PratchettFan
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2012
- 7,238
- 746
No. I don't think so. A business opens its doors to the public and accepts the benefits of the community in doing so. It gets police and fire protection, which is paid for out of public coffers paid by everyone - not just the people it wants to do business with. It takes advantage of public roads, water, sewer and power. It derives its business from the community and owes a duty back to the community. If it wants to confine its business to a select group, then it needs to be a private club. Otherwise, open to the public means exactly that.
So that means a restaurant can't put up a sign that says "no shirt, not shoes, no service"?
What about a place that charges $200 for a meal? Aren't they discriminating against poor people?
And i guess women's colleges shouldn't be allowed to exist, or black muslim mosques that deny membership to whites shouldn't exist either.
As long as everyone has to wear shirt and shoes, so long as everyone pays $200, no problem.
Churches constitute private clubs. You don't get to take communion in a Catholic church if you are not Catholic. As to women's colleges, pretty much a private club as well. No one is suggesting the KKK be required to accept African Americans as members.
As I have already said, this is not an all or nothing proposition. It is clearly established the state can prevent discrimination. That it can is settled. You may not think it should be able to, but that does not change the reality of it. The question is simply to what degree it should.
But the shirtless/shoeless coalition can claim discrimination, who are you to judge them!!!! And i guess discriminating against poor people is OK in your book as well. Good to Know!
and you are technically wrong about the communion thing:
"Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned" (CIC 844 § 3).
Your logic in your previous post made it an all or nothing proposition, i.e., The government owns your ass, so BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE
I may be technically wrong. I'm not a Catholic. But I think you made my point by referring to Catholic Canon. How this is done is determined by the church, not the state.
As to you last comment, you are free to take this to absurdity if you please. It changes nothing.
There is nothing absurd about it. People are already being forced to either perform a task they don't want to, or be fined/go out of business. At best they are forced to make lame excuses to they don't get sued.
and you idiots are clapping along in utter joy.
Yes. As opposed to the way it used to be. I still remember the way it used to be and you bet I am clapping along in utter joy. If that bothers you, I can't say I'm concerned about it. If it really bothers you, I understand the lack of discrimination applies to airlines as well.