Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[KevinWestern]

I am saying that the 'gay rights' crowd is now looking for protected status... forcing others to do services they want... and that is against the freedoms afforded to persons and businesses.. refusal to do business with is not the same as following pasteurization laws, cleanliness laws, etc

It's my understanding that if you're a photographer, or wedding planner, etc, you can refuse service to any couple you want. You don't have to plan someone's wedding if you don't want to, just because they called your number.

You might get in trouble if you say specifically you're refusing service because they're black, or because they're gay, but no one is forcing the vendor to cite a reason - am I correct?

Then why are we making someone lie about why they don't want to provide a service?


Unless the service is somehow linked to a government service, a person should be able to deny any customer they want. hell private businesses should be able to hire anyone they want and deny hiring anyone they want, as long as thier policy is public.

It's not a perfect system, but at the end of the day I like living in a country where businesses (under law) can't deny a person who's willing to pay money a meal because he/she is black, or he/she is gay.

I'm usually very pro-freedom, and anti-excessive regulation etc, however I think this particular one is a good one that helps to fight segregation.

.

 

[Spoonman]

interesting concept. I'm a businessman. I can't force you to do business with me. It's a free market and you can choose from any number of suppliers. but now you want to say while you have a choice who you select, i have no choice who i do business with?

 

[Google]

It's my understanding that if you're a photographer, or wedding planner, etc, you can refuse service to any couple you want. You don't have to plan someone's wedding if you don't want to, just because they called your number.

You might get in trouble if you say specifically you're refusing service because they're black, or because they're gay, but no one is forcing the vendor to cite a reason - am I correct?

Then why are we making someone lie about why they don't want to provide a service?


Unless the service is somehow linked to a government service, a person should be able to deny any customer they want. hell private businesses should be able to hire anyone they want and deny hiring anyone they want, as long as thier policy is public.

It's not a perfect system, but at the end of the day I like living in a country where businesses (under law) can't deny a person who's willing to pay money a meal because he/she is black, or he/she is gay.

I'm usually very pro-freedom, and anti-excessive regulation etc, however I think this particular one is a good one that helps to fightsegregation.

.

Yes, because it is the same thing. A private caterer or baker not providing their services to a gay wedding is the same thing as segregation.

This entire issue for some people is just about making them feel good. It feels good to be against segregation. It feels good to relate this issue to the Civil Rights Movement, equating their deeds and actions to those of Martin Luther King.

 

[martybegan]

It's my understanding that if you're a photographer, or wedding planner, etc, you can refuse service to any couple you want. You don't have to plan someone's wedding if you don't want to, just because they called your number.

You might get in trouble if you say specifically you're refusing service because they're black, or because they're gay, but no one is forcing the vendor to cite a reason - am I correct?

Then why are we making someone lie about why they don't want to provide a service?


Unless the service is somehow linked to a government service, a person should be able to deny any customer they want. hell private businesses should be able to hire anyone they want and deny hiring anyone they want, as long as thier policy is public.

It's not a perfect system, but at the end of the day I like living in a country where businesses (under law) can't deny a person who's willing to pay money a meal because he/she is black, or he/she is gay.

I'm usually very pro-freedom, and anti-excessive regulation etc, however I think this particular one is a good one that helps to fight segregation.

.

To me it fosters hidden racism behind masked smiles and supposed acceptance.

When it comes to gay marriage, however we have something that we didnt have with racial discrimination. Nowhere in christianity is a support of racism, however there is condemnation of homosexuality. So by forcing them to provide services, if they interpret that part of the bible literally, they are being placed in a position of possible sin.

Any government service should be color/sex/whatever blind. Wholly private sector operations should be able to do whatever they want, and let the people decide with their wallets if thier choice is acceptable to them.

So i doubt you would find any of this in the NY area (although banning religous fundementalists would probably occur) but somewhere in Mississippi, yes a bar may exist that bans black people.

