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

[Gregory Matthews]

Narcah said:

Quote:

It seems to me queers should . . . .

Your language is as objectionable as if you had said:

Quote:

It seems to me niggers should. . .

[phkrause]

Exactly Gregory

[bonnie]

While it is not a word I am in the habit of using not all find it offensive. Several co-workers of mine referred to themselves as queers.

Why We Use “queer”

Over our 23 year history, Outright Vermont has intentionally explored and then embraced the use of the word “queer” as a term used by our youth population. We routinely are challenged on our use of this word and therefore find it important to provide the curious with the context of why we not only use, but celebrate, the word queer:

WHY WE USE THE WORD “QUEER”

Outright Vermont is an organization that proudly embraces the word “queer” and has a youth population that frequently self-identifies with this word. We use “queer” when referring to our events, in our mission, and when we are collectively referring to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, and queer (LGBTIQQ) community. Despite our frequent use, we often are asked about our use of the word “queer..........”

Queer” also has a long history as a term of re-empowerment by the LGBTQ community, as a unifying term that recognizes that many complex identities that make up the LGBTIQQ (and many other identities) community. In fact, over the last thirty years, “queer” has emerged in academia, politics, and even popular culture as a term of identity, inclusion, and more and more positive use.

As a youth-driven and youth empowerment organization, Outright Vermont stands by our many youth constituents who intentionally self-identify as “queer.” Our youth engage this word as a means of pride and of inclusion of multiple complex identities including sexual orientation, gender identity, physical body identity and more. For well over the last twenty years, Outright Vermont has embraced these new uses and associations for the word “queer” and has diligently worked to educate and create a discourse within the LGBTQ community and beyond around the use of the word.

[fccool]

Quote:

Let's do this once more.

What is the definition of marriage? What should it be? Should there be limitations as to who can obtain a legal marriage license? Should we recognize and approve as equal one gay man marrying four other gay men? One straight man marrying four women.Half siblings of these plural marriages which recently became an issue?

Let's not Because you keep sidestepping this issue by changing the subject to what constitutes legal definition of marriage.

It has nothing to do with it in this case.

So you clearly understand what's going on, I'll actually paste you the language of the New Mexico Court ruling on a sample case in question (emphasis mine):

Quote:

The reality is that because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work. If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane Photography’s choice of whom to photograph or not. The difference in the present case is that the photographs that are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA are photographs that Elane Photography produces for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation.

....

there is no precedent to suggest that First Amendment protections allow such individuals or businesses to violate anti-discrimination laws. Courts cannot be in the business of deciding which businesses are sufficiently artistic to warrant exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

You keep making this an issue of the same sex marriage WHEN IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF MARRIAGE AT ALL.

If you offer a service, you have two choices:

1) Offer an exclusive service, to which discrimination laws don't apply. For example, there are exclusive clubs that are allowed to discriminate quite freely and could not be sued for that form of discrimination.

For example, there are male-only clubs. There are female-only clubs. There are religious-only clubs and bookstores. These establishements promote their preferences openly as a business structure.

There are businesses that specify exactly who they will hire based on their height, weight, age, and gender (for example video-production companies, and modeling agencies)

2) You can offer the services to general public, in which case you are a subject to non-discrimination laws.

If you run a photography studio that's offered to general public as a non-exclusive business... and a person walks in and you turn them down saying they are too ugly - they can sue you. If you tell them they are too old or too young... they can sue you. If you say that you don't serve black people... they can sue you. If you turn them down because they are male or female ... they can sue you.

I don't know how to explain it more clearly to you... it has broader implications than same-sex marriage and homosexuals. Your religious preferences don't trump these ideals, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO OFFER EXCLUSIVE SERVICE IF YOU DESIRE TO DO SO.

You can create Christians-only photography studio, and you wouldn't be sued by anyone for doing so.

