Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I have always said businesses, private businesses (not massive corporations owned by millions of people) should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
When it comes to business that is not family owned, and is instead owned by stockholders... that is where it gets tricky and they should be trying to make as much money for stock holders as possible by taking all the business they can get.
Yet family owned businesses, such as Hobby Lobby or other businesses that are not owned by stockholders should have the right to refuse service for any reason, be it religious objections or otherwise. Especially when a family thinks that following their religion is what made them successful in the first place. To not follow their religion, means they'll go to hell or lose their business.
At the same time I also support if someone wants to start a website business that flags various businesses as not serving for this or that reason. This way people can check in advance and not waste their time.
@Tyme1313 Sure why not, in the USA anyone can sue anyone for anything. What should be done though is whoever is starting the lawsuit should be required to put down a deposit, you know 10 or 20k at least, in case they lose to pay the other sides legal fees. The law should also be changed that if someone sues and loses, they cannot file bankruptcy on the court ordered legal fees to be paid to the other side beyond the deposit.
@Tyme1313 Depends on state really, here the losing party pays the legal fees for the other side... regardless of how viable the lawsuit was.
The problem is many losing side then file bankruptcy on those fees. They either need to remove that from being able to be in a bankruptcy or require a deposit.
Right after the state added legal protection for the LGBT community a guy sued his small business employer claiming he was fired for being gay. Case went on for a year or so and he lost, he did cost his former employer 90k or so in legal fees. Small business that is a lot, then he said... he isn't really gay he just wanted to make his ex boss and that company go out of business.
Sure enough, he did... without that 90k the small business own had to close up shop. He had used all his money to defend his business, had nothing left to buy product, and stay in business and was expecting when the court awarded him victory that the ex employee would pay him back.
Nope, he never got a dime... that case is a stellar example of why a deposit should be required in civil suits, only if the one filing the case doesn't have the resources later to pay it. If the government sues for something, and they lose they can pay but a private person may not have the resources.
It isn't fair what happened to this business owner and that needs to be prevented.
Very few states can actually force you to pay a legal settlement, or legal fees. California is one of the only few that can. As in California, if you lose, your assets will be auctioned off by the court to pay yours, and the opposing parties legal fees. In most states the court can order you to pay, but you don't have to. They can technically throw you in jail for contempt, unless you can't pay due to the fact you don't have it, then debtors prison is unconstitutional, so courts can't do anything. Also, many states cannot garnish a persons check for anything other than Child Support. In Texas courts hands are 100% tied. You cannot auction off the property of a Texas resident, and the law prevents a Texas resident from having their checks or bank accounts garnished.
Bankruptcy is Federal law, and is out of the hands of the states. Actually, in EVERY state, the court gets to determine if the other side must pay for legal fees. You have to file a specific motion in the state court as stipulated by the State code. Then the court can review the motion, and give the opposing party a chance to file their own motions. Before the court determines what should be done.
My premesis has a standard "right of admission reserved" sign. That allows me to ask anyone to leave for any reason. At my discretion.
I'm a Christian. I'm currently working on a project that will eventually allow me to purchase a plot of land large enough to run as a conference centre and venue for events including weddings. However the front gate will have that same moniker, mainly because it'll be my home and I reserve the right to choose who I have to open my home to.
I'm quite aware that this is likely to be considered "offensive" by the LGBTQ-RSRVP-LMAO-SWALK fuckwit community. I don't care. They're allowed to be offended by my refusal to have them in my home, but I'm not allowed to be offended that they want to celebrate something I find repugnant? Fuck that.
Actually, having that sign does not give you the legal right to deny service, at least not if you are in the US. If the reason for your denial of service is due to something covered under the 1964 civil rights act, you can be sued in federal court. What's more, besides monetary damages, including both compensatory and punitive damages, you can be ordered by the court to provide service, failure to do so can result in imprisonment for contempt of court.
What's more, in the US, home or not, if you run a public business out of it, then you have to abide by the law.
