When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a customer?

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Hawkeye10 said:

We have the right to deny entry to anyone and everyone we want, for any reason we want, this is OUR COUNTRY.

Click to expand...

No you/we don't because that is not a right in the Constitution, particularly not one enumerated like equal protection and due process are, which are both violated if you deny people entry into our country based on their religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

roguenuke said:

No you/we don't because that is not a right in the Constitution, particularly not one enumerated like equal protection and due process are, which are both violated if you deny people entry into our country based on their religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Dead people neither have the right to deny us ownership rights over our country, nor do I see where they claimed such a right. We decide who to let in and we decide who to naturalize, though because of bad writing during the ending of slavery everyone born here probably has citizenship rights, which Trump thinks we should test with SCOTUS and if they say yes we should amend the constitution.

In any case we are far adrift of the thread topic, if you want to start a thread to hold this Conversation then PM me, I will likely join you.

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

roguenuke said:

No you/we don't because that is not a right in the Constitution, particularly not one enumerated like equal protection and due process are, which are both violated if you deny people entry into our country based on their religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

equal protection doesn't apply to foreign nationals. at least not how its written. Due process could apply though as the due process clause states any person while the equal protection clause states citizen or person born in the usa.

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

SocialD said:

equal protection doesn't apply to foreign nationals. at least not how its written. Due process could apply though as the due process clause states any person while the equal protection clause states citizen or person born in the usa.

Click to expand...

Equal protection does apply to foreign nationals in some contexts. For example, if they break our laws while here, you cannot single out atheists breaking our laws with harsher punishment just for doing so than you would Christians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Hawkeye10 said:

THat is no different than the concept of rights ever is, they not only come into conflict, but the line of conflict is constantly changing with time. The problem we have is that we consider some COnstitutionally guaranteed rights sacrosanct, but the right to free association (most importantly the right to choose to not associate with particular individuals) null and void.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

We've struck a compromise between civil rights, and the right of association, by giving private clubs total control over membership and resources, including the ability to discriminate as much as they want, in any way that they want. The only requirements are that it be a genuine club, and there is some common factor for membership.

This exemption dates back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just FYI.

The problem at base is that SCOTUS has become a political body rather than a law body, it is part of the grand rot of America.

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS is pretty much doing what it's supposed to do, and there is no way for it not to be in any way political. Because, let's face it, whoever is on the losing side of a decision will always be tempted to cry politics.

EDIT: I see the internment camps as a reasonable solution to a wartime situation.

Click to expand...

Uh... yeah, they're not. They are wholesale infringements of rights, a presumption of guilt, and punishment for people without due process.

I find it astounding that in one breath you insist that we are violating the right of association, and then justify violating far more rights, in a far more damaging manner.

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Hawkeye10 said:

Usually it runs along the lines of " The fact that you would say that means that you are defective, shut up now, and if you dont do as your told you will be hurt. You are a WORM to me, do you understand!".

Something like that. Conversation and combat of ideas not required nor usually allowed....agree or keep quiet, those are the only options, that is how America rolls circa 2016.

Till Trump came along. Now us "insects are rising to the surface" (might be paraphrased, would need to go back and look) as I read one writer yesterday or day before say. .

Click to expand...

IOW, when people say things you don't like, it's "bullying" but when you do it, it's not bullying

Typical rightwing hypocrisy and whining

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

Hawkeye10 said:

When I am confident that Americans are speaking their minds true then I will accept what ever the majority opinion appears to be, but not now,

Click to expand...

You did not have to tell me that you hate democracy. I already knew that the rightwing prefers dictatorships and censorship

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

roguenuke said:

Equal protection does apply to foreign nationals in some contexts. For example, if they break our laws while here, you cannot single out atheists breaking our laws with harsher punishment just for doing so than you would Christians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

But that wouldn't be from the Equal Protection Clause that would be from the 5th and 6th amendment via the 14th Due Process Clause . The 5th stating no person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. Again both this and due process state 'person' and not citizen or resident. The 6th also adds the requirement of impartiality.

Re: When should a business be legally allowed to be able to refuse service to a custo

SocialD said:

But that wouldn't be from the Equal Protection Clause that would be from the 5th and 6th amendment via the 14th Due Process Clause . The 5th stating no person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law. Again both this and due process state 'person' and not citizen or resident. The 6th also adds the requirement of impartiality.

Click to expand...

There is far more to it though, and not just in regards to penalty of laws. For instance, immigration cannot deny wives, husbands, children citizenship that is offered (through process) due to things such as religion, sex, etc. Worker visas cannot be denied for those reasons either. Even if you claim it is those Amendments rather than the 14th providing that protection, it would still apply to this situation as well. The government would still have to show one hell of a damn good reason to deny every single Muslim any consideration for entry into our country for the actions of a relative few. It violates due process and equal protection (no matter which Amendment you use to justify that equal protection is a right).