These laws were established to protect the consumer and establish fairness framework for functional commerce in modern society. These are not there to marginalize and force Christians. Christians have a choice to:

1) Provide exclusive service, like many businesses do

2) Avoid doing a "open to all" public service that will potentially interfere with their religious preferences

3) Don't discriminate when it comes to providing their service

That's why I keep telling you that advertising your service as "Christian-Weddings only" will not land you in a "discrimination law" territory, and you keep switching subject to "Define what marriage is". IT DOESN'T MATTER

Quote:

For me as long as gay marriage is legal,I think it is hypocritical to prevent everyone being allowed equal "rights"

Again, this subject has nothing to do with marriage. The subject of this thread is:

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

You can do just that, if you form exclusive business, and advertise it as such.

Quote:

If I were to vote on this issue,I would feel I had to vote yes to all of the above if I believe "gay marriage" is a equal and moral right. You can't seem to be straight forward as well as the others here that back gay marriage one way or another.

No one is asking you to act against your religious preferences. You have a clear choice and be exclusive... and do so publicly. But don't be surprised that your customer base will substantially shrink because they will avoid your business like a wildfire.

[fccool]

Quote:

How can you force an artist to create artistic work based on the threat of lawsuit? What if they mixed up the salt and sugar, or the camera card malfunctioned and lost all the photos?

Generally it would reflect negatively on their image, and they may not get repeat customers.

Quote:

It seems to me queers should want to hire people who want to serve their deviant lifestyle, not forcing artists to make sub-quality products for their "special" day.

(Ignore)

Quote:

Yes, fcccool, homosexuality is and always will be, a vile sin according to the Bible. It's written right there in plain English.

Sure, so is lying and unforgiving attitude... and lack of love and care or empathy for your neighbor.

I think that God cares more about how you love and care for other people, rather than not being a queer.

One of my (Christian) employees has a gay friend, and she has recently went through Stage III cancer removal. He left his work (In NYC) and flew in and stayed with her during the procedure, and then done the same for her Chemo session.

I don't care how gay you are if you are exception human being like that guy is. There's this tendency among Christians to throw Bible around like it's some sort of a litmus test of who God accepts... and I think there's another thing that's written in plain English - if you don't have love... all your obedience and "morality" is WORTHLESS.

I'd take a gay friend who'd fly over when I'm sick and in need over the straight one who throws Bible verses around without displaying actual care for his fellow human beings.

[bonnie]

Let's not Because you keep sidestepping this issue by changing the subject to what constitutes legal definition of marriage.

It has nothing to do with it in this case.

"Let's not" Good idea if you would have left it there

It is the issue.A gay marriage was at the heart of the problem.

The baker is opposed and refused service because of Gay marriage.

Without gay marriage the baker would not have had any idea if the order was for a lesbian couple,unless as many do they were in his face over it.

Marriage has been redefined. The baker feels for right or wrong that the new definition of marriage and any willing participation in a service as that violates his belief.So how far should this be redefined? In the interest of fairness and equality how can there be any limitations on anyone?

[CoAspen]

Quote:

There's this tendency among Christians to throw Bible around like it's some sort of a litmus test of who God accepts... and I think there's another thing that's written in plain English - if you don't have love... all your obedience and "morality" is WORTHLESS.

Exactly, and that is the ignored issue! Good posts.

[fccool]

Quote:

It is the issue.A gay marriage was at the heart of the problem.

The baker is opposed and refused service because of Gay marriage.

Without gay marriage the baker would not have had any idea if the order was for a lesbian couple,unless as many do they were in his face over it.

The issue here is irrelevant, because you are pleading a special case exception. Whether it's someone refusing to serve people who are not circumcised... the issue is all the same - discrimination of otherwise public service.

I've already explained this to you and you keep going back as though it's of any relevance.

Your religious preferences don't apply in arena of public commerce when it comes to discrimination. You can discriminate privately, or in context of exclusive business.

Quote:

The baker feels for right or wrong that the new definition of marriage and any willing participation in a service as that violates his belief.So how far should this be redefined? In the interest of fairness and equality how can there be any limitations on anyone?

That's exactly the problem. If there is no line, then contract law becomes irrelevant, because you can always pencil in the "religious exception clause" without clearly defining any of your beliefs upfront... and then opt out for any reason you can make up as an objection.

For example, you may have contracted with someone to sell a product for a specific price. You change your mind... and invoke a religious clause that was not clearly indicated in the contract. It's the same issue here but in context of the entire society.

