The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[martybegan]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you open a business and discriminate against certain sectors of the public, you are probably going to be sued by those you are discriminating against. So do what you must but don't whine about it later.

I can pretty much guarantee that these laws will not be changed because when you open a business, you do not have the "right" to discriminate no matter how much you whine and stomp your feet. It's illegal. You can be as much of a douchebag as you want in your personal life, but when you carry it over into your business matters, you're going to have problems.

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you open a business and discriminate against certain sectors of the public, you are probably going to be sued by those you are discriminating against. So do what you must but don't whine about it later.

I can pretty much guarantee that these laws will not be changed because when you open a business, you do not have the "right" to discriminate no matter how much you whine and stomp your feet. It's illegal. You can be as much of a douchebag as you want in your personal life, but when you carry it over into your business matters, you're going to have problems.

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

 

[martybegan]

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

 

[ChrisL]

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

 

[Faun]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you open a business and discriminate against certain sectors of the public, you are probably going to be sued by those you are discriminating against. So do what you must but don't whine about it later.

I can pretty much guarantee that these laws will not be changed because when you open a business, you do not have the "right" to discriminate no matter how much you whine and stomp your feet. It's illegal. You can be as much of a douchebag as you want in your personal life, but when you carry it over into your business matters, you're going to have problems.

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Then you should be happy with this Supreme Court decision as it doesn't force anyone to marry a homosexual.

 

[ChrisL]

Anti-discrimination law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Anti-discrimination law refers to the law on the right of people to be treated equally. Some countries mandate that in employment, in consumer transactions and in political participation people must be dealt with on an equal basis regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and sometimes religious and political opinions.

 

[Redfish]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you open a business and discriminate against certain sectors of the public, you are probably going to be sued by those you are discriminating against. So do what you must but don't whine about it later.

I can pretty much guarantee that these laws will not be changed because when you open a business, you do not have the "right" to discriminate no matter how much you whine and stomp your feet. It's illegal. You can be as much of a douchebag as you want in your personal life, but when you carry it over into your business matters, you're going to have problems.

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

the problem is that the SC made an unconstitutional ruling the deprived states of a right guaranteed by the constitution. it was a political ruling, not a constitutional ruling. The SC violated its charter and reason for being.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you open a business and discriminate against certain sectors of the public, you are probably going to be sued by those you are discriminating against. So do what you must but don't whine about it later.

I can pretty much guarantee that these laws will not be changed because when you open a business, you do not have the "right" to discriminate no matter how much you whine and stomp your feet. It's illegal. You can be as much of a douchebag as you want in your personal life, but when you carry it over into your business matters, you're going to have problems.

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

the problem is that the SC made an unconstitutional ruling the deprived states of a right guaranteed by the constitution. it was a political ruling, not a constitutional ruling. The SC violated its charter and reason for being.

You are on the wrong thread. This thread is not about the gay marriage ruling.

 

[martybegan]

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

 

[ChrisL]

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

You don't have a right to discriminate in business practices. Where you get the idea that you do, I have no idea.

 

[martybegan]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you open a business and discriminate against certain sectors of the public, you are probably going to be sued by those you are discriminating against. So do what you must but don't whine about it later.

I can pretty much guarantee that these laws will not be changed because when you open a business, you do not have the "right" to discriminate no matter how much you whine and stomp your feet. It's illegal. You can be as much of a douchebag as you want in your personal life, but when you carry it over into your business matters, you're going to have problems.

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

I know it. Obviously, the conservative religious right are the REAL victims in all of this. First it was the blacks, now the gays that they cannot openly discriminate against. I mean really, we all know the gays aren't really concerned with rights and equality. They just want to hurt you. They probably aren't even really gays anyway; it's just a huge conspiracy to hurt the conservative Christian right. They are just spawns of Satan put here to do evil deeds and give you a difficult time. You poor babies.

You didn't answer the question, and I am a lapsed Catholic at best, who's opposition to SSM was limited to saying a court shouldn't impose it on States, but States should change their marriage contract via legislative action or local referendum.

My issue is with government forcing people to do something they don't want to do, and only because someones feelings were hurt, not for any tangible economic harm.

