Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[Cecilie1200]

Look, left-thinkers just LOVE trying to create analogies and draw parallels, usually to something unrelated and/or extreme to the point of ludicrous, so let's try an analogy to something that's actually relevant AND existing in the real world right now.

Let's say Phillip Morris, the biggest cigarette manufacturer out there, goes to an advertising agency and says, "I think your ads are really amazing. I want you to put together an ad campaign for us." And the advertising agency responds, "No thank you, we are not interested in associating our company with tobacco products, because we believe they are a harmful and destructive product."

Is it moral, and should it be legal, for that ad agency to discriminate between prospective clients and to refuse their creative services to a prospective client based solely on disapproval of what that client does?

How about if an artist advertises that he paints portraits on commission, and someone wants his portrait painted in the nude? Does the artist have the right to turn that commission down if he doesn't like painting nudes, or does the nudist have a right to the artist's services because the artist is somehow now a "public accommodation" simply because he markets his talent?

Okay, let's try something a little closer to home. As Jillian likes to mention every time she addresses me (because it irks her to no end when conservatives refuse to stay in her pigeonholes for them AND refuse to get onto the leftist plantation), I used to run a party and event planning company. One of the clients I was hired by was the local BDSM club, who wanted me to plan their annual fetish ball. I took the job, because it doesn't particularly bother me, but what if it did? What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable around kink and people engaging in it? Do I have the right to refuse that contract, or am I obligated to plan an event I'm uncomfortable with, simply because I advertise my services to the general public?

At what point does this obsession with "public accommodation" go too far and essentially become forcing anyone who wants to make a living from their talents and skills to be a whore?

 

[BS Filter]

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

People attack the right of the majority (Christians) all the time over being able to or not teach Creationism. Sorry, better luck next time.

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

If he doesn't have a business license. If he has one, he has to follow the business laws of his state.

We can change laws. Duh!

 

[bodecea]

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

People attack the right of the majority (Christians) all the time over being able to or not teach Creationism. Sorry, better luck next time.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

If he doesn't have a business license. If he has one, he has to follow the business laws of his state.

We can change laws. Duh!

You can....and what are you actively doing to get the PA law changed in your state? Actively?

 

[BS Filter]

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

People attack the right of the majority (Christians) all the time over being able to or not teach Creationism. Sorry, better luck next time.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

If he doesn't have a business license. If he has one, he has to follow the business laws of his state.

We can change laws. Duh!

You can....and what are you actively doing to get the PA law changed in your state? Actively?

You asked me earlier and I told you.

 

[task0778]

I do not believe that religious freedom allows anyone to practice any form of discrimination if you are open to the public. Private practice is one thing, but public accommodation is another. The same should be true for freedom of speech and one's political affiliation.

"The same should be true for freedom of speech . . ." The same what? The same "you only have what freedom I want to have"? Is that the "same" you're talking about?

I was trying to say that no one should be denied their 1st Amendment rights to free speech based on their political affiliation. Which does seem to happen these days on many college campuses and other venues.

Ahhh. I think where I got confused was your first line about "religious freedom doesn't allow discrimination if you are open to the public." And I have no idea where you're drawing the imaginary line of "private practice" and "public accommodation". I frankly think it's ludicrous to describe ANY privately-owned and -run business as a "public accommodation". Government offices are public accommodations, because they're owned and funded by the public, which gives everyone in the public the right to access to them. But the simple fact of engaging in commerce does not convey any sort of ownership or entitlement to my products and services on anyone and everyone who has money.

It's basically saying there's private clubs, and everything else is under the control of the state, with nothing in between. I'm not comfortable with that. Privately-owned and -run businesses are the in-between, and they should be in-between, and their right to make decisions about what business transactions to enter into and what ones not to should be recognized.

What you are basically saying is that a privately owned business can discriminate against anybody for any reason, right? Are we not divided enough already, should equal treatment and opportunity be thrown out the window so that everybody can do as they damn well please? What you want is to have your cake and eat it too, buy and sell to whoever you please but still deny service or dealings with whoever you don't like or approve of. If that is the case then you should be required to hang a sign prominently in the front window that says 'THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS PRIVATE AND WILL SERVE ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WE DEEM AS ACCEPTABLE. Don't pretend to be serving the public when you only want to serve some but not all of the public.

 

[BS Filter]

I do not believe that religious freedom allows anyone to practice any form of discrimination if you are open to the public. Private practice is one thing, but public accommodation is another. The same should be true for freedom of speech and one's political affiliation.

