Oklahoma Dem Wants to Make Anti-LGBT Businesses Own Their Bigotry

[TrueBlue]

Oklahoma Dem Wants to Make Anti-LGBT Businesses Own Their Bigotry
Filed By John M. Becker (http://www.bilerico.com/contributors/john_m_becker/)

http://www.bilerico.com/2015/03/oklahoma_dem_wants_to_make_anti-lgbt_businesses_ow.php


"Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites."

======================================
This sure will put all of them on notice about their refusal to serve others and will make them be up front about their motives and reasons for not serving the public.

[Dragonborn Herald]

So much for the constitution.

And fuck those democratic assholes who think we have no right to refuse them.

[Mac-7]

Oklahoma Dem Wants to Make Anti-LGBT Businesses Own Their Bigotry
Filed By John M. Becker (http://www.bilerico.com/contributors/john_m_becker/)

http://www.bilerico.com/2015/03/oklahoma_dem_wants_to_make_anti-lgbt_businesses_ow.php



======================================
This sure will put all of them on notice about their refusal to serve others and will make them be up front about their motives and reasons for not serving the public.

If the law applied to me I would be happy to post a notice telling homosexuals to toke their business elsewhere if
we can tattoo a "p" on their forehead so we know who they are.

[TrueBlue]

11011

[iustitia]

So basically, the government wants to control the human conscience in economic transactions and, failing that, tries to coerce human behavior in economic transactions. Here's a thought- how about the government minds its own goddamn business like the $18 trillion in debt we have rather than micromanage small businesses?

[Howey]

If the law applied to me I would be happy to post a notice telling homosexuals to toke their business elsewhere if
we can tattoo a "p" on their forehead so we know who they are.

Thanks for the input, Mr. Hitler. Your idea worked well with those nasty Jews, didn't it?

[Common]

If a business puts up a sign and says We dont serve Republicans, NRA, Texans, Libertarians or anyone we think look like one. Would that be right ?

If a business puts up a sign we dont Serve IRISH OR POLISH or anyone who looks like one, is that right.

This time on the side of gays. If they arent putting on gay displays or causing disruption and just want to be served they should. If not that opens the door to all kinds of scenarios.

This is why I think libertarians are dead wrong about so many things.

I would vote for Scott Walker who I loathe if my only other choice was Rand Paul

[iustitia]

Thanks for the input, Mr. Hitler. Your idea worked well with those nasty Jews, didn't it?

That's not fair to Hitler, Howey. Besides, Mac's a neocon. They looove them some Jews.

[iustitia]

If a business puts up a sign and says We dont serve Republicans, NRA, Texans, Libertarians or anyone we think look like one. Would that be right ?

If a business puts up a sign we dont Serve IRISH OR POLISH or anyone who looks like one, is that right.

This time on the side of gays. If they arent putting on gay displays or causing disruption and just want to be served they should. If not that opens the door to all kinds of scenarios.

Right is subjective. Business-wise it's stupid to limit your customer reach. But the state shouldn't pretend to be a paragon of morality or business decisions and individuals should run their businesses however they see fit as long as no one is harmed. Being an asshole shouldn't be illegal. Neither should unpopular beliefs.


This is why I think libertarians are dead wrong about so many things.

I'm not a libertarian. I just happen to believe in the principle of defending conscience and property.

[Ravens Fan]

Right is subjective. Business-wise it's stupid to limit your customer reach. But the state shouldn't pretend to be a paragon of morality or business decisions and individuals should run their businesses however they see fit as long as no one is harmed. Being an asshole shouldn't be illegal. Neither should unpopular beliefs.



^^^^^ Basically this.

[Common]

Right is subjective. Business-wise it's stupid to limit your customer reach. But the state shouldn't pretend to be a paragon of morality or business decisions and individuals should run their businesses however they see fit as long as no one is harmed. Being an asshole shouldn't be illegal. Neither should unpopular beliefs.



I'm not a libertarian. I just happen to believe in the principle of defending conscience and property.

I could if I was inclined post link after link showing if there was no govt involvement untold numbers of incidents americans would be totally screwed.

