Oklahoma GOP Lawmaker: ‘Gays Don’t Have a Right to Eat Anywhere They Want’

[OldRegular]

I wonder what other groups he believes should not be served?

I think they should all come to your house!

 

[Revmitchell]

I wonder what other groups he believes should not be served?

No you don't. You are just starting this thread because you cannot stand Obama being exposed for the liar and racist that he is on this board.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Aha! But the gay people need to prove intent.

Hardly....they need to get a jury on their side in a emotionally-stacked civil case, that's hardly the burden of proof necessary in a criminal trial.

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.

And everyone would know why you refused, and you could be sued, and you would quite likely lose.....
Unless you spent zillions of dollars on high-priced legal counsel which would bankrupt you anyway.

We don't need terribly written laws full of loopholes and exceptions giving us "rights" to refuse services.

No, we need only one law respecting everyone's right to refuse services to anyone for any reason even if those reasons are abhorrent to most people.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I would plead the fifth. :laugh:

A protection which exists in criminal law but not civil law.
The fifth does not apply to civil cases:
In many states, the law can deny you the opportunity to plead the fifth.
Even if it is permitted, invoking the fifth on such a question can imperil jury decisions.
In criminal cases juries are instructed NOT TO view pleading the fifth as evidence of guilt.
In civil cases juries are not instructed this way. They may view a plea of the fifth or a refusal to answer such probative questions any way they choose.

We don't need new and stupid law

True: we need to repeal the old ones which prevented private business owners from refusing service to anyone they chose and created numerous sets of protected classes of people to whom one could not refuse service; even though some people may refuse service for what we consider to be morally abhorrent reasons.
Those laws, while perhaps well-meaning were ultimately ill-advised and have resulted in these horrific consequences we are enduring.
These laws are a reaction to them.

 

[Zaac]

No you don't. You are just starting this thread because you cannot stand Obama being exposed for the liar and racist that he is on this board.

What does this thread have to do with Obama? You've obviously got some anger issues with this Obama.

Lay it at the foot of the Cross.:thumbsup:

 

[Scott J]

The business owner can refuse service and not give any reasoning for doing so.

Not really. If someone thinks they know the reason then they can file a complaint. In most states, the gov't will come and force an answer during their inquiry.

Presumably people that go to restaurants go there to eat.

Mostly. But some come to display their lifestyles. We might agree that a business has a "right" to ask patrons not to witness to other patrons. That right applies just as well to demonstrations of "gay pride" or whatever.

 

[Scott J]

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?

How is it codifying discrimination to allow business owners to freely decide what is and is not acceptable on their property? The attempt to "codify" are on the other side in PROHIBITING people from acting on their sincerely held beliefs.

What about the unmarried couple that's shacking up and fornicating? Can they still eat? What about the alcoholic?

Businesses remove drunks all the time.

Businesses are unlikely to solicit personal information about patrons who do not make some sort of demonstration.

What exactly does what someone does in their homes have to do with whether or not they can eat at a restaurant?

Indeed. It isn't what they do or don't do in their homes. It is the RIGHT of others to disagree and refuse association that's in question. A restaurant owner has no right to get gov't to pass an ordinance prohibiting any restaurant from serving homosexuals. Likewise homosexuals have no right to get gov't to pass an ordinance IMPOSING them on businesses that do not want to serve them because of their CHOICE of lifestyle.

Pure foolishness and he should be ashamed of himself.

The shame should be from those who would strip others of their rights in the name of "tolerance".

 

[Scott J]

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.

This is an abuse of the Constitution that has no root in the ideals of the men who wrote the Constitution.

Federal law with REAL support from the USC also prohibits any gov't law from inhibiting the free practice of religion and guarantees freedom of association along with property rights. In a sane society, we would seek solutions where no one's ox had to be gored.

There are REAL attempts to suppress religious rights and to force acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate moral alternative on everyone. That is what these laws are about. The evidence is EXTREMELY lean suggesting that homosexuals are subject to pervasive discrimination. But that isn't good enough. They want others to be FORCED to "accept" them... all in the name of "tolerance" of course.

 

[Scott J]

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.

But why shouldn't others be able to say "because it violates my religious beliefs"?

FTR, what you suggest will not work in places like Washington state where investigators will be sent to get "answers".

Why shouldn't gays be expected to show "tolerance" for those who disagree with them?

 

[Scott J]

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.

So you would effectively lie?

 

[InTheLight]

Not really. If someone thinks they know the reason then they can file a complaint. In most states, the gov't will come and force an answer during their inquiry.

"Because I didn't want to bake a cake." Asked and answered.

 

[InTheLight]

So you would effectively lie?

No. If I say I didn't want to bake a cake that means I didn't want to bake a cake. If someone continues questioning with, "why didn't you want to bake a cake?", I reply, "I just didn't feel like it."

This could go on all day until I wore out the questioner.

 

[Zaac]

No. If I say I didn't want to bake a cake that means I didn't want to bake a cake. If someone continues questioning with, "why didn't you want to bake a cake?", I reply, "I just didn't feel like it."

This could go on all day until I wore out the questioner.

:thumbsup: Exactly. There's no need for specifics other than I'm tired and I don't feel like doing it. Find someone else.

They can ask "Is it because I'm gay?" and my response will still be "It's because I don't feel like it".

You can't make me feel like doing something I don't want to do.

 

[carpro]

Presumably people that go to restaurants go there to eat.

Sometimes homosexual couples like to flaunt it, liplocking in pubnlic purely for the shock effect.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Lot of these replies are just rewording of pro-segregation arguments from the 50's and 60's.

 

[InTheLight]

Sometimes homosexual couples like to flaunt it, liplocking in pubnlic purely for the shock effect.

Then you have a reasonable motivation for removing them from your restaurant.

 

[Revmitchell]

Lot of these replies are just rewording of pro-segregation arguments from the 50's and 60's.

Really, show us those arguments from then.

 

[Zaac]

Sometimes homosexual couples like to flaunt it, liplocking in pubnlic purely for the shock effect.

Treat them the same way you treat the straight customers. No PDA in the restaurant.

 

[carpro]

Then you have a reasonable motivation for removing them from your restaurant.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Salty]

:thumbsup: Exactly. There's no need for specifics other than I'm tired and I don't feel like doing it. Find someone else.


They can ask "Is it because I'm homosexual*?" and my response will still be "It's because I don't feel like it".

*Slightly edited to conform to L.E.F.T.

Then a straight couple comes in and want a wedding cake.
Guess you cant make them a cake, because you don't feel like it.