- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
What law is being violated?
Their religious conscience. Remember, the reason that the bakers gave is it would go against their religion.
What law is being violated?
Clearly many do care about the marriage aspect. We've seen it in every state that has legalized same-sex marriage.
As for socially acceptable, the trends on that are also quite clear.
The anti-equality crowd has already lost this fight. It's just a bureaucratic process at this point.
You can't sue somebody for violating their religious conscience. If the woman was denied service simply because she was a woman, and there's no statute that makes it illegal, what sort of legal action can she bring?Their religious conscience. Remember, the reason that the bakers gave is it would go against their religion.
You can't sue somebody for violating their religious conscience. If the woman was denied service simply because she was a woman, and there's no statute that makes it illegal, what sort of legal action can she bring?
Um. true, if there were no such law...You can't sue somebody for violating their religious conscience. If the woman was denied service simply because she was a woman, and there's no statute that makes it illegal, what sort of legal action can she bring?
Already discussed. Doesn't apply.Um. true, if there were no such law...
Um.. Civil Rights Act of 1965?
.Um. true, if there were no such law...
Um.. Civil Rights Act of 1965?
Huh? I haven't even commented on the baker, who is irrelevant to what I've been discussing. Swap Christian Baker for Muslim Store Owner if you wish, doesn't change how the law works.Why are you against the first amendment and forcing someone to do something against their religion? I mean you are for the baker and all with THEIR convictions, why are you against Muslim convictions? Are Christian values the only ones to be protected?
Gender is not federally protected with respect to public accommodations... most (probably all) states now have more stringent law, but whether or not (and the extent) to which gender is protected is a matter of state law:
42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
Current through Pub. L. 113-163. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Well I ever gave about that issue in the first place- what I was merely pointing out to is the fact that those like myself who could care less would still find it highly offensive if some dudes (or even chicks) tried their nonsense in say a restaurant or a venue where the emphasis is family time...
Look gays, just like every "minority" generally self-segregated, weather it's sexuality, interests or even economic status..... It may appear that from a progressive point of few it may be "fear and hatred" but in reality it has nothing to do whit that and everything to do with a) creating a better life for your family and b) self salvation/tradition etc...
"Put up signs" "Exclaim"
In other words, feel free to air their opinions publicly.
....On the other hand businesses could reserve the right to discriminate based on any one (or more) of the selected criteria and maintain that certification on file with the business licensing bureau.
....
.
It's the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It didn't include women.
Women are covered under State Public Accommodation laws.
>>>>
A good question. Although restrooms do not fall under the definition of public accommodations, they would be covered if part of an establishment that is (i.e. restaurants, hotels, entertainment venues). In theory, it would be legal under federal law (though stupid from a practical standpoint) to start a public outhouse business that catered to only one sex.Interesting. I wonder why that is? I guess I can think of a few reasons, such as segregation of restroom facilities.
I can't fathom the American constitution forcing people to break their religious beliefs.
Public accommodations is not really an equal rights issue. There is no constitutional right to be treated equally at a restaurant.It seems you're right.
It makes sense. It took another half century or so from the time blacks were allowed to vote until women were allowed the same. Equal rights for women seems to lag behind a bit.
Only a Christian belief. Otherwise you have all the protections in the world.
I like Cat's face.
In my avatar? That's Sonny.
I like Sonny.
Got to be femaleI like Cat's face.
Got to be female
Nothing can stop Alice's Restaurant?
A good question. Although restrooms do not fall under the definition of public accommodations, they would be covered if part of an establishment that is (i.e. restaurants, hotels, entertainment venues). In theory, it would be legal under federal law (though stupid from a practical standpoint) to start a public outhouse business that catered to only one sex.
The Federal government has no power to prohibit discriminatory public accommodations simply because they are discriminatory or mean-spirited. It must have a good reason to limit the rights of the business owner, therefore Federal accommodations laws need to be crafted as narrowly as possible.