Just the link I posted about Chris Christie breaking the law HE had written and passed to screw state workers, he illegally put copays for prescription drugs through the roof for retirees. So high that copays in some cases were higher than the drug costs. He did that in 2012 THE UNIONS brought it court and won. He was stealing 1.1 million a month off New Jersey retirees.

Thats a small example of why govt and unions are needed to HELP THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DEFENSELESS against the rich and powerful.

I lived all my life with a Govt. The govt never hurt me, it helped me in so far as protecting me against unscrupulous rich and powerful people.

The rich have convinced the younger crowed that they are all good. I suggest you read some history on how corporations operated before LAWS were written and unions formed to stop them and their practices.

[iustitia]

I could if I was inclined post link after link showing if there was no govt involvement untold numbers of incidents americans would be totally screwed.

Just the link I posted about Chris Christie breaking the law HE had written and passed to screw state workers, he illegally put copays for prescription drugs through the roof for retirees. So high that copays in some cases were higher than the drug costs. He did that in 2012 THE UNIONS brought it court and won. He was stealing 1.1 million a month off New Jersey retirees.

Thats a small example of why govt and unions are needed to HELP THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DEFENSELESS against the rich and powerful.

I lived all my life with a Govt. The govt never hurt me, it helped me in so far as protecting me against unscrupulous rich and powerful people.

The rich have convinced the younger crowed that they are all good. I suggest you read some history on how corporations operated before LAWS were written and unions formed to stop them and their practices.

So you're bitching that the government screwed people over as a justification for why the government should screw people over? Your ranting makes no sense. There's literally no connection between what you're raging over and what you're responding to.

Also, don't be presumptuous about the younger crowd. I'm young and poor and have no loyalty to rich elites. And it's because of my individualism that I reject your fascist desires for state control of markets and Orwellian desires for thought crime.

[Cthulhu]

11011
I usually advise against making me me a from self portraits, but hey, it's a free country.

Sort of.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Common]

So you're bitching that the government screwed people over as a justification for why the government should screw people over? Your ranting makes no sense. There's literally no connection between what you're raging over and what you're responding to.

Also, don't be presumptuous about the younger crowd. I'm young and poor and have no loyalty to rich elites. And it's because of my individualism that I reject your fascist desires for state control of markets and Orwellian desires for thought crime.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I can speak for myself and the only one ranting is YOU.

Ill make it simpler, too much govt is a bad thing, unbridled private sector is a very bad thing.
There has to be checks and balances.

Im not poor and im not young and my wife and I made it all on our own.

Now go google The triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, I had an aunt 15 or 16 die in that fire.
Then you should understand why we need to regulate the private sector and who is going to do that ? The govt is the only ones to do that.
There has to be a happy medium neither left to their own designs is a good thing for the mass' of americans.

[Cthulhu]

Oklahoma Dem Wants to Make Anti-LGBT Businesses Own Their Bigotry
Filed By John M. Becker (http://www.bilerico.com/contributors/john_m_becker/)

http://www.bilerico.com/2015/03/oklahoma_dem_wants_to_make_anti-lgbt_businesses_ow.php



======================================
This sure will put all of them on notice about their refusal to serve others and will make them be up front about their motives and reasons for not serving the public.
Is there a list available? I'd like to know which stores are worthy of my federal reserve notes. And those which are not.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Common]

Right is subjective. Business-wise it's stupid to limit your customer reach. But the state shouldn't pretend to be a paragon of morality or business decisions and individuals should run their businesses however they see fit as long as no one is harmed. Being an asshole shouldn't be illegal. Neither should unpopular beliefs.



I'm not a libertarian. I just happen to believe in the principle of defending conscience and property.

I disagree I used the example if you allow them to refuse service to gays that are not in any way causing any issues. They arent putting on overbearing gay displays of affection and are just two people that want to be served. They should not be denied for if they can be, then anyone can be denied for any reason.

