wingnut- Posted February 20, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted February 20, 2015 You are correct ladyc in regards to the license. However, because of the civil rights act and legislation that is now law in this land, no one has the right to refuse service to anyone in a public establishment. So while individuals may have personal reservations about others, they are going to run into problems when they refuse service to others based on what our laws consider "discrimination." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 You are correct ladyc in regards to the license. However, because of the civil rights act and legislation that is now law in this land, no one has the right to refuse service to anyone in a public establishment. So while individuals may have personal reservations about others, they are going to run into problems when they refuse service to others based on what our laws consider "discrimination." the civil rights act and legislation only applies to employment, not services. the state still retains that right, for now, and that state does not legislate against discrimination of services. i only know that because it's in the article, and is why the couple has decided not to sue over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted February 20, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted February 20, 2015 I have to disagree, if a minority enters a restaurant now, they cannot be refused service as was the case prior to these laws, which are federal laws. They take precedence over state laws, and while I am glad they are not pursuing the matter, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else doesn't push for action. It comes down to the definition of discrimination, which is still not clearly established yet in regards to same-sex issues, but will be before long. Particularly if people continue to refuse service on these type of grounds, just as it was in regards to racial discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 the federal law pertaining to discrimination against sexual orientation applies to employment, not to services. services are covered under the civil rights law, which DOES NOT include sexual orientation. yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted February 20, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted February 20, 2015 the federal law pertaining to discrimination against sexual orientation applies to employment, not to services. services are covered under the civil rights law, which DOES NOT include sexual orientation. yet. agreed, the operative word is yet in there. although the fate of the florist who refused service for that same-sex wedding has now set a precedent that will become the law of the land, and will soon be applied to all of these circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 was the florist in the same state? some states do have laws prohibiting discrimination of services based on sexual orientation. and it's just a matter of time before all states do. and between now and then, judges are legislating from the bench... that's one of my soap-boxes i'll try not to jump on in this thread, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 i just googled it... the pediatrician is in michigan. the florist was in washington. different states, different laws, for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted February 20, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted February 20, 2015 yeah, the doctor is here, the florist is in washington. the federal govt is going to make this law for everyone though, it is simply a matter of time at this point. and i agree with you, can't tolerate judges making law as they do, was not their role, and no one is checking them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 yeah, the doctor is here, the florist is in washington. the federal govt is going to make this law for everyone though, it is simply a matter of time at this point. and i agree with you, can't tolerate judges making law as they do, was not their role, and no one is checking them. did you see my thread about the texas judge that married a lesbian couple yesterday in violation of texas law? people are celebrating this as a win. people are so foolish. they don't see that this has effectively rendered ALL law irrelevant. it's a matter of time til we live in total anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted February 20, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted February 20, 2015 yes, i read that thread, people now celebrate and call what is wrong, right, and what is right, wrong. none of this is a surprise at this point, we are declining rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts