Same sex marriage compromise

Smeagol · Mar 28, 2013

Cardinal said:
Actually, I'm pretty confused about that myself. Where is the line drawn between denying black patrons and those signs I see everywhere that say "we can refuse service to anybody for any reason?"

I think it still can legally be done if they play the shell game right. I know of a restaurant who's identity I'll keep to myself that seems to have an unwritten policy of no blacks allowed. I was actually asked to leave when I was a kid in the late 70s/early 80s. If I told you where everybody would be completely shocked, especially considering the demographic make up of the community where its located. They're possibly shut down at this point anyway and might trigger a huge incident if I gave any info on their identity. What they do is call it a "private club" and limit patrons to those who have gone through a membership process and their guests. What criteria they use to grant membership, I'm not sure but there are probably ways to do it so that unwanted groups are kept out especially if you keep the entity obscure and low profile. If people wanted to have a restaurant where they knew no gays would be there, simply set up a private club for hetero-sexual dating or a club that offers support for people planning to give birth to children who get advise and mentoring from those who already have. Part of the club's benefits are networking opportunities at their members only restaurant. Then be careful not to talk about it, avoid media exposure, don't advertise and put it in an out of the way location.

Cardinal · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
Is that a question to me?

It was a question to anyone who could answer it.

disneydude · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
Thanks Captain. I was unaware that the law abridged their rights. :roll:

Its not "Their rights". If you open up a business and want to profit from our society...you have to play by the rules. Plain and simple. You do not have the "right" to do anything you want in the business world.

Jerry · Mar 28, 2013

Cardinal said:
Actually, I'm pretty confused about that myself. Where is the line drawn between denying black patrons and those signs I see everywhere that say "we can refuse service to anybody for any reason?"

If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:

Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

~snip~

Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.

******
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

For example:

South Dakota Code 20-13-23

20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.

When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

disneydude said:
Its not "Their rights". If you open up a business and want to profit from our society...you have to play by the rules. Plain and simple. You do not have the "right" to do anything you want in the business world.

Do you know what the first thing ever owned was?

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

Jerry said:
When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door.

That would mean that no one has to follow such rules since no business in existence is open to the public, but instead to who the owner/s wants in. Don't you just love improper word choice in laws?

disneydude · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
That would mean that no one has to follow such rules since no business in existence is open to the public, but instead to who the owner/s wants in. Don't you just love improper word choice in laws?

No. With few exceptions ALL businesses are open to the public.

ocean515 · Mar 28, 2013

disneydude said:
No. With few exceptions ALL businesses are open to the public.

:lamo

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

disneydude said:
No. With few exceptions ALL businesses are open to the public.

:lamo Where do you get that silly idea? All property is open to who the owner/s wants in. This idea that somehow business is different is simply wrong.

Cephus · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
:lamo Where do you get that silly idea? All property is open to who the owner/s wants in. This idea that somehow business is different is simply wrong.

Yeah, you go trying to ban blacks at your place of business and see how that works out for you. :roll:

disneydude · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
:lamo Where do you get that silly idea? All property is open to who the owner/s wants in. This idea that somehow business is different is simply wrong.

Don't know what country you live in.....but in the United States, business entities are not free to keep out who they want. Sorry. That's just the facts. Doh!

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

disneydude said:
Don't know what country you live in.....but in the United States, business entities are not free to keep out who they want. Sorry. That's just the facts. Doh!

I'm guessing you can't defend the absurd idea that somehow businesses are open to the public when it's clear they are not. :lamo

Fact: There is no such thing as an open to the public business. Come up with a different defense of the law.

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

Cephus said:
Yeah, you go trying to ban blacks at your place of business and see how that works out for you. :roll:

Is that the best you got? Hahahahaha..

Cephus · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
Is that the best you got? Hahahahaha..

It was plenty to bulldoze over your idiotic libertarian nonsense, but to be honest, that doesn't take much.

disneydude · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
I'm guessing you can't defend the absurd idea that somehow businesses are open to the public when it's clear they are not. :lamo

Fact: There is no such thing as an open to the public business. Come up with a different defense of the law.

I'm guessing that actually it is you how cannot defend the ridiculous idea that you can open a business in the United State and can decide who you will serve. Let me give you a clue....just because you can type "Fact"....doesn't make it so. Try opening a business in the United States and not serve blacks or women. Lets see what happens. I think you are in for a rude awakening. Sorry.

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

Cephus said:
It was plenty to bulldoze over your idiotic libertarian nonsense, but to be honest, that doesn't take much.

Do you wish to provide a defense for the law? :lamo

disneydude · Mar 28, 2013

Cephus said:
It was plenty to bulldoze over your idiotic libertarian nonsense, but to be honest, that doesn't take much.

He's not a true Libertarian. No Libertarian would argue that government has a right to decide who can marry who. He's a cafeteria Libertarian at best.

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

disneydude said:
I'm guessing that actually it is you how cannot defend the ridiculous idea that you can open a business in the United State and can decide who you will serve. Let me give you a clue....just because you can type "Fact"....doesn't make it so. Try opening a business in the United States and not serve blacks or women. Lets see what happens. I think you are in for a rude awakening. Sorry.

I love how people can't defend this part of the law so they keep referring back to the law in debate after debate after debate on the subject. That isn't even an argument. :lamo

I'm talking about how property actually works and you keep going back to the law which is the entire dispute. Do you even realize this? No. :lamo

Cephus · Mar 28, 2013

disneydude said:
He's not a true Libertarian. No Libertarian would argue that government has a right to decide who can marry who. He's a cafeteria Libertarian at best.

Libertarianism is a cafeteria position to begin with, anyone with a wingnut political agenda that can't get into a real political party hangs out the "libertarian" sign on their porch.

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

disneydude said:
He's not a true Libertarian. No Libertarian would argue that government has a right to decide who can marry who. He's a cafeteria Libertarian at best.

What are you talking about? I want the government out of the marriage business. Do you know what that means to your argument?

Cephus · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
What are you talking about? I want the government out of the marriage business. Do you know what that means to your argument?

Yeah, another so-called libertarian said the same thing in another thread, yet he just wanted what the government did to stop being called marriage, he wanted them to continue being in the "civil union" business.

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

Cephus said:
Yeah, another so-called libertarian said the same thing in another thread, yet he just wanted what the government did to stop being called marriage, he wanted them to continue being in the "civil union" business.

I have no idea who you are talking about and I honestly don't care.

Cephus · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
I have no idea who you are talking about and I honestly don't care.

Yeah, caring about consistency is clearly something you don't do.

Henrin · Mar 28, 2013

Cephus said:
Yeah, caring about consistency is clearly something you don't do.

What this other poster has to say on the subject has no bearing on me, sorry.

Jerry · Mar 28, 2013

Henrin said:
What this other poster has to say on the subject has no bearing on me, sorry.

...just letting you know that see through you bull****, having dealt with it many times before.

Same sex marriage compromise

Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

More options

Smeagol

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

disneydude

Jerry

Henrin

Henrin

disneydude

ocean515

Henrin

Cephus

disneydude

Henrin

Henrin

Cephus

disneydude

Henrin

disneydude

Henrin

Cephus

Henrin

Cephus

Henrin

Cephus

Henrin

Jerry