Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.
The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.
I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.
A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.
Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has pasted. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.
The thing is hotel rooms, as places where people visit, may actually fall under federal scrutiny, as they are part of interstate commerce.
And finding another hotel at 3:00 AM when tired of driving can be an issue, and falls under the "immediacy" requirement I have often used in these posts as a reason PA laws are needed and are valid.
When you invite someone onto your property to do point of sale commerce, government can have a say in it. To me they have much less of a say with contracted services that are not time-sensitive, non-vital, and easily replaceable.
No.
Hotel rooms are not "part of interstate commerce". The hotel is in one state; you're in the same state while you're renting the room. Really, really tired of all these weasely excuses for the federal government to micromanage things.
And 1) why in the hell are you leaving it until 3 am to find a hotel room? 2) where the hell are you, that there's only one hotel? Can't say that YOUR lack of planning is anyone else's responsibility.
WHY does government get a say in anyone's commerce? You state this as though it's a self-evident fact, like "Gravity makes you fall down". I'm not seeing it.
The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.
I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.
A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.
Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has pasted. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.
The thing is hotel rooms, as places where people visit, may actually fall under federal scrutiny, as they are part of interstate commerce.
And finding another hotel at 3:00 AM when tired of driving can be an issue, and falls under the "immediacy" requirement I have often used in these posts as a reason PA laws are needed and are valid.
When you invite someone onto your property to do point of sale commerce, government can have a say in it. To me they have much less of a say with contracted services that are not time-sensitive, non-vital, and easily replaceable.
I would be willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of hotels are owned by corporations that don’t give shit about anything other than your ability to pay or not. There isn’t going to be some rash of hotels refusing X,Y, and Z. If one was foolish enough to do so, it would a PR nightmare from Hell. It’s time to get rid of all them let the market decide. That is what really achieves the maximum about of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
Well this is where we disagree. PA laws are fine when applied to actual Public Accomodations.
Yes, well, they stop being fine when we can't agree on what constitutes a public accommodation, and that's the crux of this whole argument.
It will be the right of any & all to not object to people , but instead, behaviors, ideals or rituals that can be turned away.1. Point of sale items
2. Actual ground area open to the public
3. Timely or nessasary transaction
4. Not easily found in the area.
It doesn't need to be all 3, just a combo of two or so.
It will be the right of any & all to not object to people , but instead, behaviors, ideals or rituals that can be turned away.
Informing will be key.
Example 1: two men want a hotel room at 3:00am & there are no others around. They quietly stand at the desk & get their keys. The proprietor has no idea if they’re just weary friends on a car ride, two businessmen trying to save a buck sharing a room. Whatever.
Example 2: two men come up to the desk fondling each other saying “oh how I’m going to bend you over the bed tonight!” The Muslim proprietor tells them to look elsewhere. Many many hotel keeps in rural areas are Hindu or Muslim.
Absolutism is what gets you BAKE OR DIE!. We have to be better than that.
I presume you are aware that the Court just Ruled with this baker not long ago that he can’t be punished bringing his faith to the marketplace. You can see where that would go given the lgbt cult and enough time. They would have little old Muslim woman forced to ice cakes with images of two S&M fags clad in leather, sucking each other’s dicks."Bake of find something else to do for a living."
Just like the rest of us have to do when we don't like the people we have to deal with.
I presume you are aware that the Court just Ruled with this baker not long ago that he can’t be punished bringing his faith to the marketplace.
You can see where that would go given the lgbt cult and enough time. They would have little old Muslim woman forced to ice cakes with images of two S&M fags clad in leather, sucking each other’s dicks.
So then why did Colorado allow gays to refuse printing offensive messages to their buttsex ideology?Yeah, but he still has to obey the law. Next time don't mock his superstitions, just state where he broke the law and done.
We'll drive him into bankruptcy soon...The application of the law is pretty clear. If you offer a service, you have to offer it to everyone.