@Avicenna
Yea, no, I’m right, I have actually studied the law.
I listed the actual law. You could be sued on the basis of the 1964 civil rights act, which is given legal authority through the commerce clause of the constitution and the supremacy clause of the constitution. The lawsuit would be filed in federal court on the basis of Article III, § 2, and 28 USC § 1331, as federal lawsuits require both a federal grant of jurisdiction and a constitutional grant of jurisdiction.
Though LGBT status was not written into the 1064 civil rights act, the recent Supreme Court case, Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), has now included LGBT status into the “sex” portion of the 1964 civil rights act in regard to employment discrimination. What’s more, President Biden signed an executive order that this protection under the “sex” category is to be extended as a total protection of LGBT status under the 1964 civil rights act.
Then a the breaks, because, that is the law.
What do you mean by “cater?”
Selling neutral items to them, like an apple or an item of clothing for example? There shouldn’t really be an issue there.
Or do you mean making a Christian business sell LGBTQ+ pride items? If that’s what you mean, then no. It’s like would I expect a Christian business to sell Islamic items? Not really. And it’s not necessarily bigotry and Islamophobia for a Christian business to refuse to sell Islamic items, because that would probably go against their religion.
And if I want an Islamic item why would I go to a Christian shop and expect Christians to sell it? I’d go to an Islamic shop, right? I think that’s how if LGBTQ+ people would like certain items catered towards them they shouldn’t go to Christians but either other LGBTQ+ folk, or someone who’s beliefs don’t conflict with selling their items.
If they agree to serve the public when they sign the contract for their business license, they have to serve the public, personal beliefs aside.
If their contract has no such parameters, and I don’t know if they all do or do not, then they are probably within their right to deny service. But then we’ll have to accept that we can deny service to anyone for anything based on the servers personal beliefs. Sounds like a step back to me.
(I would target those who wear socks and sandals. NO SOUP FOR YOU)
Actually, though you can put such a term in a lease contract, federal law bars denial of service for various inalienable traits. Anything covered under the 1964 Civil rights act gives someone that faces such a denial of service the right to file a discrimination claim due to Article III § 2 of the US constitution, and 28 USC § 1331, through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
So, actually, legally, you do not actually have a legal right to deny service to anyone you want. Just a fact most people who want to deny service for these frivolous reasons rarely actually know about.
Opinion
22Opinion
It's gone far beyond just wedding cakes:
Catholic hospitals fight mandate in court
I think a key point here is that the Christian who feels their beliefs doesn't allow them to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding isn't preventing the couple from getting a cake, and the abortion or other procedures would also be available elsewhere, They're simply being targeted and harassed for their religious beliefs. Should someone be ruined financially because they won't change their views under threat by leftists.
Those who threaten boycotts and pickets are going beyond merely not doing business- they are attempting to force their values and beliefs on others and I doubt they would look so fondly on a boycott and picketing of a business whose owner's views reflects their own.
It is their legal and moral right to boycott and work to put a bigot out of business. Freedom and all...
If the shop owner is so proud of their beliefs, they shouldn't have a problem with others working to ruin them because of it. No one is forcing you to change your values, they are just holding you responsible for them. Actions and beliefs have consequences you know...
@Tyme1313: There is no legal or moral right to use the power of the state to do that- in fact it's a serious violation of their rights. It is in fact an attempt to selectively force people to believe and act in a manner that only the government approves or face financial ruin and you wouldn't support it if it was people you like being affected by it.
Using the power of the state to violating people's rights is disgusting. But as we regularly see, Marxists don't care about anyone's rights, and that includes people dumb enough to support them as they implement their agenda, foolishly cheering on totalitarians who will gladly take away their freedom as well.
You are the only person violating people's rights, it is legal and just to force you to stop. Stopping you from discriminating, is not violating your rights. It is both a legal and moral right to hold you responsible for your beliefs. If you don't like it, theocracies like Iran may be a better fit for you.
What if a business opens and denies, everyone but white people.
say like all the private bus companies in a town, just say sorry white people only.
pretty much the same discrimination.