We dont serve Irish women with children. We dont serve marines because the owner was in the air force and hates marines. We dont serve Polish or French. We dont serve anyone that doesnt look white and on and on. See thats why there has to be reasonable laws and restrictions, im my opinion anyway. It cant be an all or nothing situation left to anyones whim.

iustitia I dont know how young you are and I know many much younger than me that are far more intelligent and far more educated than I. That doesnt mean I cant have an opinion based on my lifes experience right ?
I think this we can do whatever we want to do is beyond absurd and it would send the country into a tailspin. You can do whatever you want if you live on 200 acres in appalachia with your nearest neighbor 2 miles away. You cant do whatever you want in NYC because someone will kill you. In a society there has to be rules and laws. Who is going to write the rules and laws if not the govt ?

The govt you so hate you should remember they are ELECTED by your fellow americans.

[iustitia]

Stop putting words in my mouth, I can speak for myself and the only one ranting is YOU.Then don't do the same and assume I'm historically illiterate when I've shown you up several times now on the subject or make assumptions about age.


Ill make it simpler, too much govt is a bad thing, unbridled private sector is a very bad thing.
There has to be checks and balances.You intend to balance business and government... with more government. How is that rational or consistent?


Im not poor and im not young and my wife and I made it all on our own.

Now go google The triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, I had an aunt 15 or 16 die in that fire.
Then you should understand why we need to regulate the private sector and who is going to do that ? The govt is the only ones to do that.
There has to be a happy medium neither left to their own designs is a good thing for the mass' of americans.You already played this card against Chris and I won't be taking the bait either. Post your own evidence. Mine says just the opposite about the fire.

[iustitia]

I disagree I used the example if you allow them to refuse service to gays that are not in any way causing any issues. They arent putting on overbearing gay displays of affection and are just two people that want to be served. They should not be denied for if they can be, then anyone can be denied for any reason.

We dont serve Irish women with children. We dont serve marines because the owner was in the air force and hates marines. We dont serve Polish or French. We dont serve anyone that doesnt look white and on and on. See thats why there has to be reasonable laws and restrictions, im my opinion anyway. It cant be an all or nothing situation left to anyones whim.

iustitia I dont know how young you are and I know many much younger than me that are far more intelligent and far more educated than I. That doesnt mean I cant have an opinion based on my lifes experience right ?
I think this we can do whatever we want to do is beyond absurd and it would send the country into a tailspin. You can do whatever you want if you live on 200 acres in appalachia with your nearest neighbor 2 miles away. You cant do whatever you want in NYC because someone will kill you. In a society there has to be rules and laws. Who is going to write the rules and laws if not the govt ?

The govt you so hate you should remember they are ELECTED by your fellow americans.You're continually being emotional instead of logical. Yes, we know that you think it would be wrong not to serve tame homosexuals. Fine. That's not an irrational position to have for a businessman. You've yet to demonstrate why, however, it's the state's job to undermine a private business owner's religious, intellectual and property rights by demanding he serve those he doesn't want to serve. Your entire argument boils down to "because I don't like it", which is ironic considering that's the mentality you claim to want to legislate against.

[Mac-7]

Thanks for the input, Mr. Hitler. Your idea worked well with those nasty Jews, didn't it?

You want the Star of David on conscientious objector's doors, so why not a "p" on homosexuals forehead?

[Common]

You're continually being emotional instead of logical. Yes, we know that you think it would be wrong not to serve tame homosexuals. Fine. That's not an irrational position to have for a businessman. You've yet to demonstrate why, however, it's the state's job to undermine a private business owner's religious, intellectual and property rights by demanding he serve those he doesn't want to serve. Your entire argument boils down to "because I don't like it", which is ironic considering that's the mentality you claim to want to legislate against.

Im not emotional at all actually I think its you whos attempt at principled stand is using emotion based on some wild belief you have that anyone can do what they want or should be able too.

You can write all the paragraphs you want and make innuendo all you want about my emotional state. That will not change that I dont believe business should pick out of the air why they wont serve a group of people whethers it gays, marines or obese people or dwarfs.

[Captain Obvious]

I didn't realize Oklahoma was so fucked up.

It's like Texas... without the smarts.

