Marriage venue sued for denying homosexual couple

[squealpiggy]

I get that, but I could agree with a citizen suing a business that received govt funding as being in violation of their rights . I disagree that private business proprietors should be subject to these laws as I would think that it's their rights as citizens to be racist ,sexist...etc (as it would be the right of the offended to then protest the establishment and/or spread the word of said racism/sexism...etc so as to negatively affect their business future)

I don't think that having unpopular opinions should be govt controlled, nor should open up a business for civil liability.

So this is ok?

http://hannahsarahlewis.files.wordp...na-cast-iron-sign-10x4_220665307171.jpg?w=890

 

[AvalonXQ]

but it's their venue right? why shouldn't they be able to lease it to whoever they want?

I dunno, I just think people should be able to do whatever they like with their bidness is all...

Exactly right. But no one is really surprised; when gay marriage was debated it was pointed out that this sort of thing would be the next step. Gay marriage proponents protested fiercely, of course, but here we are.

 

[StankApe]

Morally? no, it's horrible , awful behavior by anyone. However, I would say they should have the right to decide who uses their services/facilities/wtvr.

I'm just not big on legislating morality at all be it banning abortions, banning gay marraige or banning the rights of citizens to run their businesses how they see fit....


my post is in response to squealpiggy btw, avalon posted before I was finished.

 

[Vic Vega]

Exactly right. But no one is really surprised; when gay marriage was debated it was pointed out that this sort of thing would be the next step. Gay marriage proponents protested fiercely, of course, but here we are.

Gay marriage proponents said that it would be OK to be discriminated against in other ways if they were allowed to get married? I highly doubt that.

 

[Caper]

This is slightly off topic... but I read a gallop poll where they said only one in 33 identify themselves as LGBT.... I thought this was pretty low. I thought it would be more like 8 or 9%.

 

[StankApe]

What an odd way to express a statistic!!! 1 in 33? why not say 3 in 100 or 3.1% or something like that?

 

[AvalonXQ]

This is slightly off topic... but I read a gallop poll where they said only one in 33 identify themselves as LGBT.... I thought this was pretty low. I thought it would be more like 8 or 9%.

Why would you assume such a high number?

 

[ponderingturtle]

but it's their venue right? why shouldn't they be able to lease it to whoever they want?

I dunno, I just think people should be able to do whatever they like with their bidness is all...

And if that keeps people from finding a job, place to live and such, well it is their fault for being a minority.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why would you assume such a high number?

Because that only about hits the low ball of other studies focusing solely on homosexuals, Adding in bisexuals and trans people should be higher.

 

[StankApe]

And if that keeps people from finding a job, place to live and such, well it is their fault for being a minority.

who said anything about minorities? this should apply to everyone. if a minority business owner didn't want suburban white people in his store, he would have the right too.

It sounds like you are projecting an emotional reaction onto what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with any particular group.

 

[Beerina]

It's always a curiously short step from decades of persuasion to please stop actively hurting us with laws to please actively force others to cater to us.

 

[ponderingturtle]

who said anything about minorities? this should apply to everyone. if a minority business owner didn't want suburban white people in his store, he would have the right too.

It sounds like you are projecting an emotional reaction onto what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with any particular group.

No it just would have permitted more discrimination against such groups in the past and you are in favor of that.

 

[Dessi]

Because that only about hits the low ball of other studies focusing solely on homosexuals, Adding in bisexuals and trans people should be higher.

The Gallup Poll includes bisexual and trans people.

3.4% sounds about right to me, its consistent with other studies on LGBT populations that rely on self-identification.

I'm aware other studies attempt to categorize people based on behavior, by asking people to identify the number of times they've had a same-gender sexual encounter or fantasy in the last X months. Those percentages can vary pretty wildly, aren't consistent from study to study.

I think most people perceive the LGBT population higher than it actually due to confirmation bias, being more likely to take note when they meet an LGBT person.

 

[StankApe]

edited cuz i see no point in debating my idea anymore.... it always turns into accusations of discrimination by somebody... the rest of you enjoy

 

[bruto]

but it's their venue right? why shouldn't they be able to lease it to whoever they want?

I dunno, I just think people should be able to do whatever they like with their bidness is all...

Really? Without prior advertising, statement of religious bias or declaration of exclusivity? Should a restaurant be able to refuse service to Jews, a wedding site to mixed race couples, a clothing store to people who are not deemed sufficiently fashionable at the door? If the proprietors of the wedding site had a religious scruple about whom they would host, they had plenty of time and opportunity to declare this before turning away a couple. It looks as if they want to have it both ways, to be a business except when it's not convenient to be a business.

 

[AlBell]

So businesses should be free to discriminate on how ever they want, and you are a major douche if you disagree, on par with those black kids doing sit ins at woolworths!

Black kids don't make a conscious behavioral choice to be black, so no.

 

[Dessi]

if a minority business owner didn't want suburban white people in his store, he would have the right too.

Actually, he'd be sued to oblivion for violating anti-discrimination laws.

I can understand why people make statements that a business owner should be able to cater to whoever they please, but that opens the door to institutionalized discrimination. And that, in turn, can prevent whole classes of citizens from having access to schools, grocery stores, banks, legal representation, employment, housing, etc -- exactly the outcome anti-discrimination laws are intended to prevent.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Black kids don't make a conscious behavioral choice to be black, so no.

Gay people don't make a conscious behavioural choice to be gay either.

Unless you're saying you made a choice to be straight?

 

[commandlinegamer]

a clothing store to people who are not deemed sufficiently fashionable at the door?

There's a case in the news at the moment in the UK where a couple sounding out a possible wedding venue were sent an email (in error apparently - the old CC to the wrong recipient) to the effect that they weren't really the sort of people who the hotel wanted. The women was a model or featured in adult-movies IIRC. Whatever the actual facts of the case, bad PR for the hotel in question.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

It's always a curiously short step from decades of persuasion to please stop actively hurting us with laws to please actively force others to cater to us.

There's no 'catering' involved in just giving people the same treatment as everyone else is there?

Do homosexuals need special toilets or something?