It will be the right of any & all to not object to people , but instead, behaviors, ideals or rituals that can be turned away.1. Point of sale items
2. Actual ground area open to the public
3. Timely or nessasary transaction
4. Not easily found in the area.
It doesn't need to be all 3, just a combo of two or so.
Informing will be key.
Example 1: two men want a hotel room at 3:00am & there are no others around. They quietly stand at the desk & get their keys. The proprietor has no idea if they’re just weary friends on a car ride, two businessmen trying to save a buck sharing a room. Whatever.
Example 2: two men come up to the desk fondling each other saying “oh how I’m going to bend you over the bed tonight!” The Muslim proprietor tells them to look elsewhere. Many many hotel keeps in rural areas are Hindu or Muslim.
Absolutism is what gets you BAKE OR DIE!. We have to be better than that.
no, we don't.
No one is saying, Bake or Die.
They are saying, "Bake of find something else to do for a living."
Just like the rest of us have to do when we don't like the people we have to deal with.
So then why did Colorado allow gays to refuse printing offensive messages to their buttsex ideology?Yeah, but he still has to obey the law. Next time don't mock his superstitions, just state where he broke the law and done.
We'll drive him into bankruptcy soon...The application of the law is pretty clear. If you offer a service, you have to offer it to everyone.
Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.
The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.
I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.
A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.
Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has passed. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.
This case is a prime example of why public-accommodation laws are needed. Why do you want to reimpose segregation?
This critter has a business license.
BTW: please do not take this guy as a representative of Christians across the nation and the world. He is a cultist.
I just heard, "Public accommodation laws are needed because otherwise, people might feel free to disagree with me!"
I've had business licenses before, Lice. I don't remember anything in the paperwork stating that I was signing on as a slave of the government or entitled twats like you. Maybe the business licenses in Colorado have different wording.
BTW, please do not think YOU represent Christians anywhere, of any sort. You are an evil, deluded dimwit.
You appear to have lost it all together. What religion are you, anyway? How about Phillips? Methodist? Catholic? Baptiist? Lutheran? what?
Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.
The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.
I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.
A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.
Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has pasted. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.
The thing is hotel rooms, as places where people visit, may actually fall under federal scrutiny, as they are part of interstate commerce.
And finding another hotel at 3:00 AM when tired of driving can be an issue, and falls under the "immediacy" requirement I have often used in these posts as a reason PA laws are needed and are valid.
When you invite someone onto your property to do point of sale commerce, government can have a say in it. To me they have much less of a say with contracted services that are not time-sensitive, non-vital, and easily replaceable.
No.
Hotel rooms are not "part of interstate commerce". The hotel is in one state; you're in the same state while you're renting the room. Really, really tired of all these weasely excuses for the federal government to micromanage things.
And 1) why in the hell are you leaving it until 3 am to find a hotel room? 2) where the hell are you, that there's only one hotel? Can't say that YOUR lack of planning is anyone else's responsibility.
WHY does government get a say in anyone's commerce? You state this as though it's a self-evident fact, like "Gravity makes you fall down". I'm not seeing it.
When you have a business where the business is letting in the public, PA laws can and should apply.
Needing a hotel room can be a time sensitive matter, and being somewhere as "X" isn't offensive to anyone so far as I know.
Absolutism is what gets you BAKE OR DIE!. We have to be better than that.
Shhhhh!More blank assertions. "If you're doing business that actually involves doing business, that means the government takes control. Because I think so!"
We aren't going to "be better than that" while you're weaseling around with this "It's wrong . . . except when I think it's okay" BS. That just opens the door for more retards to impose THEIR occasions when they think it's okay. After all, if YOU get to abrogate people's freedom for your priorities, why shouldn't they?
Shhhhh!More blank assertions. "If you're doing business that actually involves doing business, that means the government takes control. Because I think so!"
