"Actually Allowing Businesses To Refuse Service Based On Sexual Orientation"

[bonnie]

WeHo Bar To ‘Deny Entry’ To Lawmakers Who Back Anti-Gay Legislation

February 25, 2014 9:57 AM

How does this work?

"You're actually allowing businesses to refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation with the backing of a closely held 'religious belief'. Here's where I stand on my soapbox, folks."

WEST HOLLYWOOD (CBSLA.com) — Southern California lawmakers who support legislation to discriminate against gays and lesbians now have one less hotspot to visit in West Hollywood.

David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”

In a statement, Cooley said The Abbey will also display headshots of each state representative who support bills on the security list, including Kansas House Bill 2453, Arizona Senate Bill 1062, Idaho House Bill 426, Ohio House Bill 82 and other similar proposals.

RELATED: WeHo Bars Pour Out Russian Vodka In Protest Of Country’s Anti-LBGT Laws

“I want to send a message to all those people out there who conflate Christian values with discrimination: we don’t want your kind here,” Cooley said. “I’ve learned that I can’t stop crazy, ignorant or stupid, but I can stop it from coming through my doors.”

The move isn’t the first time The Abbey has waded into state politics: when gay marriage was still illegal in California in May 2012, the bar announced a ban on all bachelorette parties, which it called an “offensive heterosexual tradition” that flaunts marriage inequality.

The Abbey, which features a rainbow-colored cross as its logo and touts itself as the “Best Gay Bar In The World,” also called on other local restaurants, hotels, and other retailers “that appreciate their LGBT customers” to enact similar bans.

[M. T. Cross]

Dumb but predictable after this

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

Which is also really dumb.

No one should be legally allowed to discriminate like that.

[LifeHiscost]

And since it is a fact that just recently animal right advocates have found sexual perversion with animals along with cruelty is an ongoing practice among some perverted. Lest they take advantage against those who practice such vile characteristics, perhaps we need to have some of our lawmakers pass some laws to insure that beastiality is allowed among those who might be discriminated against.

“Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the Lord.

“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

“A man must not defile himself by having sex with an animal. And a woman must not offer herself to a male animal to have intercourse with it. This is a perverse act.

Leviticus 18:21-23 NLT

God cares! Jesus saves!

[bonnie]

Dumb but predictable after this

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

Which is also really dumb.

No one should be legally allowed to discriminate like that.

Should these same law makers discriminate against plural marriage? Why can't a woman have five husbands or a man five wives?

Are they hurting anyone else? Have they done studies that show the children are harmed by that lifestyle?

[Bravus]

Plus the Bible is totally cool with plural marriage! (Unless you want to be a deacon)

[Bravus]

[bonnie]

So if you substitute Southern California lawmakers for the black men at the counter then it is acceptable to you?

[bonnie]

Plus the Bible is totally cool with plural marriage! (Unless you want to be a deacon)

Really? God did not institute ,encourage,condone or promote plural marriage anymore that He did slavery or children sacrifice,yet it certainly can be found in the bible. You find quite the opposite,especially the response of Jesus concerning divorce in Matthew.

A deacon is to be an example to the congregation so obviously he would not promote plural marriage.

If as you seem are in favor of changing the definition of marriage,one man, one woman,how should marriage be defined?

Can a gay man marry his gay nephew. If not why not? If you believe they should be allowed to do that,why can't a straight man marry his niece. They can either agree not to have biological children or run the risk many "typical couples do".

Plural marriage seems to have at least a bit of acceptance by you,so can half siblings of plural marriages marry one another? If not why not? Didn't Abraham marry his half sister?

The bible seems "totally cool" with Abraham.

Just exactly what is the definition of marriage or what should it be according to you?

Who says this is wrong?....bestiality, desires about ...

www.nydailynews.com/.../yale-students-admit-bea...‎

New York Daily News

Mar 6, 2013 - Yale University students admitted during a sex workshop to indulging in bestiality and fantasizing about incest, it has been revealed. Scholars ...

Is it because it is disgusting to some? I don't the animals are complaining.

[Bravus]

The 'you're discriminating against the people who are discriminating' makes a certain amount of elementary school sense.

Reframe it: they're stopping people from having the same rights as everyone else. I'm stopping them from stopping people having the same rights as everyone else.

Not really parallel.

Because people should have the same rights as everyone else. But no-one has the right to not be offended.

[Tom Wetmore]

Bonnie, I am a bit confused by your posts. I am not sure from what you are saying whether you are OK with the pending Arizona law or not. On the one hand I sense you are unsure where the line should be drawn. But on the other, You seem quite clear on what offends your religious sensibilities, seeming to say where you think the line should b drawn.

This is the very serious problem with this law. Freedom of religion is quite clear that we are guaranteed the freedom to believe, or not, whatever we choose. But when it comes to the practice of religion, the action part of it, there have to be limits. There is a saying that illustrates it fairly well, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." In other words, you are quite free to yell and shout, be angry or not, swing your arms and shake your fists, but the moment your actions touch my nose, your freedom has found its limit. And my freedom to live in peace allows me to prevent you from touching my nose. But even that has limits. I can't exercise my freedom to protect myself beyond what is necessary, like killing you for bruising my nose.

Rights have to be balanced. This law shows no sense of balance.

