It's the old "your rights end where my nose starts". When you advertise to photograph weddings, or you have rooms for rent, or you're hiring to fill a job, and you say "I am judging your life by my religious beliefs and so am punishing you by refusing you what I've said I'll do for everyone", you just hit the nose.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".
This is wrong, or at least very misleading. Federal law prohibits discrimination in wide range of situations from housing to employment.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
If there would be additional expense or effort or risk, that would be one thing. If you were asked to perform an action that you normally would not do (like photograph the after-wedding orgy), that would also be reasonable to reject. "My beliefs say that what you do is really really icky so even if you want me to do the exact thing I do for everyone else, I refuse", that's not reasonable. The first are judging the job. The latter is judging the person.
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
That would be in direct opposition to all of recorded human history.
That's a terribly cynical point of view. I'm sure that there have been uncorrupted leaders in human history, as well as many for whom the corruption was relatively insignificant.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would cover them with "plausible deniability"?
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
So if the law is violated and the reasons given provide the "violator" with plausible coverage, you don't really care. Is that accurate?
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
They might, but bigots tend to be rather stupid and not at all subtle. So a lot of them will make it very clear about why they are discriminating, and even if they dissemble, they often get caught. Remember, it's a tort, not a criminal offense, so the case must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. They may get away with it in a single case, but it's the pattern that hangs them (and whistleblowing employees).
That ruling upholds a ban on affirmative action - it doesn't permit discrimination. Where were you going with that?
I was under the impression that Affirmative Action was passed as a remedy for discrimination.
I think that was the idea, but a poor one. In any case, banning affirmative action does not equate to condoning discrimination, or to disapproving of other, more defensible, anti-discrimination measures.
At least Republicans are consistent. They want to do business with these regimes AND they also want to execute gay people and think that women should not enjoy equal rights!
Comments
It's the old "your rights end where my nose starts". When you advertise to photograph weddings, or you have rooms for rent, or you're hiring to fill a job, and you say "I am judging your life by my religious beliefs and so am punishing you by refusing you what I've said I'll do for everyone", you just hit the nose.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".
This is wrong, or at least very misleading. Federal law prohibits discrimination in wide range of situations from housing to employment.
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
That would be in direct opposition to all of recorded human history.
This is wrong, or at least very misleading. Federal law prohibits discrimination in wide range of situations from housing to employment.
"Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals..."
The details in this discussion are important.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
"Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals..."
The details in this discussion are important.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
The short answer is yes, owners of public accommodations are required under civil rights laws to extend their services to all. This stuff was settled over fifty years ago. Has it become debatable again? Remarkable. Sad.
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
If a business advertises their services, are they required to take your business regardless of the inconvenience, financial or personal hardship or effrontery to their personal beliefs your patronage may represent?
If there would be additional expense or effort or risk, that would be one thing. If you were asked to perform an action that you normally would not do (like photograph the after-wedding orgy), that would also be reasonable to reject. "My beliefs say that what you do is really really icky so even if you want me to do the exact thing I do for everyone else, I refuse", that's not reasonable. The first are judging the job. The latter is judging the person.
No doubt, but someone has to do it. I think it would be fair to suppose that not everyone is corrupted.
That would be in direct opposition to all of recorded human history.
That's a terribly cynical point of view. I'm sure that there have been uncorrupted leaders in human history, as well as many for whom the corruption was relatively insignificant.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
That's incorrect. As I posted earlier, that is a law that applies to the States, not individuals.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
Same answer. Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations. Not just a detail, sorry. The big picture is important.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
Are you aware of this recent Supreme Court ruling?: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305894694/supreme-court-rules-on-race-based-college-admissions
Do you agree with this ruling?
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would cover them with "plausible deniability"?
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
This is just plain wrong. You should look it up. If what you say is accurate (which it most certainly is not), then a restaurant could still post a sign that says "no blacks will be seated," as was done routinely in some parts of the country into the 1960s. Which, as we all (should) know, is now illegal.
There are differences between State and Federal laws.
Are you aware of this recent Supreme Court ruling?: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305894694/supreme-court-rules-on-race-based-college-admissions
Do you agree with this ruling?
That ruling upholds a ban on affirmative action - it doesn't permit discrimination. Where were you going with that?
I am simply correcting your misrepresentation of the anti-discrimination laws. I am entirely uninterested in theoretical debates about how someone might try to get away with violating the law.
So if the law is violated and the reasons given provide the "violator" with plausible coverage, you don't really care. Is that accurate?
That ruling upholds a ban on affirmative action - it doesn't permit discrimination. Where were you going with that?
I was under the impression that Affirmative Action was passed as a remedy for discrimination.
Do you think that any business whose owners are prone to discriminate against customers might also have excuses to not provide services which would give them "plausible deniability"? As I understand it, proving discrimination is very difficult in court.
They might, but bigots tend to be rather stupid and not at all subtle. So a lot of them will make it very clear about why they are discriminating, and even if they dissemble, they often get caught. Remember, it's a tort, not a criminal offense, so the case must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. They may get away with it in a single case, but it's the pattern that hangs them (and whistleblowing employees).
That ruling upholds a ban on affirmative action - it doesn't permit discrimination. Where were you going with that?
I was under the impression that Affirmative Action was passed as a remedy for discrimination.
I think that was the idea, but a poor one. In any case, banning affirmative action does not equate to condoning discrimination, or to disapproving of other, more defensible, anti-discrimination measures.
Also, HP does business with Saudi Arabia and she also went to school and has a driver's license.
What a hypocrite!