• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Heterosexual atheist or homosexual believer ?

Which one would you refuse to serve ?

  • Hetero atheist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Homo believer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would not serve criminals and murderers either

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
Well, I'm not the nosy type, so in most business transactions the customer's religion and/or sexual orientation wouldn't come up.

If they somehow did, I'd still serve both customers.
 
We have these laws there to help reduce people having to make "a hard choice" (whatever that means in relation to this), and is able to be treated fairly. We should hold businesses to an expectation of treating their customers fairly to the highest extent possible. This is one way we help to do that, by having anti-discrimination/public accommodation laws in place.
All anti-discrimination laws do is force people to carry out an action. They do not, and cannot, force people to agree with said action or force people to smile and be happy about it. That's the part that you are (purposely?) ignoring.
 
All anti-discrimination laws do is force people to carry out an action. They do not, and cannot, force people to agree with said action or force people to smile and be happy about it. That's the part that you are (purposely?) ignoring.

It doesn't matter if they aren't happy about doing it, nor that they will still hold bigoted positions on issues. Pretty sure Maurice
Bessinger, owner of Piggie Parks BBQ, never changed his mind about black people and that he shouldn't have to serve them. How did it hurt him to serve them in his restaurants or even via drivethru (some contention was made about this distinction during the initial trial on this)? He claimed doing so violated his religious freedoms as well.
 
We have these laws there to help reduce people having to make "a hard choice" (whatever that means in relation to this), and is able to be treated fairly. We should hold businesses to an expectation of treating their customers fairly to the highest extent possible. This is one way we help to do that, by having anti-discrimination/public accommodation laws in place.

So how are you being fair to the business?
 
So how are you being fair to the business?

It doesn't just using the gun of the government to force people into tolerance.
 
So how are you being fair to the business?

The business holds more power than the consumers as it is, just in the nature of being a business. Laws like these attempt to tip that balance imbalance just a little bit more in the consumers' direction (which is still going to leave it well above the power a consumer has).
 
Heard this asked elsewhere and thought it was an interesting question...

If you're gay, why would you even want to patronize a business who doesn't like you? To prove a point?

Imagine being a gay teenager stuck in a shanty town with 1 restaurant, or a newborn of a gay couple who is refused medical service, and you might understand
 
All anti-discrimination laws do is force people to carry out an action. They do not, and cannot, force people to agree with said action or force people to smile and be happy about it. That's the part that you are (purposely?) ignoring.

Really, you think we believe the minute the civil rights act was passed, all "white only" establishments were super friendly to blacks? But forcing the issue is the only way to make any progress when it comes to devils like that
 
Really, you think we believe the minute the civil rights act was passed, all "white only" establishments were super friendly to blacks? But forcing the issue is the only way to make any progress when it comes to devils like that

That is probably why progress was being made before any force by the government was issued.
 
Imagine being a gay teenager stuck in a shanty town with 1 restaurant, or a newborn of a gay couple who is refused medical service, and you might understand

Ummm...what? So he is supposed to imagine how he would feel as a newborn being refused service? You are aware the newborn would not be aware of that, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom