If business ownrs should be forced to accomodate homosexuals?

[emilynghiem]

If someone is threatening, harassing or abusive, etc.
no, you don't have to carry a gun to be refused and asked to leave. If someone is causing nuisance or disruption, yes, that person can be black or any affiliation and be asked to leave; being black or transgender or any other minority is not an excuse to take advantage of if you are abusing your rights or freedoms to cause a breach of the peace for others.

If all people agreed to act respectable and responsible in public
we could tell who the troublemakers are. There is nothing wrong with making that extra effort to make it clear you are not some criminal with ill intent, instead of flaunting it and testing people who do not know you personally.

If everyone agreed what the rules are, and how to act, and what the PROCEDURES are for correcting a problem, we could address most conflicts in advance, and agree how to proceed, instead of waiting till the point of confrontation to react. We need to go back to the days when communities knew who each other was, so there is less mistaken profiling.

So... you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?

In general where there is a conflict, which are often mutual and not onesided, I suggest resolving conflicts first, get the issues and emotions out of the way
BEFORE making a legal decision that all parties agree respects them equally.

If it's too much work to resolve, the party who doesn't want the hassle will agree to some other concession and be happy with that.

If it's a matter of projecting personal issues on someone else to make a statement, where something personal needs to be resolved,
I believe in addressing that FULLY as a PERSONAL issue
and keeping the business and legal issues second.

If you treat people as individuals on a PERSONAL level
more of these problems can be resolved and never become some legal battle;
once it escalates to push an agenda, and treat someone as "symbolizing"
a whole group, issue or problem, it's almost impossible to resolve.

The best approach I know is not let it get to that level.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If someone is threatening, harassing or abusive, etc.
no, you don't have to carry a gun to be refused and asked to leave. If someone is causing nuisance or disruption, yes, that person can be black or any affiliation and be asked to leave; being black or transgender or any other minority is not an excuse to take advantage of if you are abusing your rights or freedoms to cause a breach of the peace for others.

Ok. let me ask again, more clearly:
All things being equal - that is, equal demeanor, equal behavior, etc, you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?

 

[Peach]

If someone is threatening, harassing or abusive, etc.
no, you don't have to carry a gun to be refused and asked to leave. If someone is causing nuisance or disruption, yes, that person can be black or any affiliation and be asked to leave; being black or transgender or any other minority is not an excuse to take advantage of if you are abusing your rights or freedoms to cause a breach of the peace for others.

Ok. let me ask again, more clearly:
All things being equal - that is, equal demeanor, equal behavior, etc, you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?

The poster responded, ASKED & ANSWERED.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If someone is threatening, harassing or abusive, etc.
no, you don't have to carry a gun to be refused and asked to leave. If someone is causing nuisance or disruption, yes, that person can be black or any affiliation and be asked to leave; being black or transgender or any other minority is not an excuse to take advantage of if you are abusing your rights or freedoms to cause a breach of the peace for others.

Ok. let me ask again, more clearly:
All things being equal - that is, equal demeanor, equal behavior, etc, you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?

The poster responded, ASKED & ANSWERED.

The poster responded. Nowhere in the response was an answer to my question.

 

[daws101]

If someone is threatening, harassing or abusive, etc.
no, you don't have to carry a gun to be refused and asked to leave. If someone is causing nuisance or disruption, yes, that person can be black or any affiliation and be asked to leave; being black or transgender or any other minority is not an excuse to take advantage of if you are abusing your rights or freedoms to cause a breach of the peace for others.

Ok. let me ask again, more clearly:
All things being equal - that is, equal demeanor, equal behavior, etc, you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?

how many times does she need to answer...bet you were/ are a bratty child who rants and throws tantrums when you don't get what you want..

 

[daws101]

Ok. let me ask again, more clearly:
All things being equal - that is, equal demeanor, equal behavior, etc, you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?

The poster responded, ASKED & ANSWERED.

The poster responded. Nowhere in the response was an answer to my question.

BullShit you just didn't get the answer you wanted...
I put it to you like this, if someone not a police officer uniformed or plain clothes entered my place of business open carrying a firearm they would be escorted out, legal or not ,because it's bad for business...

 

[GreenBean]

Nope. Splain it to me.
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

Where both people in such a conflict have EQUAL beliefs that are BOTH protected by law,
then neither side can force govt to impose on the other without violating Constitutional rights or protections of the "losing side."

The way I propose to uphold EQUAL Constitutional protections is to mediate, resolve the conflict, where neither side is violated and both get what they need to feel "represented/included."

Forgiveness cannot be imposed by govt but is a personal process and choice.
The people would have to agree to work together personally to form a solution outside of govt.

I would ask that if both people want to invoke their Constitutional protections, to respect the same of the other person's beliefs.
And mediate to find a solution that way where govt does not have to take sides.

NOTE: if those two parties cannot successfully mediate, I would ask help of the larger community on both sides, that does not
agree with either of the one-sided rulings that would result, to help form a solution and ask govt to endorse THAT instead.
(EX1: if people cannot agree on a policy for transgender use of restrooms, without either violating equal protections of
one side's rights or beliefs or the other's beliefs; then ask the community to raise the funds to install UNISEX restrooms that
are understood to be of people of either gender, and nobody else use that restroom if uncomfortable with it being UNISEX.
EX2: if people do not feel comfortable offering services with wedding or photography, then have a system set up where
businesses can refer certain jobs to subcontractors who agree to these, and not be considered rejection or discrimination.
So a company can still bake the cake or design the gown, but refer the tux, photography or attendance at services to others.
EX3: In order to screen customers in advance to prevent legal liabilities and costs, have clients fill out a form agreeing to
mediation and consensus on any conflicts that may arise, and agree to avoid any legal actions or expenses.
This way, if someone's intent is to harass and impose, they can be refused business on legal grounds, similar to agreeing to arbitration before conducting business.

Frankly I do not believe it is workable or ethical to have people use govt/courts to defend their constitutional beliefs if they don't respect the same of others.
Abusing legal defense, to me, is like abusing a firearm to defend one own's desire for property at the expense of someone's equal right to their property.
I would recommend mediation and consensus to prevent that from happening. With govt, I would require it where citizens believe and agree to those standards of law,
but citizens remain free to choose to follow those laws required of govt.)

How does any of this answer my question?

I don't think you'll find an answer to your question grasshopper - if the answer you are seeking is one that suits your agenda - then perhaps it doesn't exist .

I find myself always waiting for the questions for which I have answers prepared . But in your case WTF is the question? IN some cases the questions are more important than answers. However, in your case do not seek the answers. Let the answers find you.

It is far wiser to ask for a question than an answer. When you think you have all the answers, it simply means you have run out of questions. Did that question your answer or answer your question =-smart ass. :>

 

[auditor0007]

Interesting. Why is it supposedly illegal to discriminate against gays since they do not fit into any of the constitutionally protected classes?

Where does the constitution say we cannot discriminate based on people's behaviors?

Religion is a behavior lockefag. Should we be able to discriminate against religion?

Religion is a behavior lockefag. Should we be able to discriminate against religion?

Religion is discriminated against all the time. Go to a Kosher deli and ask for a ham sandwich, just for you, special order. Go to a muslim bakery and ask for a wedding cake with bride, groom and bells. Special order. See how far you get.[/QUOTE]

Dumb example; a kosher deli not selling you a ham sandwich is not discrimination because they don't sell ham sandwiches to anybody since they don't even carry ham. In order to discriminate, a business must sell a product or service to some of its customers and deny it to others. That is discrimination.

 

[LockeJaw]

"We don't cater to homosexual marriages because of religion" is just as good a reason as it gets, auditor. Stop with the false accusation that Bean is using a bad analogy. That you cannot think deep enough to understand it does NOT make it a "bad analogy". learn how to uncostrict your own thinking

 

[Silhouette]

There is no need for anyone to disclose their sexuality to any business, unless that business is specifically engaged in promoting weddings or has something to do with them. If a gay person is flaunting their sexulaity openly, they may be asked to leave. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone who behaves badly.

Behavior is the key in diciphering the proper legal action on any of these matters. So far the general public has been fed a false premise that LGBTs [just them but not other deviations] are somehow "a race" or "special class". The only special classes are religions. And so far the cult has not applied for federal recognition.

See what a difference a change in premise can make in your legal case: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

If someone is threatening, harassing or abusive, etc.
no, you don't have to carry a gun to be refused and asked to leave. If someone is causing nuisance or disruption, yes, that person can be black or any affiliation and be asked to leave; being black or transgender or any other minority is not an excuse to take advantage of if you are abusing your rights or freedoms to cause a breach of the peace for others.

Ok. let me ask again, more clearly:
All things being equal - that is, equal demeanor, equal behavior, etc, you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?

how many times does she need to answer...bet you were/ are a bratty child who rants and throws tantrums when you don't get what you want..

The poster responded. Nowhere in the response was an answer to my question.
Disagree?
Point out the answer in her response.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think you'll find an answer to your question grasshopper - if the answer you are seeking is one that suits your agenda - then perhaps it doesn't exist .