"The same should be true for freedom of speech . . ." The same what? The same "you only have what freedom I want to have"? Is that the "same" you're talking about?

I was trying to say that no one should be denied their 1st Amendment rights to free speech based on their political affiliation. Which does seem to happen these days on many college campuses and other venues.

Ahhh. I think where I got confused was your first line about "religious freedom doesn't allow discrimination if you are open to the public." And I have no idea where you're drawing the imaginary line of "private practice" and "public accommodation". I frankly think it's ludicrous to describe ANY privately-owned and -run business as a "public accommodation". Government offices are public accommodations, because they're owned and funded by the public, which gives everyone in the public the right to access to them. But the simple fact of engaging in commerce does not convey any sort of ownership or entitlement to my products and services on anyone and everyone who has money.

It's basically saying there's private clubs, and everything else is under the control of the state, with nothing in between. I'm not comfortable with that. Privately-owned and -run businesses are the in-between, and they should be in-between, and their right to make decisions about what business transactions to enter into and what ones not to should be recognized.

What you are basically saying is that a privately owned business can discriminate against anybody for any reason, right? Are we not divided enough already, should equal treatment and opportunity be thrown out the window so that everybody can do as they damn well please? What you want is to have your cake and eat it too, buy and sell to whoever you please but still deny service or dealings with whoever you don't like or approve of. If that is the case then you should be required to hang a sign prominently in the front window that says 'THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS PRIVATE AND WILL SERVE ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WE DEEM AS ACCEPTABLE. Don't pretend to be serving the public when you only want to serve some but not all of the public.

Yes. If you object to the use of your product, you should have the right to refuse to sell your product to that person.

 

[Taz]

Look, left-thinkers just LOVE trying to create analogies and draw parallels, usually to something unrelated and/or extreme to the point of ludicrous, so let's try an analogy to something that's actually relevant AND existing in the real world right now.

Let's say Phillip Morris, the biggest cigarette manufacturer out there, goes to an advertising agency and says, "I think your ads are really amazing. I want you to put together an ad campaign for us." And the advertising agency responds, "No thank you, we are not interested in associating our company with tobacco products, because we believe they are a harmful and destructive product."

Is it moral, and should it be legal, for that ad agency to discriminate between prospective clients and to refuse their creative services to a prospective client based solely on disapproval of what that client does?

How about if an artist advertises that he paints portraits on commission, and someone wants his portrait painted in the nude? Does the artist have the right to turn that commission down if he doesn't like painting nudes, or does the nudist have a right to the artist's services because the artist is somehow now a "public accommodation" simply because he markets his talent?

Okay, let's try something a little closer to home. As Jillian likes to mention every time she addresses me (because it irks her to no end when conservatives refuse to stay in her pigeonholes for them AND refuse to get onto the leftist plantation), I used to run a party and event planning company. One of the clients I was hired by was the local BDSM club, who wanted me to plan their annual fetish ball. I took the job, because it doesn't particularly bother me, but what if it did? What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable around kink and people engaging in it? Do I have the right to refuse that contract, or am I obligated to plan an event I'm uncomfortable with, simply because I advertise my services to the general public?

At what point does this obsession with "public accommodation" go too far and essentially become forcing anyone who wants to make a living from their talents and skills to be a whore?

Depends if these people call themselves Christians, because Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away for any reason. Do you call yourself a Christian? Because you're not one of them.

 

[hobelim]

Look, left-thinkers just LOVE trying to create analogies and draw parallels, usually to something unrelated and/or extreme to the point of ludicrous, so let's try an analogy to something that's actually relevant AND existing in the real world right now.

Let's say Phillip Morris, the biggest cigarette manufacturer out there, goes to an advertising agency and says, "I think your ads are really amazing. I want you to put together an ad campaign for us." And the advertising agency responds, "No thank you, we are not interested in associating our company with tobacco products, because we believe they are a harmful and destructive product."

Is it moral, and should it be legal, for that ad agency to discriminate between prospective clients and to refuse their creative services to a prospective client based solely on disapproval of what that client does?

How about if an artist advertises that he paints portraits on commission, and someone wants his portrait painted in the nude? Does the artist have the right to turn that commission down if he doesn't like painting nudes, or does the nudist have a right to the artist's services because the artist is somehow now a "public accommodation" simply because he markets his talent?