Then you should be happy with this Supreme Court decision as it doesn't force anyone to marry a homosexual.

It gives backing to the ability of the State to discriminate against some other class, which if you are into being an vindictive twit, is probably all well and good, but if you are into individual liberty, its a problem with laws written the way they are now.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh really? Well this is a state law, not federal, so I guess you have no problem with it.

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

Like I said earlier, you can be an asshole in your personal life. When you carry it over into your business practice, you're going to have trouble. So, if you want to run a business, you have to treat all your customers as equals, as painful as that might be for you, because according to the law, you are no better than anyone else.

 

[martybegan]

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

You don't have a right to discriminate in business practices. Where you get the idea that you do, I have no idea.

So Curves should be forced to allow me a membership? A "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is wrong?

You actually SHOULD have a right to discriminate in anything not government related, unless the government shows a compelling interest in stopping you from doing it.

 

[martybegan]

Actually I do, because free exercise is a 1st amendment right, and has been incorporated to the States, so the state laws have to take religious concerns into account, i.e. "compelling government interest" has to be proven for the law to actually be enforced in these cases.

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

Like I said earlier, you can be an asshole in your personal life. When you carry it over into your business practice, you're going to have trouble. So, if you want to run a business, you have to treat all your customers as equals, as painful as that might be for you, because according to the law, you are no better than anyone else.

Actually it makes the customer better than you, and thus one of your fellow citizens having more rights than you do. That requires compelling government interest, and I don't see that in the case of some gay couple having to find another baker.

 

[ChrisL]

Not really, because this does not get in the way of your "free speech." The state governments have every right to set the rules and regulations for businesses in their respective states. You are just angry that Christians have to treat gay people as equal human beings. The horror, the horror . . . .

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

You don't have a right to discriminate in business practices. Where you get the idea that you do, I have no idea.

So Curves should be forced to allow me a membership? A "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is wrong?

You actually SHOULD have a right to discriminate in anything not government related, unless the government shows a compelling interest in stopping you from doing it.

Yes, if you want to join Curves, I think you should be able to because that is discriminatory against men, IMO. How they get away with doing that, I have no idea.

No shirt, no shoes is due to health code violations. Derp.

No you should not. If you are going into the public accommodation business, then you have agreed to follow your respective state's laws and regulations to serve everyone equally. If you cannot do that, then don't open up a business. This does not violate any of your rights.

 

[martybegan]

I am angry that government can fine someone $135k for not baking a cake, a cake that could have easily been gotten from somewhere else, and the rest of you are cheering it on because you agree with the politics behind it.

The States have the same requirement to prove a compelling State interest due to the 1st amendment, and someone's hurt feelings are not compelling.

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

You don't have a right to discriminate in business practices. Where you get the idea that you do, I have no idea.

So Curves should be forced to allow me a membership? A "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is wrong?

You actually SHOULD have a right to discriminate in anything not government related, unless the government shows a compelling interest in stopping you from doing it.

Yes, if you want to join Curves, I think you should be able to because that is discriminatory against men, IMO. How they get away with doing that, I have no idea.

No shirt, no shoes is due to health code violations. Derp.

No you should not. If you are going into the public accommodation business, then you have agreed to follow your respective state's laws and regulations to serve everyone equally. If you cannot do that, then don't open up a business. This does not violate any of your rights.

I don't WANT to join Curves, unlike some people, I understand women want to work out alone, I don't feel the need for government to force the franchisee to let me in, nor those women to work out with me around.

How is a contracted wedding cake service a "public accommodation?"

And basically you are saying a person can only make a living the way they want to if they shed their moral code, and accommodate people, who if not accommodated, suffer no actual loss?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I agree, the amount is a little high.

No they do not. You have no "right" to operate a business if you don't comply with the law. It's a simple as that.

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

You don't have a right to discriminate in business practices. Where you get the idea that you do, I have no idea.

So Curves should be forced to allow me a membership? A "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is wrong?

You actually SHOULD have a right to discriminate in anything not government related, unless the government shows a compelling interest in stopping you from doing it.

Yes, if you want to join Curves, I think you should be able to because that is discriminatory against men, IMO. How they get away with doing that, I have no idea.