[TrueBlue]

You're continually being emotional instead of logical. Yes, we know that you think it would be wrong not to serve tame homosexuals. Fine. That's not an irrational position to have for a businessman. You've yet to demonstrate why, however, it's the state's job to undermine a private business owner's religious, intellectual and property rights by demanding he serve those he doesn't want to serve. Your entire argument boils down to "because I don't like it", which is ironic considering that's the mentality you claim to want to legislate against.
The danger in your logic stems from the fact that allowing discrimination by anyone and everyone has its inherent dangers. One immediate thought would be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be decimated by many racists and bigots given the chance. If a Black person was to walk into a White establishment and they didn't want to serve him or her they would need only say that they don't serve people who are not wearing a cross. And undoubtedly that would be legal under this type of law proposed. So, they would not have to actually come out and say that they didn't want to serve a Black person because of their color but only that they were not wearing a cross and they are a "Christian establishment" that reserves the right to refuse service to anyone who doesn't wear a cross. Meanwhile, dozens of White people could walk in without wearing a cross and would be served immediately and with full courtesies. Therein lies the problem.

[iustitia]

The danger in your logic stems from the fact that allowing discrimination by anyone and everyone has its inherent dangers. One immediate thought would be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be decimated by many racists and bigots given the chance. If a Black person was to walk into a White establishment and they didn't want to serve him or her they would need only say that they don't serve people who are not wearing a cross. And undoubtedly that would be legal under this type of law proposed. So, they would not have to actually come out and say that they didn't want to serve a Black person because of their color but only that they were not wearing a cross and they are a "Christian establishment" that reserves the right to refuse service to anyone who doesn't wear a cross. Meanwhile, dozens of White people could walk in without wearing a cross and would be served immediately and with full courtesies. Therein lies the problem.

You have a stupid definition of 'danger'. Refusing service isn't dangerous, it's mean. You haven't made a new argument, just an apocalyptic appeal to emotion.

[Howey]

You have a stupid definition of 'danger'. Refusing service isn't dangerous, it's mean. You haven't made a new argument, just an apocalyptic appeal to emotion.

Tell that to Matthew Shepard and the millions of homosexuals beaten to death or near death in the name of bigotry.

[Ravens Fan]

Tell that to Matthew Shepard and the millions of homosexuals beaten to death or near death in the name of bigotry.

But there is a difference between not serving someone dinner and beating someone to a bloody pulp, yes?

[iustitia]

Tell that to Matthew Shepard and the millions of homosexuals beaten to death or near death in the name of bigotry.

First off, millions?

Second, Matt Shepard wasn't killed for being gay. Like most famous cases of gaybashing, it isn't so. Kid was a meth-whore and killed by his lover.

[iustitia]

But there is a difference between not serving someone dinner and beating someone to a bloody pulp, yes?

Seriously. I mean is allowing people to run their businesses how they want going to legalize murder?

[Howey]

But there is a difference between not serving someone dinner and beating someone to a bloody pulp, yes?

Not really. Both are indicative of homophobia.


First off, millions?

Second, Matt Shepard wasn't killed for being gay. Like most famous cases of gaybashing, it isn't so. Kid was a meth-$#@! and killed by his lover.

http://www.advocate.com/print-issue/current-issue/2013/09/13/have-we-got-matthew-shepard-all-wrong?page=full

[Ravens Fan]

Not really. Both are indicative of homophobia.

Homophobia is not illegal. It is wrong and I despise it, but it is not something that can be legislated away. Hearts and minds, that is the best way IMO.

If allowing legislation like this brings the bigots and homophobes out into the light, I see that as a good thing. If a few of them can't afford to pay the bills and loose everything because of their own stupidity... oh well.

[Common]

Homophobia is not illegal. It is wrong and I despise it, but it is not something that can be legislated away. Hearts and minds, that is the best way IMO.

If allowing legislation like this brings the bigots and homophobes out into the light, I see that as a good thing. If a few of them can't afford to pay the bills and loose everything because of their own stupidity... oh well.

As a rule I agree with what your saying raven, what makes me disagree is this. If you allow this in Oklahoma other states will jump on the bandwagon. I am against discriminating against anyone gays included.

[TrueBlue]

As a rule I agree with what your saying raven, what makes me disagree is this. If you allow this in Oklahoma other states will jump on the bandwagon. I am against discriminating against anyone gays included. Common You are correct in your assertion that other states will jump on the bandwagon to try to enact similar deleterious legislation. They are already doing just that most unfortunately.