 

[KevinWestern]

interesting concept. I'm a businessman. I can't force you to do business with me. It's a free market and you can choose from any number of suppliers. but now you want to say while you have a choice who you select, i have no choice who i do business with?

You're still allowed to refuse business to someone for all the rational, logical reasons (such as their product is poor, or they don't pay within the terms, or they have bad customer service, or there are people whose warehouse is closer and transport costs are lower, etc). All of those reasons are valid and legal.

You're just not allowed to explicitly refuse business for illogical reasons (ie supplier is black). Big f'ing deal.

Now tell me, how is that going to hurt your business in any way?

AND on top of it, if you do want to stoop to slimy level of refusing to do business with someone just because they're black - you can. All you have to do is not cite a reason for not doing business with them, or make up something that's non discriminatory (say you have a better supplier, etc).

I don't think you have any room to get upset here, Spoon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then you should put a sign on the window of your shop that states you won't serve black people, or gay people, and let the public make their choice - and they have the right to launch a boycott of your business, and attack your beliefs, if they so choose.

So if you are a prepared for your small business to go downhill, you will put that sign in your window.

I have the right to deny business to whomever I wish for whatever reason I wish. You didn't respond to my statement. I believe you should be able to serve whomever you wish without certain reprisals from one political group or another. You don't suggest I serve criminals intent on doing me harm do you?

No, actually you don't have that right.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye. [...]

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Right to Refuse Service

Yeah I do, because I own that business, and under the 4th Amendment, I am allowed to be secure in my own property and effects. I can do with my property what I choose. So actually that doesn't tell all of the story.

 

[KevinWestern]

Then why are we making someone lie about why they don't want to provide a service?


Unless the service is somehow linked to a government service, a person should be able to deny any customer they want. hell private businesses should be able to hire anyone they want and deny hiring anyone they want, as long as thier policy is public.

It's not a perfect system, but at the end of the day I like living in a country where businesses (under law) can't deny a person who's willing to pay money a meal because he/she is black, or he/she is gay.

I'm usually very pro-freedom, and anti-excessive regulation etc, however I think this particular one is a good one that helps to fightsegregation.

.

Yes, because it is the same thing. A private caterer or baker not providing their services to a gay wedding is the same thing as segregation.

This entire issue for some people is just about making them feel good. It feels good to be against segregation. It feels good to relate this issue to the Civil Rights Movement, equating their deeds and actions to those of Martin Luther King.

The laws work, google. A restaurant can no longer have a "no blacks" sign outside their door, or a "whites only" bathroom, and inevitably over time blacks will come in to use the restaurant and the owners/managers will realize it's less work to let the guy eat and take his money then push him out and face a potential lawsuit.

It just works.

.

 

[Amelia]

There's still a difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to cater for a gay wedding.

Just like there's a difference between refusing to serve a black person and refusing to cater for a NBPP meeting.

Would a baker be subject to lawsuit for not agreeing to make cupcakes for a black supremacy group?

 

[KevinWestern]

Then why are we making someone lie about why they don't want to provide a service?


Unless the service is somehow linked to a government service, a person should be able to deny any customer they want. hell private businesses should be able to hire anyone they want and deny hiring anyone they want, as long as thier policy is public.

It's not a perfect system, but at the end of the day I like living in a country where businesses (under law) can't deny a person who's willing to pay money a meal because he/she is black, or he/she is gay.

I'm usually very pro-freedom, and anti-excessive regulation etc, however I think this particular one is a good one that helps to fight segregation.

.

To me it fosters hidden racism behind masked smiles and supposed acceptance.

When it comes to gay marriage, however we have something that we didnt have with racial discrimination. Nowhere in christianity is a support of racism, however there is condemnation of homosexuality. So by forcing them to provide services, if they interpret that part of the bible literally, they are being placed in a position of possible sin.

Any government service should be color/sex/whatever blind. Wholly private sector operations should be able to do whatever they want, and let the people decide with their wallets if thier choice is acceptable to them.

So i doubt you would find any of this in the NY area (although banning religous fundementalists would probably occur) but somewhere in Mississippi, yes a bar may exist that bans black people.