I've already explained the issue here. In a social-contract environment, commerce is not something you just do. It's regulated for a reason. It was devices to be so under constitution to protect minorities against financial and commercial discrimination, and to provide consistent grounds for maintaining social contracts.

First Amendment doesn't give you the right to break social contract that outlines the general guidelines of commerce in this country.

If you make your services exclusive upfront - there is no issue. If you offer your services to the general public, then you have to uphold the social contract and do so indiscriminately. No one is forcing anyone to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. If you don't believe so... then indicate that in your business model and promotion. Homosexuals will avoid your business and problem solved.

[bonnie]

Your religious preferences don't apply in arena of public commerce when it comes to discrimination. You can discriminate privately, or in context of exclusive business.

For example, you may have contracted with someone to sell a product for a specific price. You change your mind... and invoke a religious clause that was not clearly indicated in the contract. It's the same issue here but in context of the entire society.

[fccool]

If you don't understand the concept of social contract. Here's a good couple of paragraphs that will sum it up for you:

Quote:

This is the same argument that erupted when Congress enacted the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Opponents argued that being forced to hire or do business with women or people of color violated their liberty to choose their associates. And they were correct; it did limit their liberty. Of course, in a civilized society, our liberties are constrained in all sorts of ways; I don’t have the liberty to take your property, or play loud music next to your house at 2:00 a.m., or drive my car 100 miles per hour down a city street. Etc.

Here’s the deal: The guy who opens a bakery– or a shoe store or a bank or any other business– relies on an implied social contract. He expects police and fire departments to protect his store, and local government to maintain the streets that enable people to get there–and he expects government to provide those and numerous other services to all citizens, not just white citizens or male citizens or Christian citizens. In return for financing the government that provides those services, We the People expect those who are “open for business” to provide cakes or shoes or loans to anyone willing to pay for them.

Bottom line: If you don’t approve of gay people, or African-Americans or Jews, or whoever–don’t invite them over for dinner. I’ll fight for your right to entertain only the people you like. I’ll fight for your right to exclude “sinners” from your church, your private club and your living room.

Do you understand?

[fccool]

Quote:

Religious clause does not apply in the example.

It doesn't apply, because it would be illegal. That's the entire point. You want an exception for something that's not legal to do

Quote:

No,homosexuals will not avoid your business,they will make your business the issue.

Sure, but they can't do anything legally in such case. They can protest, and call you bigot, but if you decide to wave the Christian flag publicly as your business model... then it's a fair game.

Quote:

Without getting to specific,some businesses such as mine are very difficult to make exclusive.

So is police and fireman. They don't get to not show up if a gay wedding is on fire or there's a disturbance interrupting it. Why should you get the exception?

Quote:

When it is custom,design your own because of some very special needs that is the way it has to be. Out of the thousands of like items available,some deliberately go after mine. Rather than continue to fight the sick perversion or be a part of it in any way I would go onto something else. This behavior by people that want everyone else to be tolerant and accepting doesn't wash.

I highly doubt that.

[Aliensanctuary]

Jesus was gracious to all sinners, including murderers and whores. He would have, I believe, have offered fish and loaves to gays, as well as anyone else who was hungry, even those plotting his death. I suspect in his work as a carpenter he didn't discriminate against "sinners", rather, he welcomed the chance to interact with them.

Rather than slapping sinners in the face, he offered them a glimpse of his Kingdom, where all are loved and evil will be no more, and no one can, or will wish, to harm or insult another.

Once we all shed our evil natures, we will be perfectly happy in his Kingdom. Former "sinners", LGBTs and straights alike, will all have a chance to serve Christ as his devoted servants as he rules our world. Straights must forgive the sins of others just as they would wish to have their own, oftentimes secret, sins forgiven.

Tragically, as the basic Christian principles of morality, honesty, and justice are overrun by immorality, crime, and corruption, we are eyewitnesses to the events preceding the destruction of our present way of life. The world can't build enough prisons to accommodate all of the murderers, thieves, and war makers who will overwhelm law-abiding citizens like a flood.

[bonnie]

Sure, but they can't do anything legally in such case. They can protest, and call you bigot, but if you decide to wave the Christian flag publicly as your business model... then it's a fair game.