Wave Of Anti-LGBT Bills in 2015 State Legislative Sessions
by Hayley Miller, Digital Media Associate

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/wave-of-anti-lgbt-bills-in-2015-state-legislative-sessions


"HRC is working to counter a wave of anti-LGBT bills that have been filed by state legislators across the country. More than 85 bills have been filed in 26 state legislatures."

[Common]

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) You are correct in your assertion that other states will jump on the bandwagon to try to enact similar deleterious legislation. They are already doing just that most unfortunately.

Wave Of Anti-LGBT Bills in 2015 State Legislative Sessions
by Hayley Miller, Digital Media Associate

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/wave-of-anti-lgbt-bills-in-2015-state-legislative-sessions

We cant have everyone just denying service to anyone for any reason, that just doesnt make sense to me. It opens an entire pandoras box

[Howey]

Homophobia is not illegal. It is wrong and I despise it, but it is not something that can be legislated away. Hearts and minds, that is the best way IMO.

If allowing legislation like this brings the bigots and homophobes out into the light, I see that as a good thing. If a few of them can't afford to pay the bills and loose everything because of their own stupidity... oh well.

Nor can we legislate away homosexuality.

[Mac-7]

Nor can we legislate away homosexuality.

Or drunk driving.

Libs should make that legal too.

[Ravens Fan]

As a rule I agree with what your saying raven, what makes me disagree is this. If you allow this in Oklahoma other states will jump on the bandwagon. I am against discriminating against anyone gays included.

I fail to see a problem with that. My point was not meant just for Oklahoma, but for all of the U.S.

[Ravens Fan]

Nor can we legislate away homosexuality.

I agree. If that was the intent of the bill, I would be dead set against it. But the bill is about allowing business owners to make business decisions that they should be allowed to make on their own.

[Howey]

I agree. If that was the intent of the bill, I would be dead set against it. But the bill is about allowing business owners to make business decisions that they should be allowed to make on their own.

And what if that business didn't want to serve blacks? Or women?

And did you ever answer my question?

How will they identify gays?

[Mac-7]

And what if that business didn't want to serve blacks? Or women?

And did you ever answer my question?

How will they identify gays?

I have already suggested a way.

Tattoo a big letter "p" on their foreheads.

[Mister D]

We cant have everyone just denying service to anyone for any reason, that just doesnt make sense to me. It opens an entire pandoras box

I don't understand that persepctive for the simple reason that business owners could deny service for most of history yet the country survived. There wasn't chaos. Life went on. There is a contemporary tendency to imagine that the way things are is the only possible way they could be.

[Mister D]

And what if that business didn't want to serve blacks? Or women?

And did you ever answer my question?

How will they identify gays?

Pink triangle. Real easy.

[Mac-7]

Most businesses will serve gays.

Particularly if the gays are not flaunting their sexual perversion.

[Ravens Fan]

And what if that business didn't want to serve blacks? Or women?

And did you ever answer my question?

How will they identify gays?

That is their choice. It is their business on their property, they should be allowed to choose who can and cannot be there. I have never said it would be a smart choice, but one that is entirely theirs to make.

As to identifying the gays, Beats me. Not mine nor the governments problem. I would imagine that a non-flamboyant gay person could fly under the radar, but why would they want to?

[Common]

Im baffled by this younger generations thinking. One thread they believe a person can stand nude in their doorway with all the neighbors and their kids able to see it because its HIS RIGHT because hes on his property.

Now they believe a business can refuse to serve someone for any reason.

It wasnt that way when I was young and I dont agree with it being that way now.

[PolWatch]

I agree. If that was the intent of the bill, I would be dead set against it. But the bill is about allowing business owners to make business decisions that they should be allowed to make on their own.

The problem in that is when they decided to open for business to the public at large. If they wish to limit who can use their business, it should be a restricted operation (private club). We can't legislate morality or good manners but our Constitution guarantees at least an attempt at equality. It is the business owners' choice to be public or private.

[TrueBlue]

That is their choice. It is their business on their property, they should be allowed to choose who can and cannot be there. I have never said it would be a smart choice, but one that is entirely theirs to make.