Okay, let's try something a little closer to home. As Jillian likes to mention every time she addresses me (because it irks her to no end when conservatives refuse to stay in her pigeonholes for them AND refuse to get onto the leftist plantation), I used to run a party and event planning company. One of the clients I was hired by was the local BDSM club, who wanted me to plan their annual fetish ball. I took the job, because it doesn't particularly bother me, but what if it did? What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable around kink and people engaging in it? Do I have the right to refuse that contract, or am I obligated to plan an event I'm uncomfortable with, simply because I advertise my services to the general public?

At what point does this obsession with "public accommodation" go too far and essentially become forcing anyone who wants to make a living from their talents and skills to be a whore?

Depends if these people call themselves Christians, because Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away for any reason. Do you call yourself a Christian? Because you're not one of them.

You need to read the story more carefully. Jesus turned away the Gerasene demonic who wanted to join him even after he was cured. Many people including entire towns and villages were just ignored..He saw what they were doing, heard what they were saying,held his peace and just walked away.

You can't give the water of life to the people whose cup is already full of shit.

Even to Jesus some people were just too fucked up and inextricably committed to the darkness. He didn't need them, they needed him, but he wasn't going to try and talk them into anything. They had to want the elixir of life enough to humble themselves and ask...People who tried to trick him were just poisoned. Its a magical drink distilled by nutjobs, but very effective.

"Two men will be laboring in the fields, one will be taken, the other left behind Two women will be grinding at the mill, one will be taken and the other left behind.". Two thieves hanging on a cross.........

 

[Skull Pilot]

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

No one's "avoiding" your question. We're giving it exactly the respect and attention it deserves, which is none, because YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO HAVE IT ANSWERED.

THEN STOP FUCKING RESPONDING TO MY FUCKING POSTS YOU FUCKING TWAT

More left-think. "Say what I want to hear, or stop talking so that my opinion is the only one heard."

Sorry, Sparky. The answer to your question remains "You have no right to ask", and I will keep saying it.

I have every right to ask as per my first amendment rights.

And I will keep asking until one of you bigots gives a cogent answer

 

[Taz]

Look, left-thinkers just LOVE trying to create analogies and draw parallels, usually to something unrelated and/or extreme to the point of ludicrous, so let's try an analogy to something that's actually relevant AND existing in the real world right now.

Let's say Phillip Morris, the biggest cigarette manufacturer out there, goes to an advertising agency and says, "I think your ads are really amazing. I want you to put together an ad campaign for us." And the advertising agency responds, "No thank you, we are not interested in associating our company with tobacco products, because we believe they are a harmful and destructive product."

Is it moral, and should it be legal, for that ad agency to discriminate between prospective clients and to refuse their creative services to a prospective client based solely on disapproval of what that client does?

How about if an artist advertises that he paints portraits on commission, and someone wants his portrait painted in the nude? Does the artist have the right to turn that commission down if he doesn't like painting nudes, or does the nudist have a right to the artist's services because the artist is somehow now a "public accommodation" simply because he markets his talent?

Okay, let's try something a little closer to home. As Jillian likes to mention every time she addresses me (because it irks her to no end when conservatives refuse to stay in her pigeonholes for them AND refuse to get onto the leftist plantation), I used to run a party and event planning company. One of the clients I was hired by was the local BDSM club, who wanted me to plan their annual fetish ball. I took the job, because it doesn't particularly bother me, but what if it did? What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable around kink and people engaging in it? Do I have the right to refuse that contract, or am I obligated to plan an event I'm uncomfortable with, simply because I advertise my services to the general public?

At what point does this obsession with "public accommodation" go too far and essentially become forcing anyone who wants to make a living from their talents and skills to be a whore?

Depends if these people call themselves Christians, because Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away for any reason. Do you call yourself a Christian? Because you're not one of them.

You need to read the story more carefully. Jesus turned away the Gerasene demonic who wanted to join him even after he was cured. Many people including entire towns and villages were just ignored..He saw what they were doing, heard what they were saying,held his peace and just walked away.

You can't give the water of life to the people whose cup is already full of shit.

Even to Jesus some people were just too fucked up and inextricably committed to the darkness. He didn't need them, they needed him, but he wasn't going to try and talk them into anything. They had to want the elixir of life enough to humble themselves and ask...People who tried to trick him were just poisoned. Its a magical drink made by nutjobs, but very effective.