We aren't going to "be better than that" while you're weaseling around with this "It's wrong . . . except when I think it's okay" BS. That just opens the door for more retards to impose THEIR occasions when they think it's okay. After all, if YOU get to abrogate people's freedom for your priorities, why shouldn't they?
You're interfering with the LGBT cults' desires that Colorado and other states establish their religion as the official enforceable religion! How DARE you!
Cult? Are you talking about Trump supporters? After all they love Russia more than they love America.One could argue that a cult surrounding deviant sex acts is a religion as well. As such, both that religion & any other could object to promoting the other’s values.Why should I be forced to do business with someone that violates my deeply held belief concerning the First Commandment? After all, being a member of particular religious group isn’t innate, but a behavioral choice. You’re cool with people being forced into business with one another, so long as they met whatever legal loophole you’ve crafted for people you like.
So this will be fair mdk. Unless your cult has a rabbit to pull out of the hat that just some deviant sex acts ( but not others) are innate
You’ve argued that on many occasions here in the past. You stopped doing so after I pointed out that classifying being gay as a religion would give them a vast amount of more rights. You know, like being covered under every state and federal public accommodation law instead of just a handful. You backed away from that nonsense like a vampire from garlic.
They have yet to apply for tax exempt status. Always wondered why, as you also recall. Why do you suppose that is?
Because only retards like you and other assorted loons think being gay is a religion.
You do have to admit there are some militant queers out there who probably should be classified as a cult.
Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has pasted. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.
The thing is hotel rooms, as places where people visit, may actually fall under federal scrutiny, as they are part of interstate commerce.
And finding another hotel at 3:00 AM when tired of driving can be an issue, and falls under the "immediacy" requirement I have often used in these posts as a reason PA laws are needed and are valid.
When you invite someone onto your property to do point of sale commerce, government can have a say in it. To me they have much less of a say with contracted services that are not time-sensitive, non-vital, and easily replaceable.
I would be willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of hotels are owned by corporations that don’t give shit about anything other than your ability to pay or not. There isn’t going to be some rash of hotels refusing X,Y, and Z. If one was foolish enough to do so, it would a PR nightmare from Hell. It’s time to get rid of all them let the market decide. That is what really achieves the maximum about of freedom for the maximum amount of people.
Well this is where we disagree. PA laws are fine when applied to actual Public Accomodations.
Yes, well, they stop being fine when we can't agree on what constitutes a public accommodation, and that's the crux of this whole argument.
It really is simple.
1. Point of sale items
2. Actual ground area open to the public
3. Timely or nessasary transaction
4. Not easily found in the area.
It doesn't need to be all 3, just a combo of two or so.
It will be the right of any & all to not object to people , but instead, behaviors, ideals or rituals that can be turned away.1. Point of sale items
2. Actual ground area open to the public
3. Timely or nessasary transaction
4. Not easily found in the area.
It doesn't need to be all 3, just a combo of two or so.
Informing will be key.
Example 1: two men want a hotel room at 3:00am & there are no others around. They quietly stand at the desk & get their keys. The proprietor has no idea if they’re just weary friends on a car ride, two businessmen trying to save a buck sharing a room. Whatever.
Example 2: two men come up to the desk fondling each other saying “oh how I’m going to bend you over the bed tonight!” The Muslim proprietor tells them to look elsewhere. Many many hotel keeps in rural areas are Hindu or Muslim.
What a person does in their hotel room does not require an endorsement or participation by the person selling the room.
Shhhhh!More blank assertions. "If you're doing business that actually involves doing business, that means the government takes control. Because I think so!"
We aren't going to "be better than that" while you're weaseling around with this "It's wrong . . . except when I think it's okay" BS. That just opens the door for more retards to impose THEIR occasions when they think it's okay. After all, if YOU get to abrogate people's freedom for your priorities, why shouldn't they?
You're interfering with the LGBT cults' desires that Colorado and other states establish their religion as the official enforceable religion! How DARE you!
