Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Mar 7, 2015.
I wonder what other groups he believes should not be served?
Did you even bother to read the bill?
One of the unfortunate products of the civil rights movement was the "public accommodations" rules that trample the Bill of Rights. They were too broad. There needs to be a clear distinction drawn between refusing service based on a benign physical characteristic such as race and refusing service based on behavior or even opinion.
In short, if homosexuals entered a business engaging in behavior that was offensive to the business owner and contrary to his sincerely held moral opinion... then it should be the business owner's ABSOLUTE RIGHT under OUR Constitution to ask them to leave.
You are free to do as you like. You are NOT free to do as you like on someone else's property or at their expense.
The business owner can refuse service and not give any reasoning for doing so.
Presumably people that go to restaurants go there to eat.
This is stupid and just another way to try to codify discrimination. It's a restaurant. Gay people have been eating at restaurants forever. So now we're going to start telling them you can't eat in this or that establishment because I disagree with your lifestyle?
What about the unmarried couple that's shacking up and fornicating? Can they still eat? What about the alcoholic?
What exactly does what someone does in their homes have to do with whether or not they can eat at a restaurant?
Pure foolishness and he should be ashamed of himself.
You would think, wouldn't ya? They make it sound like gay people have been coming in and having sex in the middle of the floor while folks are trying to eat.
If any couple at all was acting inappropriately for a public place, I'd refuse them too.
I'm guessing some folks didn't read the bill.
I did. I didn't see anything in there regarding actions taken by people as being needed to invoke the law. It simply states:
no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex, gender or sexual orientation:
Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges....
and then it lists a bunch of other things.
So basically if a "religiously sincere person" has beliefs regarding sexual orientation that conflict with a customer they can deny them service, regardless of any action or activity that customer might be doing.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/SB/SB440 INT.PDF
I guess that means if a gay restauranteur with religious convictions sees a person drive up with a bumper sticker on it proclaiming marriage as between a man and a woman he can deny them service.
Note: quote slightly changed to conform to L.E.F.T.
And If I don't want to see a woman breastfeeding in my restaurant - well, I can't stop her legally.
IMHO - a business owner should have the right to refuse serve to anyone for any reason sufficient to him.
It is painfully obvious that CTB did not bother to read the actual bill but instead is relying on misleading headlines because he thinks that it will get under someone's skin - which seems to be his primary purpose in being here.
Here is a link to the bill... http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/SB/SB440 INT.PDF
The bill is a mild attempt to protect religious rights which are too frequently subjugated by political correctness to every other right - whether those rights are real or imagined.
And THAT is what they should be saying. There's no need to specify an orientation. Folks are trying to eat. They don't need a soft porn display from any couple, gay or straight.
I read it. It will not pass.
Every business imaginable operates under the auspices of interstate commerce unless they are getting all of their food and water and power locally which is highly unlikely. Restaurants aren't allowed to discriminate if they are serving food obtained by interstate commerce because that falls underneath federal jurisdiction. And the federal government prohibits discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.
My guess is that this is in response to recent law suits against wedding cake bakers and photographers that don't want to be forced to participate in gay weddings.
Gay activists have made a point of looking for businesses that don't want to promote the gay choice and then set out to punish those businesses.
The law says otherwise when it comes to protected classes. I just can't see anything of Christ in a decision to not want someone to eat in your restaurant because you know they are gay.
Aha! But the gay people need to prove intent. If I were a baker that didn't want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, I would politely decline. If the customer asked why I won't do it, I would say, "because I don't want to." In other words, I don't have to give a reason why, just that I'm not going to do it.
We don't need terribly written laws full of loopholes and exceptions giving us "rights" to refuse services.
or will the law require you to prove you were NOT discrimating based on certain classes?
Please note - in the my quote - I did NOT bold the statement.
If the gay people wanted to sue me for not baking the cake, my testimony would be that "I didn't want to make a cake". If pressed, I would say, "I didn't feel like it." I suppose if they asked me flat out "Isn't it true that you refused to bake the cake because the customer is gay" I would plead the fifth. :laugh:
We don't need new and stupid laws.
Why wouldn't you want to bake a cake for happy people?
Because I've baked enough cakes today and I'm tired. My friends at the Cake Bakery will probably have more resources to accommodate your cake needs.:thumbsup:
LOL Sitting here laughing in my happy apparel!