WTF Kansas? I really hope there's more to this story....

You would think, gays would want to know who hates them before they hand their money to them and support their businesses.

Strangely though... they would rather force their haters to take their money through lawsuits and media pressure.

Nothing like begging to be taken advantage of.

 

Is that in anyway different from what I said???

That old "I hate racism....but I'm for the freedom to be a racist" Dodge dates back to the 50s and early 60s.

You really expect us to believe that if you walked into a "Whites Only" Cafe in 1955 and saw the sign that you'd turn around or tell your friends "I refuse to eat at a racist restuarant."

Bullcrap. Sure you wouldn't burn the cross on a black family's lawn.....you'd be the guy who would have the barbeque for the cross-burners at his house afterwards. After all...YOU didn't burn the cross...why should you judge those that did?!?!?!?

Sick. Thank God people like you have lost political power and will NEVER get it back.

- - - Updated - - -

You DO realize, you just ADMITTED that the business that refuses them....does so out of HATE.

Which the homophobes deny is true?

Thanks.

 

The reason you can post a sign that says no shirt, no shoes, no service is that because the absence of those things presents a very real and tangible danger to your store and to your customers. Not only from a health perspective, but from a liability perspective. Serving a homosexual does not result in those same harms. Perhaps a person finds it offensive, and are opposed to homosexuality morally - fine. Then open a private business that only serves members. You simply cannot argue that you have the right to operate a public business, because you don't, and it probably won't be a good thing if you did. We need laws to apply to those who serve the public - I can't even imagine how dangerous things would be if we let people set their own food safety standards, for instance.

Not only that, but the act of dressing yourself is a choice. You can choose to put on a hat. You cannot choose to be a homosexual. So to compare the situations isn't valid.

 

Honestly, it wouldn't really matter in this case. People should not be able to do whatever they want to customers and to their store just because they own it. You shouldn't be able to serve spoiled meat that you kept in the windowsill. You shouldn't be able to do renovations that are structurally unsound, and could result in people getting killed. You shouldn't be able to benefit from the roads without paying for them. The list goes on.

We as a society decide what the general standards of conduct for businesses are. It is well within our rights to force people to adhere to certain standards. It is not within your rights to open a business that endangers or harms other people. So if you want your perspective to be law, convince other people of your POV, and elect representatives who agree with you.

 

I will defend your right to believe whatever you do, even though I may not believe it myself. Perhaps, if it is your position that I must agree with what you say to be able to defend defend your right to say it, then maybe I should think the government should silence you.

Another example, I think those religious cults that dance around with rattlesnakes are about as stupid as you can get, but I will defend their freedom to do it. That doesn't mean I condone it, just that I think they should be able to if they want to.

 

I never argued what they can do to their customers... I said they should be able to choose who their customers are.

A quite obvious difference.

As a photographer, I've done it. Despite your laws. It's not hard to do.
I've turned down gays, loud mouthed-black women and various white trash.
Not one of them felt I should be sued.
Strange, eh.

Reading the rest of your "choice = harm" rant, I realize the reasoning I thought was there.... isn't.

 

Equating a refusal to serve people posing a general health and safety hazard to a refusal to serve a group of people that aren't is a pretty big stretch. The problem comes back to the point you keep refusing to address. That point being, there is a difference between a business open to the public and a private club. You got a license to do business, and are therefore agreeing to comply with the rules. One of those rules states you can't just deny services to someone because you don't like them.

 

If they want to choose who their customers are, start a private business that only serves members. If you want to serve the public, you are obliged to follow the rules laid down democratically by the people. Sorry. That is the way it is and the way it should be.

And I'm not sure why what I said qualified as a "rant." I am pretty sure that I was quite calm and collected, and I didn't portray any sort of anger or hostility. Nor was it particularly long-winded. Ergo, not a rant.

 

And again... as I already stated... you guys take someones opinion of what they want, and turn it into their interpretation of law.


"Should" vs. "legally can" for $800, Alex !

 

As I've literally already said three times now:

That is the way it is, and that is the way it should be. Go ahead and contact your representatives, tell them what you want. You are free to say what should be and pursue it with legislation.

Its just that most people don't agree and never will, because it is undesirable to them, for all the reasons I and others have listed. Just be aware it will take a constitutional amendment to remove the power of government to regulate public business as they see fit. Also that outside the libertarian movement, nobody agrees that public business should be able to deny customers based on particular protected traits.

 

:facepalm:

And I will state once again, it is not my position that a private business owner can legally exclude a group based on sexual orientation, it is my position that they SHOULD be able to. Not because I hate gay people, because I believe a private business owner should be able to cater to (or not cater to) whomever he sees fit.

I will point out that it is not illegal to enter most businesses with no shirt and no shoes. Do you think it ought to be? People voluntarily comply with the signage. Why do we need a law?

Another thing about this: If I have a bar and make it a private club, should I be able to stipulate 'No Gays' or 'Whites Only' in the membership agreement? Why is that any different?