"Two men will be laboring in the fields, one will be taken, the other left behind Two women will be grinding at the mill, one will be taken and the other left behind.". Two thieves hanging on a cross.........

You're delusional, get some help.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

You certainly do spend a lot of time demanding things from people just as if you have a right to them. You must be frustrated a good deal.

And you refuse to answer a simple question

If I decide having a twat like you work for me is a sin then can I fire you for that reason alone?

"Simple" is not the operative point. "Inappropriate" is. You're damned right I'm not going to answer a question, however "simple", about things that are none of your fucking business. "Did you and your spouse have sex last night?" is also a simple question, but that doesn't make you entitled to an answer.

Furthermore, shitforbrains, if you would stop doing victory dances over "I have the perfect Gotcha! question!", you would notice that I answered it the FIRST time you asked it, and every time you've asked since then has been superfluous.

And no, I will not repeat my answer.

YEs we did have sex last night.

And you must think it's just fine for an employer to fire you because of your religion because you think it's OK to use religion as an excuse for such behaviors

And FYI you never did answer that question. You gave me some bullshit story about an interview.

Then you said a paycheck is different from a cake but you never answered the question.

But I have a feeling you'd be taking your employer to court if he fired you because of his religious beliefs wouldn't you?

Fucking hypocrite

 

[hobelim]

Look, left-thinkers just LOVE trying to create analogies and draw parallels, usually to something unrelated and/or extreme to the point of ludicrous, so let's try an analogy to something that's actually relevant AND existing in the real world right now.

Let's say Phillip Morris, the biggest cigarette manufacturer out there, goes to an advertising agency and says, "I think your ads are really amazing. I want you to put together an ad campaign for us." And the advertising agency responds, "No thank you, we are not interested in associating our company with tobacco products, because we believe they are a harmful and destructive product."

Is it moral, and should it be legal, for that ad agency to discriminate between prospective clients and to refuse their creative services to a prospective client based solely on disapproval of what that client does?

How about if an artist advertises that he paints portraits on commission, and someone wants his portrait painted in the nude? Does the artist have the right to turn that commission down if he doesn't like painting nudes, or does the nudist have a right to the artist's services because the artist is somehow now a "public accommodation" simply because he markets his talent?

Okay, let's try something a little closer to home. As Jillian likes to mention every time she addresses me (because it irks her to no end when conservatives refuse to stay in her pigeonholes for them AND refuse to get onto the leftist plantation), I used to run a party and event planning company. One of the clients I was hired by was the local BDSM club, who wanted me to plan their annual fetish ball. I took the job, because it doesn't particularly bother me, but what if it did? What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable around kink and people engaging in it? Do I have the right to refuse that contract, or am I obligated to plan an event I'm uncomfortable with, simply because I advertise my services to the general public?

At what point does this obsession with "public accommodation" go too far and essentially become forcing anyone who wants to make a living from their talents and skills to be a whore?

Depends if these people call themselves Christians, because Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away for any reason. Do you call yourself a Christian? Because you're not one of them.

You need to read the story more carefully. Jesus turned away the Gerasene demonic who wanted to join him even after he was cured. Many people including entire towns and villages were just ignored..He saw what they were doing, heard what they were saying,held his peace and just walked away.

You can't give the water of life to the people whose cup is already full of shit.

Even to Jesus some people were just too fucked up and inextricably committed to the darkness. He didn't need them, they needed him, but he wasn't going to try and talk them into anything. They had to want the elixir of life enough to humble themselves and ask...People who tried to trick him were just poisoned. Its a magical drink made by nutjobs, but very effective.

"Two men will be laboring in the fields, one will be taken, the other left behind Two women will be grinding at the mill, one will be taken and the other left behind.". Two thieves hanging on a cross.........

You're delusional, get some help.

Help? Don't be silly. I have a tin foil hat, a pencil and paper, a toothbrush and a comb, and a vat overflowing with the elixir of life being kept safe at an undisclosed location obscured behind some clouds in the sky.

Its a magical drink distilled by nutjobs, but very potent. The same liquid that burns a devil gives life to puppet boys...

Once I open the spigot all the way there will be no turning back...

Storm clouds are gathering and it looks like its going to rain ....hope you had enough sense to build an ark.

Toodles!

 

[Tilly]

Look, left-thinkers just LOVE trying to create analogies and draw parallels, usually to something unrelated and/or extreme to the point of ludicrous, so let's try an analogy to something that's actually relevant AND existing in the real world right now.