I bet people would be, you can’t treat me like that because of my colour, I had no choice in it, it’s how I was born.
The hypocrisy, then arrives when one of those people, go on about say 2 bi girls planning on being married…. Yeah it’s a bugger I hate being discriminated against but I am happy to discriminate against others.
Well it will be too bad. Other ethnicities will have to provide services for their people. You're not entitled to other people's services just because you desire it.
And yeah that’s why I love how progressive people are in the US,
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy
Boy you are on a roll for being wrong...
Yes, if your business is open to the public, by federal law the entire public is entitled to enter.
Suppose the business owner decided that he didn't want to do business with black people. Is that okay? The people didn't choose to be black. Is that acceptable bigotry just because the business says the source of their bigotry is religious?
Religious bigotry is still bigotry. Suck it up or move to a theocracy. No one is saying you have to suck a dick, perform a gay wedding or marry a dude. But if you own a business, and you live in this country, you suck it up and serve your LGBTQA customers.
Yes its acceptable bigotry. No one is entitled to enjoy the service of another if the person doesn't desire to give you the service.
Good to know what type of religious person you are - you're okay with bigotry.
No, I'm not under you what described since I won't personally do it nor endorse it, but I stand by people having the right to operate their private entity as they see fit.
"Yes its acceptable bigotry." Your words, not mine. You're okay with bigotry.
Bigotry to object homosexuals wedding, count in. Bigotry because of someone's race then no.
Yeah, you've admitted you're okay with bigotry. The flavour of it is irrelevant to me, just like the source you use to justify it.
You're no different in my eyes than the guys who said slavery was okay because the Bible said it was okay.
Get better morals or stop getting yours from a 2000 year old text.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy
How about Christians? Can we ban y'all from the public sphere? Can we make prayer illegal the way you've tried to criminalize everything LGBT?
Acceptable bigotry, right?
It's not just catering to the individual. It's being forced to endorse the rainbow mob's beliefs and values, on threat of having a court rob you of everything for failure to comply. This is just the soft form of what ISIS did: make you recant your faith at gunpoint, and be thrown in nitric acid or get beheaded if you refused.
LGBTPIZON are just the hedonist /satanic version of ISIS.
Actually, satanism isn't something most of us practice. Not to mention you likely have no idea what the various forms of satanism actually are.
No, Christians are more like ISIS than the LGBT community, believe what we do, or we will legislate everything about your life to being a crime. Be it abortion, other faiths, or being LGBT. Christianity is essentially a terrorist organization.
@Tyme1313 : www.livescience.com/...gene-makes-someone-gay.html
God is laughing at you until his sides hurt. Also, why do you assume that "everything about someone" is only just their sins, as if there's no other aspect to living life? Pathetic!
Which side was it that implemented vaccine passport apartheid in the UK recently? Hmmm...
No, and the bigots that run the farmer's market in town need to be sued.
Liberals loved it when conservatives were being banned left and right on social media, but they don't seem to like it when a conservative bans them.
Should Hillary have been allowed to be a senator back when she as against gay marriage? She can't very well represent everyone if she's anti gay marriage. l
Great question HCG. Christian business owners should obviously not be punished for refusing to violate their sincerely held convictions. Jack Phillips and Barronell Stutzman are perfect examples of Christian business owners who are being persecuted for obeying their faith
Course not, but they also shouldn't be surprised when they get boycotted by everyone else.
Perfectly fine. No one is forcing you and I to go into certain stores and buy their products or services.
And businesses should have a right who's money they desire and who's money they don't desire. It's their right.
And I agreed with you.
Business owners have the right to refuse service. But you can't argue that businesses can refuse service to LGBT couples and then argue that Facebook can't moderate the content on their platform
I've been saying Big Tech have a right to censor whoever they desire when they desire. It's their private platform.
No, of course not.
But it depends on a business. If it's a grocery shop or a hairdresser then it shouldn't matter. If it's making a gay wedding cake then I'm taking the Christians' side.