Hey, it's just my opinion. I like the fact that there are laws preventing public businesses (as in a public golf course) from overtly refusing a customer a coffee because he/she is black, gay, or a woman. Note that private clubs CAN still overtly refuse membership to whomever they want.

I think this fosters good things, ultimately, and helps to break down some of the more visible and tangible segregation barriers that exist in our society.

.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a perfect system, but at the end of the day I like living in a country where businesses (under law) can't deny a person who's willing to pay money a meal because he/she is black, or he/she is gay.

I'm usually very pro-freedom, and anti-excessive regulation etc, however I think this particular one is a good one that helps to fight segregation.

.

To me it fosters hidden racism behind masked smiles and supposed acceptance.

When it comes to gay marriage, however we have something that we didnt have with racial discrimination. Nowhere in christianity is a support of racism, however there is condemnation of homosexuality. So by forcing them to provide services, if they interpret that part of the bible literally, they are being placed in a position of possible sin.

Any government service should be color/sex/whatever blind. Wholly private sector operations should be able to do whatever they want, and let the people decide with their wallets if thier choice is acceptable to them.

So i doubt you would find any of this in the NY area (although banning religous fundementalists would probably occur) but somewhere in Mississippi, yes a bar may exist that bans black people.

Hey, it's just my opinion. I like the fact that there are laws preventing public businesses (as in a public golf course) from overtly refusing a customer a coffee because he/she is black, gay, or a woman. Note that private clubs CAN still overtly refuse membership to whomever they want.

I think this fosters good things, ultimately, and helps to break down some of the more visible and tangible segregation barriers that exist in our society.

.

I think it does the opposite. It allows racism to fester under the service, behind the tight smile of someone handing you a coffee and thinking you are a ****** at the same time.

All it fosters is resentment, and makes work for lawyers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's still a difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to cater for a gay wedding.

Just like there's a difference between refusing to serve a black person and refusing to cater for a NBPP meeting.

Would a baker be subject to lawsuit for not agreeing to make cupcakes for a black supremacy group?

Because serving a group that is detrimental to the business because of it's stature in society would most likely result in loss of business. If your patrons are aligned against this person/group and hear of you serving them, you can or will be susceptible to losing those customers. It is more nuanced than people claim.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am saying that the 'gay rights' crowd is now looking for protected status... forcing others to do services they want... and that is against the freedoms afforded to persons and businesses.. refusal to do business with is not the same as following pasteurization laws, cleanliness laws, etc

It's my understanding that if you're a photographer, or wedding planner, etc, you can refuse service to any couple you want. You don't have to plan someone's wedding if you don't want to, just because they called your number.

You might get in trouble if you say specifically you're refusing service because they're black, or because they're gay, but no one is forcing the vendor to cite a reason - am I correct?

And personally, I think that is wrong.. if you don't want to serve or provide service because someone is gay, or black, or white, or eskimo or polygamist or dressed like a penguin, it should not matter.. it is part of freedom... you have the freedom to be tolerant that goes hand in hand with the freedom to think like a bigot... and you then have the freedom to live with the business consequences of your actions... personally, I think it is a bad move to alienate in business.. but if someone has a strong religious or whatever other conviction and they don't want to serve gays, or if they want to have an all women;s club, or they want a tranny only nightclub with only tranny staff, SO BE IT

Now.. having government treat persons equally for government matters, THAT is to be something to strive for.. to use government to force others to accept or tolerate or to serve is quite another matter.. and I said all along, this was not merely about government benefits or taxation or equality in governmental treatment.. that the agenda was about forced acceptance.. and it is looking like I was spot on

 

[bodecea]

Gays believe they should have the right to refuse to perform services for normals.

Creative Minority Report: Gay Bar Refuses Straights

It's sometimes okay for a normal to go to a gay business as long as they are willing to act gay.

An Etiquette Guide for Straight People in Gay Bars | VICE United States

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Hypocrisy, the hallmark of the left.