Let's say Phillip Morris, the biggest cigarette manufacturer out there, goes to an advertising agency and says, "I think your ads are really amazing. I want you to put together an ad campaign for us." And the advertising agency responds, "No thank you, we are not interested in associating our company with tobacco products, because we believe they are a harmful and destructive product."

Is it moral, and should it be legal, for that ad agency to discriminate between prospective clients and to refuse their creative services to a prospective client based solely on disapproval of what that client does?

How about if an artist advertises that he paints portraits on commission, and someone wants his portrait painted in the nude? Does the artist have the right to turn that commission down if he doesn't like painting nudes, or does the nudist have a right to the artist's services because the artist is somehow now a "public accommodation" simply because he markets his talent?

Okay, let's try something a little closer to home. As Jillian likes to mention every time she addresses me (because it irks her to no end when conservatives refuse to stay in her pigeonholes for them AND refuse to get onto the leftist plantation), I used to run a party and event planning company. One of the clients I was hired by was the local BDSM club, who wanted me to plan their annual fetish ball. I took the job, because it doesn't particularly bother me, but what if it did? What if I'm genuinely uncomfortable around kink and people engaging in it? Do I have the right to refuse that contract, or am I obligated to plan an event I'm uncomfortable with, simply because I advertise my services to the general public?

At what point does this obsession with "public accommodation" go too far and essentially become forcing anyone who wants to make a living from their talents and skills to be a whore?

Depends if these people call themselves Christians, because Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away for any reason. Do you call yourself a Christian? Because you're not one of them.

Perhaps Jesus would say ‘repent and sin no more’, instead of ‘continue to sin and please let me participate’?

 

[irosie91]

were I a professional party person, I would refuse to do the KINK party.
I, STRONGLY, believe that a professional party person should have
NO OBLIGATION to serve a kink party if doing so rattles him

 

[irosie91]

I wonder if a kosher wedding hall would be obligated to do a muslim wedding
or if a vegetarian jainist or hindu wedding hall would be obligated to do
a jewish wedding. There are "ashrams" in upstate New York-----I was told
by an "ashramite" up there that sometimes jewish businessmen drop in for lunch--
since strict vegetarian is "kosher" I wonder if they would be OBLIGATED to
cater a jewish wedding or a muslim wedding-------would they HAVE TO remove the
statue of Shiva?. ----..... upstate New York------great for COMBINED WEDDING
PARTIES

 

[irosie91]

I wonder if an HALAL party hall-----would be OBLIGATED to host
a fund raising party for the U J A

 

[WorldWatcher]

were I a professional party person, I would refuse to do the KINK party.
I, STRONGLY, believe that a professional party person should have
NO OBLIGATION to serve a kink party if doing so rattles him

If you are a professional party person you are under no obligation to arrange a kink party for anyone as long as that is part of your business model.

If you provide professional planning for kink parties for white people though you can't refuse to do them for black people.

Glad to help.


>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

were I a professional party person, I would refuse to do the KINK party.
I, STRONGLY, believe that a professional party person should have
NO OBLIGATION to serve a kink party if doing so rattles him

what if it were socially acceptable?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wonder if a kosher wedding hall would be obligated to do a muslim wedding

If it is run as a for profit business, they cannot discriminate because of the customers religion. If the only items on their menu are are kosher and restrict all customers to that menu, then they are under no obligation to change the menu for muslims.

or if a vegetarian jainist or hindu wedding hall would be obligated to do
a jewish wedding.

If it is run as a for profit business, they cannot discriminate because of the customers religion. If the only items on their menu are are vegetarian and restrict all customers to that menu, then they are under no obligation to change the menu for a jewish wedding.

There are "ashrams" in upstate New York-----I was told
by an "ashramite" up there that sometimes jewish businessmen drop in for lunch--
since strict vegetarian is "kosher" I wonder if they would be OBLIGATED to
cater a jewish wedding or a muslim wedding-------would they HAVE TO remove the
statue of Shiva?. ----..... upstate New York------great for COMBINED WEDDING
PARTIES

Since an ashram is a religious retreat/monastary operating on a non-profit basis, than as a 501(c)(3) religious organization they would be just like a synagogue and not required to host a Christian wedding.

If on the other hand this "ashram" is in reality a for profit business they cannot discriminate because of the customers religion.


Again glad to be of assistance.


>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

Let's implement, religious tests to improve our social morals!