Tolerance =/= participation.
As long as they are a private enitiy, they have no laws compelling them to cater to a group. That being said, if that's the hill they want to be boycotted and protested against on, it's their choice.
That is actually false, federal law requires them to provide services to the public. If they deny service on the basis of a protected class, they can be sued by the customer, and the federal government separately.
The only protection of this is for "private clubs with a membership fee." However, given the recent cases against the boy scouts in federal court stating that this "private club" must permit female members, that old protection will no longer likely be considered valid.
No , its a free market place , they can deal with whoever and whomever they wish to deal , free enterprise , there can be many reasons for making a particular decision.
I think Christian business need to get their stuff legalized to prevent lgbtq attack them on the basis of religious doctrines.
No, christians are entitled to do whatever they want with their business. If it's private it's theirs completely, the state should not meddle.
Nope, I believe discrimination should be completely legal in private settings. Any type of discrimination, it doesn't matter how bigoted they are, racism and shit.
Doesn't sound very Christian if they'll treat folk like that. What about all that stuff about love thy neighbor or judge not, lest ye be judged?
Loving someone doesn't mean to participate in their immorality nor endorse it.
And don't judge lest you be judged in the context is talking about hypocritically judging others while you are guilty of the same thing you are judging against.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy
Now, can you prove something is immoral?
Clearly, you don't actually read your bible. I know your bible is absolute bullshit, and I've clearly studied it more than you have.
All sin is the same in the eyes of your god. So unless you are perfect, then you fall under the law of "judge not, for the standard to which you judge others, will be the standard by which you will be judged."
No not if it’s against our beliefs we shouldn’t take part in evil or have our arm twisted to do certain things but if its just normal buisness i dont see why not
If Christians can't give their opinions on Facebook and Twitter, then no they should have to do business with Lesbos and Homos. The Gov't is picking and choosing which businesses can stay in business.
No one should be forced to do business with anyone they don’t like.
it is legal to turn down a liberal or a conservative but not a lgbtq/homosexual.
That doesn't seem like equality. That seems like special rights
They have more protection than you or I do
@Tyme1313 you are not wanted here or anywhere
Technically, they don't have to under the Sale Of Goods & Services etc. Act 1974.
Simples...
no the rainbowly ill can go get their shit elsewhere
And those who support the freedom to BE LGBT shouldn't be forced to use the bigot's businesses or property.
No. If the LGBTQ wants to be catered to, they can open their own damn business. Nothing is stopping
We learn not to judge from the Bible and seems like that might apply here i'm not sure. Do you have a business that this issue cropped up?
What’s the extreme? Every business has only a few people allowed to shop there?
Their business, their choice
I reserve the right to not do business with anyone
No why should they
Yes.
Sexual orientation and gender orientation should absolutely be a protected class under anti-discrimination laws, just like race, ethnicity, disability and nationality.
These laws forcing business should exist since it simply protects minority populations against populist suppression. And quite frankly, that is far more important than the inconvenience of someone religious not feeling comfortable with serving someone who is not heterosexual.
Understand what private business or property means.
Private ownership isn't state funded thus the owners can run their private businesses or properties as they see fit.
If someone doesn't like it then they can go to another business and support them.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy
There are lots of places where private businesses still have an obligation to act within non-discrimination laws, including sexual orientation.
So just because they are private does not necessarily imply they do5 need to.
And no, the whole reason why private business should be forced to cater towards these people because telling minority populations to just look for a different firm is exactly what allows for populist suppression of minorities
*don’t
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy
Please, stop being an idiot and talking about things you clearly don't know about.
The federal law is currently quite clear. LGBT people are protected under the 1964 civil rights act within the "sex" portion of the act. Thus, under federal law, you cannot deny service on the basis of LGBT status. So no, you CANNOT run your business as "you see fit," because, if you are a citizen of this country, you must abide by federal law. Those are the breaks...
No its there choice
it's true
You can also add your opinion below!
