I'm pretty conservative but this is over the top. I'm all for preventing lawsuits but Christian business owners should not be able to refuse service to Muslims, Gays, etc... and vise versa applies as well. I'm not overly sensitive and you probably couldn't offend me if you gave it your best shot, but I agree in that it's sending two messages saying Businesses can't hire whoever they feel best represents them by discrimination, but are able to do so in which customers they serve. Bill owns a coffee shop. He can't say no to hiring a gay guy but he can legally say no to a gay guy walking in for coffee? That's dumb.
As for the employee discrimination.... the reason it never comes up from management in interviews is because they do NOT want to officially know as that makes them liable. If it comes up that a woman is planning to have children soon in an interview and a guy is picked over her (even if he is more qualified) she can sue him for discrimination. If that tidbit of information was never brought up in the interview, she has no case even if he DOES discriminate against her for that. Interviewers are trained to avoid in ANY way the topics of religion, sexual orientation, family plans, etc during interviews. Any of which being discussed opens them up to liability issues big time.
i personally think that the 1st Amendment was put first for a reason. Nobody should have to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate a cultural trend.
who they hire is not the same as why they would sell their product to people. for example, the baker from denver had no problem selling to homosexuals except in the case of supporting their "homosexual marriage." the baker is fine selling their product to someone but shouldn't be forced to violate their religious freedom to support something that is contrary to their beliefs.
Here is my .02 and I am not going to comment again on the matter because it is stupid to me. This whole thing is an issue because homosexual people are constantly wanting to be compared to black people and the plight they went through. Trying to come across as a minority when they are not a minority in the way we know minorities.(Blacks, Hispanics and so on). So, they liken their not being given service in a certain location to the way black people were denied service during the pre-civil rights era. Which is a slap in the face to black people. A homosexual person can walk into any establishment and buy and order anything they wish. Unless they are flaming, no one knows they are homosexual until they inform that business that they are. Otherwise no one is none the wiser. A black person was denied service without even opening their mouths. Why? It was obvious. Private business can do whatever they please in my book. Hint the term Private. Like someone else said, "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Money is green. The more people you serve, the more money you make. If they want to limit their earning potential, so be it. That is their choice.
Should a white business owner be able to refuse service to a person for being black? Not comparing the history of the two, just wondering if those that feel this is ok, feel this is ok across the board or only in certain scenarios? I'm torn on it. In theory yeah, money talks BS walks and business owners should be free to do as they please. But that's kind of how it was 60-70 years ago and it oppressed millions of people in this country. America is better than that!
Yes, it's their right....it's our right to be A-holes if we so choose, the free market system will determine who succeeds and who does not. Someone doing business like that won't last a year....it's how society grows and matures. You don't allow a governemental dictatorship into the USA....period. This is crazy, I'll retain the right as a business owner to conduct business with who the hell ever I choose to or choose not to. God help the poor SOB that I'm forced to provide a service to against my free will because he/she will get the worst effin product or job they could have dreamt possible. This bill was a redundant POS to start with, government never had a right to dictate to anyone who they have to conduct business with.
so are you saying that a person's religious beliefs are secondary to cultural trends, and that the final arbiter to a person's conscience is not their God but their government? we are better than that. but a person should not have to violate their religious convictions on those grounds. for example, if a business does not wish to host, say, the reception to a gay wedding, should the government have the final say? this law doesn't say you can discriminate against gays. i've read it. this law says you don't have to violate your first right of religious freedom.
Our world and country can be real stupid sometimes. Why everything has to go through the government is beyond me. Real simple.....private businesses should be able to make decisions like this whenever....and be subject to the free market. My wife and I got into a debate over this issue. I told her it is stupid for people to be so intolerant of gay people that they refuse service, however I believe it is a business owners right to do so.
It has nothing to do with intolerance, you and many others have fell victim to the media sensationalism of this bill. This bill was purely to protect religious individuals and institutions from partaking in homosexual ceremonies. It was not a , " we don't serve homos here". The business would have to show that they had sincere religious beliefs. I believe government has no right to dictate who must serve who, but unfortunately without this type of protections the homosexual lobby will continue to target religious individuals and try and make them conform to there social abnormalities or face lawsuits and possibility of going out of business. And if it is about tolerance, should it not be a two way street.