As to identifying the gays, Beats me. Not mine nor the governments problem. I would imagine that a non-flamboyant gay person could fly under the radar, but why would they want to?
Oh that's just great, astute thinking isn't it? That they should be allowed to choose who can and cannot be there. Well tell them to just go ahead and do that! In the meantime, the hundreds and then thousands of existing clients and potential clients that leave their state in disgust over these flagrantly bad laws and won't do business with them anymore because of it will surely hit them hard in the state pocketbook, and will give them a Giant Jolt and make them wake up and smell the coffee!

Boy, am I ever looking forward to that already with Great Glee and Much GUSTO, Unequivocally!!http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/103.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/94.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/31.gif

[Ravens Fan]

The problem in that is when they decided to open for business to the public at large. If they wish to limit who can use their business, it should be a restricted operation (private club).

Who said they opened for business to the public at large? Is that a part of the wording on the license that they have to be open to the public at large? Serious question, because I can't find anything to support that.

How can they choose what hours they are open, and prosecute those who come on the property after hours for trespassing if they cannot control access?

Loitering laws should not be followed either, because it is not up to the owner to decide who comes on his property as soon as he puts a business there?

Why shouldn't they be able to decide they do not want a certain person on their property for whatever reason?


We can't legislate morality or good manners but our Constitution guarantees at least an attempt at equality.

Equal treatment from the Government, not from each other. Sorry, but you can't force people to play nice, no matter how much you want to.

[PolWatch]

I think that when a business files papers for incorporation, they indicate if they are a private club or a public enterprise. I'm not saying that a business owner should not be able to decide who uses his business but I do believe they should be open about how restrictive their business is. Its not difficult to decide if they want to be a private club with a restricted membership or a public at large business. If they want to have a business named White, Straight, Fundamentalist Christian Bakery...that is their right. I suspect they don't want to be that open about it because too many people would judge them just as they are judging others.

[Ravens Fan]

Oh that's just great, astute thinking isn't it? That they should be allowed to choose who can and cannot be there.

What is your problem with freedom?


Well tell them to just go ahead and do that! In the meantime, the hundreds and then thousands of existing clients and potential clients that leave their state in disgust over these flagrantly bad laws and won't do business with them anymore because of it will surely hit them hard in the state pocketbook, and will give them a Giant Jolt and make them wake up and smell the coffee!

Boy, am I ever looking forward to that already with Great Glee and Much GUSTO, Unequivocally!!http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/103.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/94.gif http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/31.gif

So, instead of a bigot's immediate peers and neighbors shaming them and/or convincing them into change, it will be outsiders coming in and forcing their views on the locals. Gee, I bet that goes well.

[PolWatch]

Who said they opened for business to the public at large? Is that a part of the wording on the license that they have to be open to the public at large? Serious question, because I can't find anything to support that.

How can they choose what hours they are open, and prosecute those who come on the property after hours for trespassing if they cannot control access?

Loitering laws should not be followed either, because it is not up to the owner to decide who comes on his property as soon as he puts a business there?

Why shouldn't they be able to decide they do not want a certain person on their property for whatever reason?



Equal treatment from the Government, not from each other. Sorry, but you can't force people to play nice, no matter how much you want to.

So you believe that the Civil Rights Act was wrong? That restaurants, stores, etc. should still be allowed to refuse service to blacks or Asians because of their race?

[Chloe]

Most businesses will serve gays.

Particularly if the gays are not flaunting their sexual perversion.

Is simply just being gay considered "flaunting" to you? How about something basic, like holding hands?

[Mister D]

So you believe that the Civil Rights Act was wrong? That restaurants, stores, etc. should still be allowed to refuse service to blacks or Asians because of their race?

That Title II is bad law has always been the libertarian position.

[Mister D]

I'll add that it's an intellectually consistent position unlike the others I've seen here.

[Ravens Fan]

I think that when a business files papers for incorporation, they indicate if they are a private club or a public enterprise. I'm not saying that a business owner should not be able to decide who uses his business but I do believe they should be open about how restrictive their business is. Its not difficult to decide if they want to be a private club with a restricted membership or a public at large business. If they want to have a business named White, Straight, Fundamentalist Christian Bakery...that is their right. I suspect they don't want to be that open about it because too many people would judge them just as they are judging others.

