quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

Is there a constitutional right to be served at a restaurant??

If there weren't, you'd still have "Whites Only" signs.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

So what you are saying, in a roundabout way, is that the government should have the power to force me to provide a product or service.

I have a small business. I make and sell soap and harvest and sell honey. It's mostly for write-off purposes, but I do make enough so that it costs me nothing. The day the government tells me that I have to sell my products to anyone and everyone is the day I shut it all down.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
... knowing the baker dislikes you?

Given that the bake shop owner is a Christian, this isn't a fair characterization of the situation at all.

Liking someone versus being forced to participate in a ceremony that goes against one's beliefs are two different things.



.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

Is there a constitutional right to be served at a restaurant??

If there weren't, you'd still have "Whites Only" signs.

And I think that's OK. I'd also think it's OK if a black owned restaurant put up a sign saying "Blacks Only", or a Chinese restaurant put up a sign saying "Chinese Only".

Their business, their choice in who they want to provide the fruits of their labor to. It's freedom man.

I can tend to be a pessimist at times, but I think the outcome of this may not be the outcome most of us here would hope for. I think it is (potentially) a very slippery slope.

I can see refusing service to someone because they are an As$#@le or because they have stolen in the past...but when it comes to religion, etc, it can quickly lead to unintended consequences.

I think it will come down to "active participation" (beyond just making a sale, for example) in an activity or ceremony or performance that goes against one's religious beliefs.

Just food for thought...

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

Is there a constitutional right to be served at a restaurant??

Is there a Constitutional right to eat?

Is there a Constitutional right to work? What about every employer with signs, "No Irish need apply!"

quote:

What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

What if everyone refuses to eat at a restaurant?

Why is a business required to serve customers, but customers are not required to patronize a business (unless it's a health insurance company)?

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

Agreed. Where does the left go when they lose this case.

Violence. It's all they have left. They don't have the mental capacity to be graceful losers.

Tony.

This predicament is what I call ‘The Victim Paradox’.

Somewhere along the line (1960’s?), the victim gained power from his social mistreatment. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Black folks being allowed to be served at a previously ‘Whites Only’ lunch counter is a tremendous achievement, and paved the way for rights for all. But what is the total cost of such social advancement and liberty, which effected all for the good, and how is it a double edged sword?

This post is not about vendors refusing to make a cake with a penis on it. But that is a good example. Who is the greater victim here? The cake maker being forced to work against his Christian conscience, or the Homosexual being refused goods and services? This, gentlemen, is the ‘Victim Paradox’.

You see, we’ve become a nation of victims. Black, White, Other, Gender Identity, the mothership is coming to take us away-crazy, victims. The Sharptons, Jacksons, et all, are a symptom of the greater disease.

It’s seductive, subtle, and dangerous.

What is the answer? I don’t know. Maybe someone else here does.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

Then start a restaurant that serves everyone unconditionally or eat at home. Up until recently there were a few country clubs that only allowed men to be members. They did just fine and there were plenty of other places for women to join to be members. What about the women who wanted to play there? Tough cookies. At my gym there's a "women's only" section. Why can't men who want to avoid judgmental eyes use that area as well?

Locally there was a meetup group for 20 and 30 year olds to hang out do fun activities together. The girl who ran it started posting a bunch of activities (movies, bowling, brunch) that were "girls only" and it got to the point where for every coed event there were 2 or 3 "girls only" events. Needless to say the coed meetups died out and the "girls only" events did too. What's the point of the story? If a business owner decides to only service a certain demographic, it's on them if they can't get enough of that demographic to keep the business going. That's called freedom and the Government has no place telling anyone who they need to sell or service.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

Agreed. Where does the left go when they lose this case.

Violence. It's all they have left. They don't have the mental capacity to be graceful losers.

Tony.

You've got right Tony. The constant tantrums are tiresome.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:...What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

Is there a constitutional right to be served at a restaurant??

If there weren't, you'd still have "Whites Only" signs.

And I think that's OK. I'd also think it's OK if a black owned restaurant put up a sign saying "Blacks Only", or a Chinese restaurant put up a sign saying "Chinese Only".

Their business, their choice in who they want to provide the fruits of their labor to. It's freedom man.

Glad I don't live in your world.

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:
I can tend to be a pessimist at times, but I think the outcome of this may not be the outcome most of us here would hope for. I think it is (potentially) a very slippery slope.

I agree. Constitutional issues aside, it would get old really fast if you had 30 gas stations on a block with each one catering to a niche market. Of course, few of them would survive with that business model and most would take down their signs. In a very short time, owners would learn that it is good business to keep your opinions to yourself and just sell gas.

There's no pleasing some of you guys. No right answer, no solution to any question, because you'll manage- somehow- to find something bad about any solution.

Is that what you want to be? Someone who can't support their peers and who can always find a way to criticize any action, any attempt at solving these problems? It's not clever, it's not cute and it's not thought-provoking.

If you overthink things, you'll always end up in a bad place.

glad the court is taking this case

now suppose they hold for the bakery - what recourse does the bakery have against the parties that wronged them in the first place?

can they sue and collect damages?

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
now suppose they hold for the bakery - what recourse does the bakery have against the parties that wronged them in the first place?

can they sue and collect damages?

That's a good question. Weren't they actually fined? If so, I'd assume they would get that back.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

What if everyone choses to refuse service, say at restaurants?

What if everyone refuses to eat at a restaurant?

Why is a business required to serve customers, but customers are not required to patronize a business (unless it's a health insurance company)?

You bring up some very good points.

We've come a long way in 300 years. Back then, and for centuries before and some since, in Christian Europe, you could get the death penalty for skipping church on Sunday, and a bunch of other things, thinking, writing heresies, being the wrong ancestry.

A great many people fought ever since for liberty, which means freedom from the government making you do something you might not want to do.

Why do we want to go back?

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Think of what it would mean if you could be compelled by govt to act against your religious beliefs. Think of how far that could go.

Maybe related, when the CA Prop 8 was active, one of the LGBT leaders here acknowledged they already had the same legal rights as married couples in CA, their purpose here was to silence, by force of law, those who might publicly express moral disagreement.

Yep they are fabulous tyrants. We should be grateful to the Almighty for president Trump and his intincts. May he be divinely inspired daily.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
There's no pleasing some of you guys. No right answer, no solution to any question, because you'll manage- somehow- to find something bad about any solution.

Is that what you want to be? Someone who can't support their peers and who can always find a way to criticize any action, any attempt at solving these problems? It's not clever, it's not cute and it's not thought-provoking.

If you overthink things, you'll always end up in a bad place.

I dont think its that. These members are just against Christianity. Im surprised we havent had a select few members in here yet to chime in.