If they're going to do that, the law ought to be that the business has to post their discriminatory policy, right at the door, and in the most offensive possible terms possible.
Something like this, perhaps:
Then we can truly know the nature and quality of the owners of those particular businesses that choose to discriminate against members of the public.
15 comments:
I would support that-that way they can choose their customers-and I can choose to make sure they don't get any of my money.
Oh, no. Because of federal legislation, even the most religious of Hoosier establishments cannot refuse to serve women, Jews, black folks, Muslims, Koreans... as long as they're straight.
If we put that sign up in the front window, Whom, would be allowed to patronize our establishment? Certainly not Me.
Rich in NC
Tam, there are a buttload of comments (at least, as far as this blog goes) to another post here which argue that there shouldn't be any anti-discrimination laws, that the Free Market Fairy will fix it.
<obTaggart> "Could you repeat that, sir?" </BSreference>
(If we hadn't fought for and won anti-discrimination laws, we would still be waiting for the Free Market Fairy.)
Yeah, you folks show that you have bought into the media storyline but haven't read the law yourselves.
You should read it before you cry so much.
And, again, none of this would have been necessary had those gay men in Colorado no insisted that the Bakery make them a special cake.
Had they gone elsewhere, and the bakery owner offered to find them another bakery) none of this would have been needed.
So, because of one lousy cake shop in Colorado didn't want to make a cake, the Right is trying to codify homophobia into law?
Gee, imagine if they had shot somebody....
The right has been trying to codify homophobia into law ever since they figured out they could win elections by doing so. Now they're just pissed off that it isn't working for them as much as it used to.
Oh excuse me, I meant to say "win elections and raise money".
-Doug in Oakland
I thought I made a bookmark of the article a couple days ago, but can't find it so far. Article shows that the Indiana law is almost word for word a copy of a prior Fed law that was lauded by all the big name Progressives in DC. Both laws were printed out.
As the 7:56pm commenter noted, you bought into the media hype, without doing your due diligence. The big media sources are pushing emotions, not data. Of course, if they didn't, there wouldn't be much of a storyline, at least from their perspective.
Twentysome years ago, I went 'round and 'round with my local newspaper about their gun issue reporting. I finally realized that it wasn't inadvertent mistakes and personal slanting on the subject, it was an orchestrated system of lying about the subject. I decided that if they were going to blatantly lie about one subject, of which I was quite knowledgeable, what else were they also lying about? I expected to be informed by their reporting. They no longer had any credibility. I started looking very closely at the other media sources, and discovered this sort of thing was very widespread. I wasn't expecting perfection from them, that's not realistic with humans, but deliberate falsification of info, you're done.
Now, when I see emotions as the story focus, instead of data, I expect I'm being sold a pack of lies. Well, unless it's a lost love column, maybe!
Sorry, no. The 1993 RFRA was about preventing states and locaities from putting onerous burdens on religion, especially in the zoning arena. It was never indended to be used as carte blanche for discrimination.
But that's what the state-level RFRA are all about. The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberties has been pushing state-level RFRAs as a way of undercuttiong local anti-discrimination ordinances. But they can't then discriminate against someone on the basis of sex, national origin, religion, ethnicity or race, because Federal law comes into play.
Which leaves only sexual orientation as being free to be discriminated against.
The fact that the media is full of shit does not make your own BS any more true. Here's a colorful take on why the two pieces of legislation are not the same:
-Doug in Oakland
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/03/history-lesson-for-assholes-bill.html
Oh, the horror! Someone took a law, and figured out how to very narrowly apply it to their religious beliefs, to keep from being forced to violate them by the government.
Perhaps we have way too many laws in the first place? The constitution was set up to keep this sort of problem from occurring. This problem of too much .gov laws is not seen as a problem by Progressives, of course. Two kinds of people: those who want to be left alone, and those who want to control others. Which group do you fit into?
Will, what part of the Bible says don't sell a cake to two fags? Last I checked, Jesus seemed to think that loving the sinners and providing a positive example for them was the solution. Now, if you are disavowing Jesus, that's a different matter for discussion.
CP88:
That is not what they wanted. They demanded a custom made cake, and THAT is what the shop did not want to get involved in. Having the .gov force you to custom create something like that is not right. Sell a standard cake, no problem, and there wasn't. No difference in going to a custom car painter, and demanding a nude mural, and getting the .gov to force the painter to do it. The fact taht they wouldn't even take a referral to another shop tells me it wasn't the cake they wanted, it was the drama they were interested in. That makes them assholes, from my perspective. Don't bother with your charges that I'm anti-gay. Relatives, friends, classmates, co-workers, and roommates.
Will, I ask again, where in the Bible it says don't sell those icky gays a cake, custom or otherwise. Now, if your bakery doesn't make phallus shaped cakes and that's what was ordered, you have a pretty good defense. However, if you make custom wedding cakes, you should be willing to make a cake for any wedding or union. If it offends you to put "Happy Wedding Adam and Steve" on a cake, you are in the wrong business...oh, and why haven't you been asking customers to certify that the "Carson" on that cake last week was indeed the man you assumed and now some ladies' dog or girlfriend.
The Bible in no way instructs adherents to forgo doing business with the sinners, in fact it makes clear all are sinners and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. So the bakery was trying to make the statement, especially in the cases where an order was taken before it was rejected, not the customer.
Post a Comment