[bonnie]

The 'you're discriminating against the people who are discriminating' makes a certain amount of elementary school sense.

Reframe it: they're stopping people from having the same rights as everyone else. I'm stopping them from stopping people having the same rights as everyone else.

Not really parallel.

Because people should have the same rights as everyone else. But no-one has the right to not be offended.

Assuming that the law makers that have or will vote against gay marriage are doing so because they believe it wrong they should be discriminated against for voting their conscience?

[bonnie]

Bonnie, I am a bit confused by your posts. I am not sure from what you are saying whether you are OK with the pending Arizona law or not. On the one hand I sense you are unsure where the line should be drawn. But on the other, You seem quite clear on what offends your religious sensibilities, seeming to say where you think the line should b drawn.

[Tom Wetmore]

I think you are totally not getting it about the Arizona a law (and the similar proposed laws in other states) and this gay bar owners' reaction to them.

A big problem is that it really doesn't even get to your concerns. It basically says that service, etc can be refused to someone that is gay, lesbian transgender, etc. if one has a religious conviction against such. It has nothing to do with conduct, including gay marriage. The real issue and its advocates claim is that it is about religious rights. If one has a religious problem with homosexuality (or related stuff) they are free to discriminate against anyone that fits their perception as fitting into that box. You see this now becomes a very short hop to the any other religious view. Since we are Adventists, we should then be permitted to refuse service to Sabbath breakers.... Or the other way around... Or a good Baptist hotel owner could say that he won't let non-Baptists stay in his hotel. We cannot be unequally yoked with unbelievers, so I don't have to do business with anyone who isn't a true believer.

The point is, where do you draw the line? Everyone draws their own, so their is no real objective standard. And it results in worse discrimination.

[bonnie]

I think you are totally not getting it about the Arizona a law (and the similar proposed laws in other states) and this gay bar owners' reaction to them.

[fccool]

Quote:

If being anti-gay marriage and other issues surrounding the gay lifestyle is bigoted,hateful and narrow minded what do we say the next go around? Please note,I did not say that I think they should be abused in any way,but neither should I.

There's a difference between disagreement, and discrimination.

If tomorrow there's a law that states that one can refuse a Christian a service due to religious disagreement... there would be a national outrage.

Likewise, there seems to the the argument of the kind "Well, just because they fight to make slapping legal way of resolving argument, doesn't mean we should slap them".

Sure, we shouldn't... but there are plenty of people will give them a taste of their own medicine.

[bonnie]

There's a difference between disagreement, and discrimination.

[fccool]

Acting illegally? Did he actually refuse anyone service? If not, what is you legal complaint?

[bonnie]

Acting illegally? Did he actually refuse anyone service? If not, what is you legal complaint?

If they follow thru on the threat it would be illegal.

This isn't the first for this bar owner.I would like to see a straight business post pictures of resident gays that they would refuse to serve.Banning all bachelorette parties,calling them offensive.

They are guilty of what they claim to be against

[fccool]

Sure... they are wrong in doing so. I'm guessing that you recognizing that would mean that you don't support the proposed Arizona law?

[bonnie]

Sure... they are wrong in doing so. I'm guessing that you recognizing that would mean that you don't support the proposed Arizona law?

Never said I did. Nor do I support many things a lot of gays do and demand

[Geoarrge]

My impression was that this law was in reaction to businesses dealing specifically with the wedding celebration (bakers, caterers, photographers) being sued by LGTBBQEIEIO activists for refusing to participate in their celebration. But the bill ended up being too broadly worded.

[bonnie]

My impression was that this law was in reaction to businesses dealing specifically with the wedding celebration (bakers, caterers, photographers) being sued by LGTBBQEIEIO activists for refusing to participate in their celebration. But the bill ended up being too broadly worded.

I think that is correct and the bill ended up not being as originally intended

[LifeHiscost]

Sure... they are wrong in doing so. I'm guessing that you recognizing that would mean that you don't support the proposed Arizona law?

Whatever happened to the right to post for all who walk through the doors of anothers' business, "We reserve the right to refuse service." How soon will many other freedoms, that use to be taken for granted, be taken away in the name of discrimination?

God cares! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

You have the right to refuse service for many reasons.

You can refuse on the basis of conduct.

You can refuse on the basis of dress--require one wears a tie and is not bare-chested.

You can refuse service on the basis of safety reasons--people who ride amusement rides must be of a certain height.

You can refuse service on the basis of the statute--to purchase tobacco one must be of a required age.

You can refuse service on the basis of species--a physician may not be required to treat a horse.

The list goes on and on as to the conditions under which one can refuse service.

If you generally make your services available to the public, you do not have the right to refuse service to a class of people.

If you advertise to sell loaves of bread you cannot refuse to sell your loaves of bread to women.

If you advertise to cut men's hair, you cannot refuse to cut the hair of Hispanic people.

If you advertise for people to come to your place to run on a treadmill, you can not refuse to allow Roman Catholics to do that.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I understand that people should not be discriminated for their lot in life, be it race, religion, social status, or sexual preference...

But what I don't understand is why someone would feel the need to enter a business and declare their sexual orientation... I don't see the purpose.. In a way, it's almost like bullying, in that it intentionally sets up a business to honor a person's [what should be] private preferences, rather than simply being an individual who wishes to patronize a business.