No shirt, no shoes is due to health code violations. Derp.

No you should not. If you are going into the public accommodation business, then you have agreed to follow your respective state's laws and regulations to serve everyone equally. If you cannot do that, then don't open up a business. This does not violate any of your rights.

I don't WANT to join Curves, unlike some people, I understand women want to work out alone, I don't feel the need for government to force the franchisee to let me in, nor those women to work out with me around.

How is a contracted wedding cake service a "public accommodation?"

And basically you are saying a person can only make a living the way they want to if they shed their moral code, and accommodate people, who if not accommodated, suffer no actual loss?

You not doing what you get paid to do when I need you to is an actual loss...

 

[martybegan]

Why does operating a business eliminate your own personal rights? And more so, why should a law remove your rights without a compelling government interest?

You don't have a right to discriminate in business practices. Where you get the idea that you do, I have no idea.

So Curves should be forced to allow me a membership? A "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is wrong?

You actually SHOULD have a right to discriminate in anything not government related, unless the government shows a compelling interest in stopping you from doing it.

Yes, if you want to join Curves, I think you should be able to because that is discriminatory against men, IMO. How they get away with doing that, I have no idea.

No shirt, no shoes is due to health code violations. Derp.

No you should not. If you are going into the public accommodation business, then you have agreed to follow your respective state's laws and regulations to serve everyone equally. If you cannot do that, then don't open up a business. This does not violate any of your rights.

I don't WANT to join Curves, unlike some people, I understand women want to work out alone, I don't feel the need for government to force the franchisee to let me in, nor those women to work out with me around.

How is a contracted wedding cake service a "public accommodation?"

And basically you are saying a person can only make a living the way they want to if they shed their moral code, and accommodate people, who if not accommodated, suffer no actual loss?

You not doing what you get paid to do when I need you to is an actual loss...

That's a stretch.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't have a right to discriminate in business practices. Where you get the idea that you do, I have no idea.

So Curves should be forced to allow me a membership? A "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is wrong?

You actually SHOULD have a right to discriminate in anything not government related, unless the government shows a compelling interest in stopping you from doing it.

Yes, if you want to join Curves, I think you should be able to because that is discriminatory against men, IMO. How they get away with doing that, I have no idea.

No shirt, no shoes is due to health code violations. Derp.

No you should not. If you are going into the public accommodation business, then you have agreed to follow your respective state's laws and regulations to serve everyone equally. If you cannot do that, then don't open up a business. This does not violate any of your rights.

I don't WANT to join Curves, unlike some people, I understand women want to work out alone, I don't feel the need for government to force the franchisee to let me in, nor those women to work out with me around.

How is a contracted wedding cake service a "public accommodation?"

And basically you are saying a person can only make a living the way they want to if they shed their moral code, and accommodate people, who if not accommodated, suffer no actual loss?

You not doing what you get paid to do when I need you to is an actual loss...

That's a stretch.

No, it isn't. And business isn't faith. When you work for the Almighty Dollar you don't get to call that faith, because it isn't.

 

[martybegan]

So Curves should be forced to allow me a membership? A "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign is wrong?

You actually SHOULD have a right to discriminate in anything not government related, unless the government shows a compelling interest in stopping you from doing it.

Yes, if you want to join Curves, I think you should be able to because that is discriminatory against men, IMO. How they get away with doing that, I have no idea.

No shirt, no shoes is due to health code violations. Derp.

No you should not. If you are going into the public accommodation business, then you have agreed to follow your respective state's laws and regulations to serve everyone equally. If you cannot do that, then don't open up a business. This does not violate any of your rights.

I don't WANT to join Curves, unlike some people, I understand women want to work out alone, I don't feel the need for government to force the franchisee to let me in, nor those women to work out with me around.

How is a contracted wedding cake service a "public accommodation?"

And basically you are saying a person can only make a living the way they want to if they shed their moral code, and accommodate people, who if not accommodated, suffer no actual loss?

You not doing what you get paid to do when I need you to is an actual loss...

That's a stretch.

No, it isn't. And business isn't faith.

Starting a business does not override faith or a persons ability to live under their faith without a compelling government interest.