Of course, just as a black business could refuse business to whites, or a gay business could refuse service to straight people or a business could refuse service to gingers.
I'm glad I don't live in a country that allows that. I have family members still alive who lived in that time period and the division between two groups of people they described was insane. Allow one business man to turn down a group of people, what's to stop the entire county or heck region of the state to join in? I can guarantee you if you allowed nonsense like this, there WOULD be businesses to attempt it around here in Alabama and there WOULD be race riots and burned down buildings as a result. I hate over the top PC people and those who use race/gender/sexual orientation as a crutch... but you have to draw the line somewhere.
I just think those times are past us. Sure businesses might be successful by discriminating in some podunk town in Mississippi, but I do not believe that those types of businesses would survive in the majority of the US. Maybe I'm just being naive.
Just throwing it out there but in some cases businesses that have taken a stand against gays have gotten more business. Remember Chick-fil-a? They had people lined up outside the door to give them business and support them based on their stance against gay marriage.
To be fair, CFA didn't take a stand against gays. The CEO just said he was against gay marriage. They weren't trying to refuse gays service. People rallied around CFA due to the unfair criticism he received for stating his beliefs.
That is true. I just wonder how many businesses really would suffer. They will get a bump in business from conservative Christians that feel the same way and many people would go on life as normal if they really like the product or service that company provides.
I guess this is moot since the bill was vetoed, but to those who are/were against this bill, how would you feel in this scenario? My neighbor and her little girl comes over and asks me to buy her Girl Scout cookies. I say I'm sorry kiddo, but I can't do that this year because I won't support their radical leftist agenda. She says but you bought some last year. I say that last year I didn't know about their radical leftist agenda. Keep in mind I am polite, but hold fast to my sincerely held personal value system, which will not let me in good conscience support their agenda. Then, the next day the other neighbor and their little girl, who happens to be a member of the American Heritage Girls comes over and asks me to buy popcorn in support of the AHG. I gladly write the $30 check and say I proudly support their mission. Neighbor 1 with the Girl Scouts finds out about this. She then successfully sues me for discriminating against her little girl for exercising my belief system in a private business transaction. While this is a hypothetical scenario, it is totally possible and unfortunately not all that far of a leap from the lawsuits levied against conservatives who happen to be in the wedding industry. I sincerely believe that my political and and personal value system is an inherent part of my being, and living a "conservative/libertarian lifestyle" is hard-wired into my psyche and important to my well being - hey Lady Gaga lover: I was born this way. Just as proud homosexuals believe that their personal proclivities and activities is a part of their psyche and well being, so are my sincerely held beliefs part of me being me. Suffice to say that in private matters, including private business transactions, everyone should be allowed to have the freedom to discriminate- with their feet and their wallets. In both directions. If someone wants to refuse service based on prejudice, we're free to discriminate against that business, and take our dollars elsewhere. It's all about the 2-way street of freedom.
Jeeze, how many time do you have to be countered with logic and fact to relent? Not trying to be mean but really... Bravo sir!
Oh okay. Your side is all facts and logic. My points and opinion has been completely disproved and debunked. Got it. I guess now is the time for a good civil thread to take a turn for the worst.
My wife is always nagging me because I always walk in the door and tell her to not shop somewhere or buy a specific product because the product may be owned, or the business may be operated by a liberal nut job. She always tells me that someday we are going to have to live off the grid because we wont be able to buy anything cuz of my beliefs. LOL but it sure gives me satisfaction to think that they care about my dollars. (which they don't)
I didn't fall victim to anything, I actually read the bill with my wife and fully understood what it meant on it's face.
Well....I don't know what else to say guy...you did sort of keep running into dead end arguments against Hooker. When you have to keep pointing out that his point was correct I just don't know how many ways it can be rebutted. Not trying to steer a thread into something uncivil, be careful not to interpret it that way because a nerve got pinched.
jeez. Hook had some dead ends with my points as well. There have been good points on both sides. But you had to get all cocky about only one side having fact and logic.
The difference is neither side can claim logic.... But if we want to split hairs it definitely wouldn't be the side claiming businesses should be able to racially/sexually discriminate because of their belief system. Both sides have admitted pitfalls in their arguments.
Perhaps you all need to rent a van and go for a road trip to hunt moose. The van might Explode but in the end it will be worked out...or not.
Here is a far fetched scenario. A person opens a business not open to car travel, right in the middle of his 2,000 acre piece of property. That person openly says, "no person sympathetic to any Muslim extremist group can enter any part of my property". Does that person have a right to not serve people who are sympathetic to any Muslim extremist group by in fact trespassing them before they even set foot on his property, thereby rendering patronage unavailable to those trespassed by decree? Why I used that example above is this....A business purchases a piece of land and then begins to do business off that piece of privately acquire land. Shouldn't they be able to do what they please with their land, hence do what they please with their place of business?