[bonnie]

Jesus was gracious to all sinners, including murderers and whores. He would have, I believe, have offered fish and loaves to gays, as well as anyone else who was hungry, even those plotting his death. I suspect in his work as a carpenter he didn't discriminate against "sinners", rather, he welcomed the chance to interact with them.

I believe the above is correct. This will probably get me in hot water.Remember I provide custom made,design your own. Do you believe Jesus would provide a product that is normally purchased for infants in an adult size with a graphic embroidered design on the back? Maybe use your imagination and fill in the blanks.I won't do it. Nor will I accept it as normal or something I want to be part of

[fccool]

Bonnie,

You are switching the gears here, and going to an extremes which is not exclusively associated with gay lifestyle. A tatoo artist, for example, can refuse to make a tattoo of a swastika, or an obscene picture... and it doesn't matter if the client is gay or straight.

A photographer can refuse photographing pornographic material gay or heterosexual...

You can refuse such service on the same grounds. It's not an exclusively gay or religious issue. You can refuse it based on generic objection to refuse to make indecent material and damage your reputation.

A bookstore can't be made carrying gay books... but they can't refuse selling books they carry to gay people.

I hope you understand the difference. You are not talking about the same things here.

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

You are switching the gears here, and going to an extremes which is not exclusively associated with gay lifestyle. A tatoo artist, for example, can refuse to make a tattoo of a swastika, or an obscene picture... and it doesn't matter if the client is gay or straight.

A photographer can refuse photographing pornographic material gay or heterosexual...

You can refuse such service on the same grounds. It's not an exclusively gay or religious issue. You can refuse it based on generic objection to refuse to make indecent material and damage your reputation.

A bookstore can't be made carrying gay books... but they can't refuse selling books they carry to gay people.

I hope you understand the difference. You are not talking about the same things here.

Yes we are..For the baker it was a matter of his beliefs,he acted on them obviously knowing he would end up paying the piper one way or another.

Yes I can refuse service to these depraved people and I have and will pay the price.

My mistake was in offering custom deign your own.Guess what,the nut jobs did.

As the baker the time will come when I am forced to make a decision according to my conscience because of the "tolerance demanding" crowd.

I am not necessary to their sick games,but it is necessary for them to try to get those like myself to knuckle under

[fccool]

Quote:

Yes we are..For the baker it was a matter of his beliefs,he acted on them obviously knowing he would end up paying the piper one way or another.

For the baker, it's a different issue... You are attempting to conflate two entirely different things. There's a clear line defined here, and you are attempting to shift it into "they are all perverts" territory.

Quote:

Yes I can refuse service to these depraved people and I have and will pay the price.

What price will you pay? I've never heard of anyone sued over refusing a custom design on bases of obscene material... and lose the case.

I don't know many lawyers that would take such case either.

You are muddying the discussion here with attempting to conflate two different issues.

Again... a bookstore doesn't have to carry gay or pornographic material, but they can't refuse service to gay people. That's the same issue with a baker. They are not required to make "gay cakes". They can refuse making cakes shaped like a male genitalia (I'm not implying that that's what a gay cake is). But when it comes to the same service they offer for everyone else... they can't refuse such service, unless they declare upfront that they are exclusive to the "club members".

[bonnie]

For the baker, it's a different issue... You are attempting to conflate two entirely different things. There's a clear line defined here, and you are attempting to shift it into "they are all perverts" territory.

[bonnie]

I don't think it is so much a question of being served,but being considered mainstream. In the end the baker will pay materially for his decision.

Unless you have dealt with some of these "very special groups"

you do not have a clue how easy they can ruin someone's business.

You turn them down at your own risk,they don't need to sue.

One woman was forced to close down after being targeted. A series of seemingly legitimate buys led to a slew of very negative reviews.Baseless but effective.Her crime,turning down the requests for what she considered sick and depraved.

I don't think after that she could have sold rainwater in a drought.Perfectly legal,not a thing to be done about it

[fccool]

Quote:

I don't care what you have heard of. Didn't say anything about being sued or lawyers. For those that want to take advantage of every opportunity to take another inch in their so called fight to be equal it doesn't take that.

How is this relevant to the original post? You are attempting to conflate intolerant attitude that most gay people won't condone... and a completely different issue relating to the non-discrimination law.