A Public Enterprise is one controlled by the state, like the USPS, a Private Enterprise is one owned by and operated by private owner or shareholders.

[Ravens Fan]

So you believe that the Civil Rights Act was wrong? That restaurants, stores, etc. should still be allowed to refuse service to blacks or Asians because of their race?

I think it was the only option at the time, all things considered.

I also think things are a whole lot different today then they were back then. And because of that, the country would not revert to 1964 if business owners were allowed to make that decision. I think that social media and free market and greed would keep things in-line.

[Mister D]

I think it was the only option at the time, all things considered.

I also think things are a whole lot different today then they were back then. And because of that, the country would not revert to 1964 if business owners were allowed to make that decision. I think that social media and free market and greed would keep things in-line.

The spirit of capitalism (I don't mean that in a positive sense) would have gradually changed southern customs had segregation not been the law.

[PolWatch]

I think it was the only option at the time, all things considered.

I also think things are a whole lot different today then they were back then. And because of that, the country would not revert to 1964 if business owners were allowed to make that decision. I think that social media and free market and greed would keep things in-line.

But you have not answered my question. Do you think the Civil Rights Act was wrong? That the correct solution to the situation would be (as you suggest) to allow private business to decide if they obeyed the Constitution or not? We can speculate all day about what it would produce today. I think without the federal government forcing the changes in 1964, we would still see 'white only' signs all over the place. Should we just revert to that so they can add 'straight only' signs too? Unlike the signs that say 'no shoes/no service' I don't believe sexual orientation is something a person can take off.

[Ravens Fan]

But you have not answered my question. Do you think the Civil Rights Act was wrong?

Yes, from a Constitutional standpoint.


That the correct solution to the situation would be (as you suggest) to allow private business to decide if they obeyed the Constitution or not?

The Constitution was not meant for them to follow.


We can speculate all day about what it would produce today. I think without the federal government forcing the changes in 1964, we would still see 'white only' signs all over the place.

I agree that at that time, there really was no other way.


Should we just revert to that so they can add 'straight only' signs too? Unlike the signs that say 'no shoes/no service' I don't believe sexual orientation is something a person can take off.

I know that I cannot take off my sexuality, but I can take my money elsewhere. Unlike the 1960's, there is nothing stopping us or blacks or any minorities from opening up our own stores. There is Facebook and Twitter to send pictures of the sign to and shame the owner worldwide for his/her stupidity. But there is no reason to use the force of law to try and change someone's beliefs.

[Mac-7]

Is simply just being gay considered "flaunting" to you? How about something basic, like holding hands?

I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

The business owner deserves the final decision about that.

[Mac-7]

That Title II is bad law has always been the libertarian position.

And my position too, which definitely not libertarian.

[Mac-7]

I know that I cannot take off my sexuality, but I can take my money elsewhere.

Thats ok.

its what I would do.

No one is forcing you to do business with people you disapprove of.

[Chloe]

I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

The business owner deserves the final decision about that.

I was asking your opinion

[Mac-7]

I was asking your opinion

You know my opinion.

If gays want others to know they find a way to let them know.

after that it just depends on the business and the owner.

[Howey]

That is their choice. It is their business on their property, they should be allowed to choose who can and cannot be there. I have never said it would be a smart choice, but one that is entirely theirs to make.

As to identifying the gays, Beats me. Not mine nor the governments problem. I would imagine that a non-flamboyant gay person could fly under the radar, but why would they want to?

Wrong again. It is against the law to refuse service to blacks. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Ravens Fan]

Wrong again. It is against the law to refuse service to blacks. Why is that so hard to understand?

Have you been reading the conversation, or just cherry picking my responses? Context matters.

[Chloe]

You know my opinion.

If gays want others to know they find a way to let them know.

after that it just depends on the business and the owner.

Do you personally, as in you Mac-7, believe that two gay men simply holding hands while walking into a business is an example of flaunting?