Nope- there's no answer there , period.
Disagree? Point it out.

I find myself always waiting for the questions for which I have answers prepared . But in your case WTF is the question?

Really?
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

 

[Silhouette]

How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

I repeat, the hinge is that behaviors don't have constitutional rights, outside of federally-recognized religions.

There is no need for anyone to disclose their sexuality to any business, unless that business is specifically engaged in promoting weddings or has something to do with them. If a gay person is flaunting their sexulaity openly, they may be asked to leave. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone who behaves badly.

Behavior is the key in diciphering the proper legal action on any of these matters. So far the general public has been fed a false premise that LGBTs [just them but not other deviations] are somehow "a race" or "special class". The only special classes that involve behaviors are religions. And so far the cult has not applied for federal recognition.

See what a difference a change in premise can make in your legal case: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

I repeat, the hinge is that behaviors don't have constitutional rights, outside of federally-recognized religions.

So? We're not talking about atrocious or obnoxious behavior, we're talking about the simple exercise of rights; the question revolves around people exercising their rights, and the constitutionality of a commercial establishment violating those rights.

All else being equal....
-You walk into a bakery with your same-sex spouse; you cannot be refused service,
-You walk into a bakery with a legally-carried gun; you can be refused service.
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

 

[LockeJaw]

M14 is conflating the NATURAL right of self defense with homosexual marriage...already lost doing so. Stop brother, you're wrong.

 

[GreenBean]

I don't think you'll find an answer to your question grasshopper - if the answer you are seeking is one that suits your agenda - then perhaps it doesn't exist .

Nope- there's no answer there , period.
Disagree? Point it out.

I find myself always waiting for the questions for which I have answers prepared . But in your case WTF is the question?

Really?
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

That's a loaded Question , but I'll go with What he Said ...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=9327387&posted=1#post9326221

Personally - I refuse to allow myself to be roped into a conversation where someone like m14 places himself in the role of an MC and feels he has the right and authority to call the shots and ask all the questions - and everyone else is spposed to run around pulling their hair out trying to find an answer acceptable to him - their are no accpetable answers other than his opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 is conflating the NATURAL right of self defense with homosexual marriage...already lost doing so. Stop brother, you're wrong.

Please feel free to explain how.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't think you'll find an answer to your question grasshopper - if the answer you are seeking is one that suits your agenda - then perhaps it doesn't exist .

Nope- there's no answer there , period.
Disagree? Point it out.

I find myself always waiting for the questions for which I have answers prepared . But in your case WTF is the question?

Really?
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

That's a loaded Question , but I'll go with What he Said ...

If business ownrs should be forced to accomodate homosexuals? - Page 15 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Please feel free to address my response to that reply.

 

[GreenBean]

How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

I repeat, the hinge is that behaviors don't have constitutional rights, outside of federally-recognized religions.

So? We're not talking about atrocious or obnoxious behavior, we're talking about the simple exercise of rights; the question revolves around people exercising their rights, and the constitutionality of a commercial establishment violating those rights.

All else being equal....

-You walk into a bakery with your same-sex spouse; you cannot be refused service,


-You walk into a bakery with a legally-carried gun; you can be refused service.

Perhaps I fell behind on this thread - maybe someone posted it earlier - but where is it legal to refuse service to the carrier of a legally licensed firearm ?

How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

1. In the case of the two scenarios you just presented - show me where it is legally acceptable to refuse service to either of them ?

2. Attempts to equate any of the hypothetical situations described to a Baker refusing service to a pair of perverts is ludicrous and only remotely relevant.

3. Refusal of Service to Blatant Degenerates whose sole purpose in seeking that service is to promote their degenrate agenda is a constitutional Right - and if SCOTUS ever does determine otherwise than it's one more straw on the Camels back thats leading to the people excercising their constitutional right to Revolt.

Right of revolution

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps I fell behind on this thread - maybe someone posted it earlier - but where is it legal to refuse service to the carrier of a legally licensed firearm ?

All you have to do is post a "no guns" sign. You really didn't know this?

1. In the case of the two scenarios you just presented - show me where it is legally acceptable to refuse service to either of them ?

See above,

2. Attempts to equate any of the hypothetical situations described to a Baker refusing service to a pair of perverts is ludicrous and only remotely relevant.

Nice dodge, Try again.

3. Refusal of Service to Blatant Degenerates whose sole purpose in seeking that service is to promote their degenrate agenda is a constitutional Right - and if SCOTUS ever does determine otherwise than it's one more straw on the Camels back thats leading to the people excercising their constitutional right to Revolt.

What's that have to do wit the question I asked?