immoral and outrageous actions of the Trump administration is fucking stupid as all hell.

Weird I typed Prius in a thread a few minutes ago and then clicked your link and was served up a Prius ad. Which illustrates the real issue here of a store wanting to make money or not.

 

[jackstar7]

Weird I typed Prius in a thread a few minutes ago and then clicked your link and was served up a Prius ad. Which illustrates the real issue here of a store wanting to make money or not.

Do you think actors should stick to acting? Just curious.

 

[Atreus21]

He's wrong, but as usual, abortion-boy, context matters a great deal.

Abortion-boy!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

BonzaiDuck said this:

If your store is open to the public, then you haven't the right to discriminate against members of the public.

Is Sarah Sanders a member of the public or not?

It would be interesting to explore just exactly what you can and cannot do as a business "serving the public." On the Sanders episode, I'd have to see a transcript of what was said during Sanders' Red Hen visit. Did the owner say "We won't serve you and we will throw you out?" Or did he say "The staff doesn't want you here. You can stay at your own gastronomic peril, or you can leave?"

At least, as a customer, you can "discriminate" any way you want -- it's called a boycott. But the Red Hen episode has a parallel in the recent statement by an airline that they wouldn't transport babies of illegal immigrants at the behest of the government. It just may not be a legal parallel.

 

[fskimospy]

BonzaiDuck said this:

If your store is open to the public, then you haven't the right to discriminate against members of the public.

Is Sarah Sanders a member of the public or not?

I strongly suspect he meant the same thing I did.

Sarah Sanders can be freely discriminated against because people are discriminating against her reprehensible conduct, not her innate characteristics.

 

[paperfist]

Do you think actors should stick to acting? Just curious.

I think if they are primarily making a living as an actor then yes I don't want to hear about their political side views. Though it's not something new or going away anytime soon.

 

[Vic]

I think if they are primarily making a living as an actor then yes I don't want to hear about their political side views. Though it's not something new or going away anytime soon.

No one is forcing you to listen.

 

[woolfe9998]

Both a sign and verbal communication are protected by the 1A. The 1A doesn't provide you with immunity from the consequences if that 1A protected speech is used to further illegal ends such as discrimination in public accommodations. Indeed as both you and I have said, the sign would be piece of evidence #1 presented at trial and used to convict you of breaking that law. It's not hair splitting at all and "close enough for the laity" wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. A state law prohibiting you from putting up such a sign would be struck down near instantaneously; whether the content of the sign was egregiously bigoted doesn't really matter. Again from a legal and business perspective it's very stupid to use your 1A rights to do something which basically by default will lead you to being charged with and probably convicted of a crime but again the freedom to do dumb acts and those acts potentially being illegal are two separate and distinct things.

The sign will get you convicted and/or subject to civil liability on its own. Perhaps the only other piece of evidence necessary would be a single person to say they didn't enter because of the sign. "Close enough for the laity" means that among ordinary people conversing on the subject it's close enough because under actual legal circumstances, the sign may just as well be illegal since posting such a sign is going to get you into trouble even if you do nothing else wrong.

Saying on the one hand, don't post that sign because doing so is illegal, versus saying, on the other, don't post that sign because doing so is the equivalent of a confession which will get you automatically convicted of a crime isn't a terribly meaningful distinction. That's why I think you're hairsplitting.

 

[jackstar7]

I think if they are primarily making a living as an actor then yes I don't want to hear about their political side views. Though it's not something new or going away anytime soon.

Thank you for self-identifying as a dumb person.

 

[Sunburn74]

The sign is stupid yet is protected by the First Amendment. Following through on what the sign says is illegal in most states and is morally repugnant in all. These signs do provide some value though as they provide useful information that tells people where they shouldn't go to shop.

Glenn you used to be a person with mostly partially reasonable counterpoints but lately you've been declining into more and more crotchety and delusional positions.

The idea that a sign of incredible bigotry has value as a warning sign is really incredulous I would say because you're basically agreeing with the person putting up the sign that it's working as it should and should therefore go up regardless of the actual legality of the matter. It really boggles the mind to see people swing and whiff on issues that are basically ethical softballs here...

 

[paperfist]

Thank you for self-identifying as a dumb person.

You're quite welcome. Is there anymore I can do to help you show off your superior, single focused mind today?

No one is forcing you to listen.

Works both ways doesn't it?

 

[pmv]

Both a sign and verbal communication are protected by the 1A. The 1A doesn't provide you with immunity from the consequences if that 1A protected speech is used to further illegal ends such as discrimination in public accommodations. Indeed as both you and I have said, the sign would be piece of evidence #1 presented at trial and used to convict you of breaking that law. It's not hair splitting at all and "close enough for the laity" wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. A state law prohibiting you from putting up such a sign would be struck down near instantaneously; whether the content of the sign was egregiously bigoted doesn't really matter. Again from a legal and business perspective it's very stupid to use your 1A rights to do something which basically by default will lead you to being charged with and probably convicted of a crime but again the freedom to do dumb acts and those acts potentially being illegal are two separate and distinct things.

This is just arguing for the sake of arguing, surely?

You could just as well say the 1A allows you to hand a bank teller a note saying 'hand me the contents of the cash drawer or I will shoot you' as long as you don't actually shoot them if they fail to hand over the cash.

And at what point does a refusal of service become a refusal of service? If someone goes into the shop and is told verbally in person 'I'm not serving you because of your race', is that also allowed as free speech? At what point then does the law about discriminatory service actually kick in?

 

[Vic]

Works both ways doesn't it?

You were the one arguing to suppress speech because you didn't like what you were hearing.