Quote:

I don't screen those I sell to, obviously can't. When I refused what they "designed" the love and tolerance crowd found another more effective way to make sure I was harassed. I found myself on facebook and other places,strangely enough,being highly praised and recommended in a very foul manner. That led to a bombardment by others wanting to place orders.

Welcome to running your own business

I can tell you plentiful stories of kids being idiots, and attempt hacking the service I run, and threatening to flood our facebook page, or undermine the normal operation of the service if we don't give them free stuff.

There will always be idiots, no matter which business you run... but it doesn't mean that all kids are idiots in my case. Majority are not, and quite respectful and thankful for the service that we provide. We can't punish the majority based on actions of the few.

Quote:

Don't tell me how tolerant many in this crowd are. Nor don't try to tell me there isn't anything they can do legally.

That only scratches the surface of their fun and games

Their? "They" are not some monolithic secret society with an agenda. You are referring to a rather narrow ideology within the group itself. I doubt most of gay people would encourage such behavior, so you are not dealing with "homosexuality" here. You are dealing with idiocy.

[fccool]

Quote:

I don't think it is so much a question of being served,but being considered mainstream. In the end the baker will pay materially for his decision.

Unless you have dealt with some of these "very special groups"

you do not have a clue how easy they can ruin someone's business.

You turn them down at your own risk,they don't need to sue.

One woman was forced to close down after being targeted. A series of seemingly legitimate buys led to a slew of very negative reviews.Baseless but effective.Her crime,turning down the requests for what she considered sick and depraved.

I don't think after that she could have sold rainwater in a drought.Perfectly legal,not a thing to be done about it

Sure, Christian, Gay, Green Peace, Peta, Muslim, and Atheist activists ruined plenty of legitimate businesses in their protest attempts.

My relative's medical practice was ruined because of the few people who decided to gang up and complain to the medical boards.

What does that have to do with it with legality or general fairness? I'm not going to treat people based on what extremes that some people in these group take their views.

Why should anyone? I'm a business owner, and I'd never say "Young people these days are selfish idiots", because few act that way.

That's the overwhelming motif that I see with this discussion on you end.

[bonnie]

How is this relevant to the original post? You are attempting to conflate intolerant attitude that most gay people won't condone... and a completely different issue relating to the non-discrimination law.

Quote:

You tell me,you brought up sue and lawyers

As I think I am considerably older than you and my husband and I have always been self employed I really don't need your condescending attitude.

Nasty competitors are one thing.Because I don't choose to participate in some sick lifestyle is quite another

"They" belong to a ever growing group.Nor did I indicate that "most" gays are responsible so see if you can reflect what I have said with just a small degree of honesty.

[bonnie]

Sure, Christian, Gay, Green Peace, Peta, Muslim, and Atheist activists ruined plenty of legitimate businesses in their protest attempts.

My relative's medical practice was ruined because of the few people who decided to gang up and complain to the medical boards.

What does that have to do with it with legality or general fairness? I'm not going to treat people based on what extremes that some people in these group take their views.

Didn't imply that you should. This is a matter of conscience for some.You disregard that and call them bigots.

They, not you will pay the price for following where they believe their conscience is leading,but that is something that you as a "tolerant" person cannot tolerate.

So let's just leave it at that.

[bonnie]

Obtaining respect and tolerance is usually best achieved by giving that in return. Understanding that not every action that you object to is mindless bigotry.Just because you can sue legally doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

In my case I have dealt with many of the gay community.Two of my regular and favorite buyers are gay .They are not demanding respect,they have earned it by respecting my beliefs.

Stamping your feet and making a public spectacle and screaming for respect usually only breeds more animosity.

The baker in question was not making a loud spectacle,but sounds like he respectively declined. Within the law? Probably not. Does he have the right to follow thru on his stated beliefs? I believe he does. So the tolerant want force used to bring this man into line

It sounds like it will be fought out in court. Probably lose this time around,but the more this continues the more push back we are going to see from the far religious right.

[bonnie]

So, as a Christian I am to remain silent when I see my state or country legislating immorality? Didn't Jesus warn us about not passively standing by while a brother openly sins.