[Mac-7]

Do you personally, as in you @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014), believe that two gay men simply holding hands while walking into a business is an example of flaunting?

It all depends.

not in Thailand where heterosexual men hold hands as a sign of friendship.

But in Indiana or Oklahoma?

Sure.

[Captain Obvious]

I was asking your opinion

You can simply google it too, his script is on most RWNJ sources.

Brietbart would do.

[iustitia]

PolWatch, you keep making the assertion that the Constitution says property owners cannot discriminate. I and others have countered several times on this subject that the Constitution's equal protection clause is about government policies towards citizens and those under its jurisdiction. Not only was sexuality never a component of it in intent, but the very notion of repealing property rights, religious principles or freedom of conscience through the 14th Amendment is so far-removed from the 14th that had anyone suggested that it would have never been ratified.

I'd like you to seriously explain what part of the Constitution or 14th Amendment actually states that private citizens can't manage businesses and property intolerantly.

[PolWatch]

Since I'm not an attorney, I can't give you the information you ask for. What was the basis for the elimination of whites only signs on restaurants, stores, etc in the 60's?

[Howey]

PolWatch, you keep making the assertion that the Constitution says property owners cannot discriminate. I and others have countered several times on this subject that the Constitution's equal protection clause is about government policies towards citizens and those under its jurisdiction. Not only was sexuality never a component of it in intent, but the very notion of repealing property rights, religious principles or freedom of conscience through the 14th Amendment is so far-removed from the 14th that had anyone suggested that it would have never been ratified.

I'd like you to seriously explain what part of the Constitution or 14th Amendment actually states that private citizens can't manage businesses and property intolerantly.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says private citizens cannot discriminate in their businesses.

[TrueBlue]

I think it was the only option at the time, all things considered.

I also think things are a whole lot different today then they were back then. And because of that, the country would not revert to 1964 if business owners were allowed to make that decision. I think that social media and free market and greed would keep things in-line.
Oh you don't believe that it would revert do you? It already has and only to get worse. Have you seen the recent effigies of Black people hanging from a tree that have been in the news? Crosses being burned in front of their yards and other heinous crimes being committed against Black citizens? You also need look no farther than to the police and citizen riots going on all over the country where it concerns Black Americans to find your true answer.

[iustitia]

Since I'm not an attorney, I can't give you the information you ask for. What was the basis for the elimination of whites only signs on restaurants, stores, etc in the 60's?


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says private citizens cannot discriminate in their businesses.

Right, and what that Civil Rights Act says is not the question but rather what the Constitution says about equal protection. Because the Civil Rights Act is only constitutional insofar as it's an extension of the 14th Amendment. If the Constitution limits equal protection to government policy and ignores the market, then provisions of the Civil Rights Act regarding property rights would be unconstitutional.Right, and what that Civil Rights Act says is not the question but rather what the Constitution says about equal protection. Because the Civil Rights Act is only constitutional insofar as it's an extension of the 14th Amendment. If the Constitution limits equal protection to government policy and ignores the market, then provisions of the Civil Rights Act regarding property rights would be unconstitutional.

[Ravens Fan]

Oh you don't believe that it would revert do you?

That's what I said.


It already has and only to get worse. Have you seen the recent effigies of Black people hanging from a tree that have been in the news? Crosses being burned in front of their yards and other heinous crimes being committed against Black citizens?

Can't say that I have. If that was happening as you claim, I am sure we would all hear about it every day.


You also need look no farther than to the police and citizen riots going on all over the country where it concerns Black Americans to find your true answer.

Are those really just about race? Or could they be more about abuse of power? Seems to be more than just black people protesting.

I never claimed racism to be dead, but this is not 1964 either. Attitudes have changed, and the true white on black racists are far outnumbered. I think decency would prevail.

[Cthulhu]

Wrong again. It is against the law to refuse service to blacks. Why is that so hard to understand?
Why do you want to force people to do business with people they don't like?

I never understood the motive.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Captain Obvious]

Why do you want to force people to do business with people they don't like?

I never understood the motive.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

Then certain demographics shouldn't be exempted.

[Mister D]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says private citizens cannot discriminate in their businesses.

:facepalm:

The question is why that should be the law.