Yes. It would lead to some businesses doing better than others because they chose to serve everyone.We are fallible humans, petty and vindictive. Can you envision where policies that allow discrimination would lead?
you dont have an obligation to serve anyone.It is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Lets take the baker. He makes the cake and wants to sell it and as a retail business he sells it to the public. Key word here is public. There are a myriad ways to not be a retail baker and only sell to whomever one wants, but once you open a retail, read public business you have an obligation to serve the public. That is the real crux of the issue. The baker has the right to sell to only the people he wants, but he has to set up the business that way.
They are entitled to the same rights. Other peoples property and labor is not one of those rightsAren't they entitled to the same rights as other religious people?
Completely different.So is every establishment that is not a "private club" but it is open to people walking in from the street, you know the public.
From the legislator quoted in the article:
Actually, that's freedom for you and it makes an entire segment of the population less free. How about an oral surgeon who owns a small business? They're Christian and a homosexual comes to them needing an infected tooth extracted? The oral surgeon can deny them service because they believe it's wrong to touch a person's mouth when that mouth has mingled with other mouths of the same sex? Then the person could get a jaw infection and in an extreme scenario, possibly die... and THAT'S "FREEDOM?!""In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."
In the south, if you are a business owner who expresses anti-gay sentiments, you are applauded (see Chick-Fil-A). Discrimination ran rampant in this country until consumer rights and civil rights laws were enacted. Going back to that would be a pretty huge step toward the dark ages. I'm sure that the homophobes, anti-Semites, klan members and libertarians love the idea, but giving one person a right that, in turn, infringes on the rights of thousands (or hundreds, or hundreds of thousands, or millions) is nobody's definition of "freedom." It is, however, a perfectly astute definition of "evil."
A working class hero is something to be
So? The individual that denied them service just refused to assist them in their problem. They didn't create any sort of harm for the individual. If you need food and I fail to provide you food I didn't cause you to starve, I just didn't help to avoid you from doing so.How about an oral surgeon who owns a small business? They're Christian and a homosexual comes to them needing an infected tooth extracted? The oral surgeon can deny them service because they believe it's wrong to touch a person's mouth when that mouth has mingled with other mouths of the same sex? Then the person could get a jaw infection and in an extreme scenario, possibly die... and THAT'S "FREEDOM?!"
To fight for freedom and choice is never taking a step backwards. The fight for human rights is always a step towards the light.Going back to that would be a pretty huge step toward the dark ages.
You're not giving people a right, they're demanding that you stop oppressing their inalienable right to free association. Huge difference.. .but giving one person a right that
This is a false equation. You can't really construct a right to "not be offended" or a right which imposes an obligation on an unwilling stranger. For you to benefit from a right of non-discrimination you impose an obligation upon me to associate with you. I freaking don't want to associate with you, get it? So, you have to violate my very real right in order to benefit from your imaginary "right." That formulation of rights poses severe problems that we don't see in the other inalienable rights - you can speak freely, and I don't have to listen; you can worship freely, and I'm don't have to participate; you can travel about freely, and I don't have to approve or ride along. When you want to be my friend and I don't want to be your friend, then my right to free association trumps your fabricated right of non-discrimination.infringes on the rights of thousands
I swear, you liberals and your fabricated definitions. Evil is now defined as defending human rights, defending freedom and defending choice. Terrific.It is, however, a perfectly astute definition of "evil."
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!