Why would you say hypocrisy? If you bother to look at my posts here, I have very clearly stated that I believe all businesses should be allowed to turn down customers for whatever reason.

Sorry to burst your little outrage bubble there, buckaroo.

 

[AmyNation]

Are doctors required to perform abortions if they believe abortion to be wrong?

Most states don't allow pharmacists to refuse the morning after pill.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a difference between providing a service and providing a personal service. Personal services should never be required by anyone. Selling cakes that are decorated with flowers and colored icing is a service. Selling a wedding cake made to personal specifications and instructions is a personal service.

Laws mandating providing personal services is nothing more than slavery and should be abolished.

 

[AmyNation]

Anytime I agree with people like Katz I feel like I should rethink my stance. However, I do agree. I think there is a difference in providing a personal service which typically involves signing contracts, and having a business that is open to the public, like McDonald's.

 

[KevinWestern]

To me it fosters hidden racism behind masked smiles and supposed acceptance.

When it comes to gay marriage, however we have something that we didnt have with racial discrimination. Nowhere in christianity is a support of racism, however there is condemnation of homosexuality. So by forcing them to provide services, if they interpret that part of the bible literally, they are being placed in a position of possible sin.

Any government service should be color/sex/whatever blind. Wholly private sector operations should be able to do whatever they want, and let the people decide with their wallets if thier choice is acceptable to them.

So i doubt you would find any of this in the NY area (although banning religous fundementalists would probably occur) but somewhere in Mississippi, yes a bar may exist that bans black people.

Hey, it's just my opinion. I like the fact that there are laws preventing public businesses (as in a public golf course) from overtly refusing a customer a coffee because he/she is black, gay, or a woman. Note that private clubs CAN still overtly refuse membership to whomever they want.

I think this fosters good things, ultimately, and helps to break down some of the more visible and tangible segregation barriers that exist in our society.

.

I think it does the opposite. It allows racism to fester under the service, behind the tight smile of someone handing you a coffee and thinking you are a ****** at the same time.

All it fosters is resentment, and makes work for lawyers.

I realize covert racism is not a wonderful thing, but would you rather that person calling them "******" to their face and not handing them a coffee?

You pick...

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Surely there must be some gay bakers in gay communities. Hell, even the Pillsbury Doughboy likes to get poked now and then!

...and I suspect there are some gay "seamstresses" in the gay Meccas.

..and there must be some gay florists.

Start yourself a bakery that caters to gays. You'll make millions!

Addressing the OP, most businesses can reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE!...for ANY REASON they choose.

Somebody has recognized the gold mine and is digging right now. When I opened this thread, the advert at the top urged me to celebrate LGBT pride in Maui.

 

[bodecea]

Surely there must be some gay bakers in gay communities. Hell, even the Pillsbury Doughboy likes to get poked now and then!

...and I suspect there are some gay "seamstresses" in the gay Meccas.

..and there must be some gay florists.

Start yourself a bakery that caters to gays. You'll make millions!

Addressing the OP, most businesses can reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE!...for ANY REASON they choose.

Somebody has recognized the gold mine and is digging right now. When I opened this thread, the advert at the top urged me to celebrate LGBT pride in Maui.

Are you going? Sounds awesome!

 

[gallantwarrior]

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

Bakers don't need to put 'two plastic men' on a wedding cake. They can bake the cake and the couple can put the figurines on top. No one need know its a cake for a gay couple. I don't think that is relevant, anyway.

No matter what, you can't discriminate. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are - you cannot refuse to serve a black person, no matter how you feel about black people - so why should you be allowed to refuse service to a gay person, or a gay couple?

Racial discrimination and refusing service to gays are apples and oranges. I can usually spot someone of different racial or ethnic background, but to 'spot' homosexuals...they have to declare themselves as such in order to be recognized. Why go into a business establishment telling the proprietor and all present that you are LGBT if you don't intend to stir up some response?
As far as a business being forced to provide service, do you think that customers should be forced to purchase goods and services from only specific vendors?