 

It is different because you aren't serving the public. I can say "No gays" in my house, I can say "No gays" in my car, and this is a perfectly reasonable expression of my freedom of association. People require permission to enter those premises; I can't just walk into somebodies house, but I most certainly can just walk into someones public business. I mean, these concepts have been validated again and again and again. We are talking about nearly a thousand years of legal precedence recognizing the fundamental differences between the two, and you are actually having a hard time understanding it?

Also, let's just go ahead and stop using the "No shirts, no shoes" example. This has been explained to you numerous times.

Finally, here is my rebuttal to your idea that public businesses SHOULD be able to deny service based upon sexual orientation: no they shouldn't.

 

You don't understand what Jim Crow laws were. They were laws that FORCED businesses and government entities to separate races. Forced businesses against their will.....

This law is not that.

 

Actually, Jim Crow laws usually did not force businesses to segregate races. It did happen in some cases, usually when it came to public transportation, but for the most part, Jim Crow laws really only codified the right of people to choose to discriminate. They also forced government-run institutions to be segregated.

The reason why segregation existed is because an overwhelming number of businesses chose to segregate. It was the result of businesses conscientiously deciding to do it, not because the government made them.

 

And again, this is possible, just register your business as a private club with a membership requirement and you're good to go. It's not difficult. However, if your business has a public business license, you can't, nor should you be able to, discriminate against people for traits over which they have no control.

The option is there if you want it.

 

It's just a gimmick for the right to win over the hard right Christian extremists.

They like this kind of crap even though they know it will be stricken down by scotus

 

He's doing no such thing. Both examples have to do with liberty and property rights.

 

Why can you not understand? There is a difference between condoning a behavior and not wanting the government to prohibit behavior. It's not whether or not he is okay with a whites only sign. It's about allowing the person to make the decision on whether or not to hang such a sign on their own personal place of business.

 

What if the government passed a law prohibiting businesses from serving homosexuals, even if the business owner desired to serve them?

 

This hypothetical is the exact opposite of reality.

So...there's no point in entertaining it.

 

Sure, there's a point. There would not be consistency. The same people advocating for the government to enforce service, despite concern others brought up regarding liberty and property rights, probably would not be so willing to allow governmental interference.

 

Wow...

Dude...

Calm...

Down...

Please read the post for which you are responding to before turning your ambitions to overdrive and start posting like nuts.

This interaction between you and me is the equivalent of someone posting a picture of a UFO and asking, "Hey, what's this about?" and some guy comes on and says, "Bro, you need to post sources before stating things as fact. Just sayin." But... he doesn't need to. He just posted a pic and asked a question.

It's in the title, there bub, "I hope there's more to this story."

Oh and

Which is essentially what I'm doing here. I don't need to "provide better support for my thread". I simply found a video and was actually asking people to debunk it! "Please tell me there's more to this story than Cenk is saying. Tell me Kansas businesses, both big and small, government run or not, can now put up "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs in there window. Tell me that's not true. Tell me that's a hoax."

Firstly, I take more offense when someone starts something out with "no offense" assuming that their statement is somehow going to offend me.

No offense to you, and sorry to burst your bubble, but... no offense taken.

Secondly "no one"? I guess an online news source "that generates over 50 million views per month and has over a billion lifetime views" is not taken seriously. When you make a statement like "no one takes them seriously", I have to wonder: "compared what." It seems more like a biased statement, so I would have to ask you, who do people take seriously? The Blaze? InfoWars? Breitbart? RedState? Is this a liberal vs. conservative type thing?

Again I'm asking a question for which you are free to debunk. The question marks there should make it obvious, but with your first response to my thread I'm not really hoping for much.

 

They don't seem capable of grasping the difference.

Exactly.

That's the thing... the whole "Then start a private club/business" thing is a ridiculous idea, because as we have seen, they will then take those organizations on.

 

Sorry, did my copy and paste scare you ?

 

The point I was making with that analogy was not to compare shirtlessness to homosexuality, but to establish precedent that business owners can post signs based on their own criteria, and that people who do not comply can be ejected from his place of business. And that ejection will be supported by law enforcement under trespassing law. He could currently post a sign that says 'No Mustaches', and could eject people based on that criteria as well. Fact is, a private business owner can already eject people from his premises for ANY reason at his discretion, and law enforcement will support him.

That said, it's not in any businesses best interest to do so. Its a stupid thing to do. But they can do it, and they should be allowed to. I think everyone would be better served if racist, bigoted, homophobic, mustache hating, topless-fearing businessmen simply posted signage declaring themselves so that consumers can make informed decisions and the market can decide winners and losers.

Let's explore a hypothetical scenario: A homophobic business owner opens an ice cream shop, and posts a 'No Gays' sign in his window. Only his fellow homophobes will patronize his business, because homosexuals and principled people will shun him. But, wait.... gay people like ice cream too! So an enterprising young (not necessarily gay) man seizes the opportunity and opens his own ice cream shop across the street. He posts a sign in HIS window saying 'Everybody Welcome!'. What do you think would happen?