Running Gator Posted October 11, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Butero said: I will go further than this. I don't think the government has any business forcing a private business to make smoking in their establishment illegal. That should be up to the owner, and the free market should determine how that goes over. It opens the door for another restaurant to come in next door that bans smoking. The government needs to stay out of things like this. I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 11 minutes ago, Butero said: I want to point something out here. If we are going to defend anti-discrimination laws, then how can we defend the photographer that doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding if they have a policy of doing weddings? It is discrimination, based on someone's religious beliefs. The same thing applies to a bakery that does wedding cakes. How do you deny a cake that says Henry and Steve and has two guys on the top if you make one for a couple named Andy and Betty? It is discrimination, but based on religion. I believe we should have the right to discriminate. Actually, you have it backwards. The discrimination was against the baker and the photographer. The baker and photographer didn't discriminate against the homosexuals. In the first place, they had served homosexuals in the past on numerous occasions. Discrimination can only be assigned to them IF they had denied to serve homosexuals at all. Their refusal to lend their services to a wedding isn't discrimination in the usual, plain sense of the term, as they were not refusing to serve homosexuals on the grounds that they were homosexuals. They were refusing lend their services to participate in a service or ceremony on the basis of their faith. The homosexuals were persecuting them for their faith. That's where the discrimination occurred. The same baker and photographer would have also turned down making cakes for anything else that violated their sincerely held convictions like a Satanist event or a Wiccan event, or something of that nature. There was a Christian baker in my city that refused to make a cake for a bachelorette party because they wanted it in the shape of male genitalia. He was not accused of discrimination and they presumably went to a different baker to get what they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted October 11, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,817 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2017 Quote It is not unreasonable to expect restaurants to serve Muslims, it is unreasonable to force restaurants to serve Muslims, or anyone else for that matter. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the government to do such things to private businesses. RG Agreed......I owned a full service salon for many years(hair,nails,skin care etc...)...I believe it was somewhere in the early 90's when the gov't decided to ban smoking in salons,I did not comply ,as a matter of fact I even put up a sign that said "Smoking permitted".........I'm not sure why I never got a fine but I didn't and I even had a couple of clients that were not happy about my decision .... The majority of my clientele were smokers but even if they were not I could not wrap my head around the fact that I was the owner,it was my private business and private property ...the gov't got their portion in taxes -double because I not only paid City Tax but County as well !!!!! I was not going to let anyone tell me what I can or cannot do on my property the same way I would not expect anyone to tell me what I can or cannot do in my own home Many other salon owners besides myself felt the same way ,we protested,signed petitions & did all we could to prevent the proposed law & it went through anyway...... That is how it starts,imo.....then it was restaurants & bars and so on & so on......now they are going to tell private business who they MUST serve,its ridiculous because ultimately it can lead right back to the gov't telling people who they CANNOT serve! Do you think it will come to that-"Christians MUST NOT be served" ? God Bless,Kwik 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 52 minutes ago, kwikphilly said: Agreed......I owned a full service salon for many years(hair,nails,skin care etc...)...I believe it was somewhere in the early 90's when the gov't decided to ban smoking in salons,I did not comply ,as a matter of fact I even put up a sign that said "Smoking permitted".........I'm not sure why I never got a fine but I didn't and I even had a couple of clients that were not happy about my decision .... The majority of my clientele were smokers but even if they were not I could not wrap my head around the fact that I was the owner,it was my private business and private property ...the gov't got their portion in taxes -double because I not only paid City Tax but County as well !!!!! I was not going to let anyone tell me what I can or cannot do on my property the same way I would not expect anyone to tell me what I can or cannot do in my own home Many other salon owners besides myself felt the same way ,we protested,signed petitions & did all we could to prevent the proposed law & it went through anyway...... That is how it starts,imo.....then it was restaurants & bars and so on & so on......now they are going to tell private business who they MUST serve,its ridiculous because ultimately it can lead right back to the gov't telling people who they CANNOT serve! Do you think it will come to that-"Christians MUST NOT be served" ? God Bless,Kwik So do you think it is constitutional for restaurants to say that African-Americans cannot eat, or work there? Should we go back to the days when they had to use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains? Should we revert back to the 50's when African Americans were allowed to be treated that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted October 11, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,817 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2017 Quote So do you think it is constitutional for restaurants to say that African-Americans cannot eat, or work there? Should we go back to the days when they had to use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains? Should we revert back to the 50's when African Americans were allowed to be treated that way? Well that was my whole point and why I asked "Do you think it will come to that?" To answer your question,I would say "No,I don't believe it is Constitutional to say "African Americans or anyone else for that matter CANNOT eat or work in a place" and "No,I do not think we should revert back to treating people of any race,creed or color less than human" And that is where I see us headed-I think everyone is equal & should be treated equally & given the same rights as anyone else..... that is why I think my own rights were infringed upon when the gov't stepped in to say I cannot permit smoking in my salon,smoking is not against the law and if anyone didn't like it no one is forcing them to come into my place of business....I think we are talking about apples & oranges because I am certainly not talking about skin color,that was beyond discrimination,thaty was total ignorance & unGodliness I live in Florida,we have the right to hire here(which is also the right to fire any employee at will,we are not mandated to give them a reason) Down South it is a bit different for private business owners ,if I do not want to hire you I do not have to give you a reason and I think it should be up to they owner who they hiire and who they fire..........that is not saying that everyone does not have equal rights or opportunities,it is simply giving business owners the right to conduct their business as they wish to which I think is fair in the same way I think it should be up to the owner who they serve & who they don't......What if a gang of rowdy individuals came to a business,do they not have the right to tell them to leave ?I don't think I ever refused to serve anyone in my life but I sure would not like it if I didn't have that option God Bless,Kwik 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, kwikphilly said: Well that was my whole point and why I asked "Do you think it will come to that?" To answer your question,I would say "No,I don't believe it is Constitutional to say "African Americans or anyone else for that matter CANNOT eat or work in a place" and "No,I do not think we should revert back to treating people of any race,creed or color less than human" And that is where I see us headed-I think everyone is equal & should be treated equally & given the same rights as anyone else..... that is why I think my own rights were infringed upon when the gov't stepped in to say I cannot permit smoking in my salon,smoking is not against the law and if anyone didn't like it no one is forcing them to come into my place of business....I think we are talking about apples & oranges because I am certainly not talking about skin color,that was beyond discrimination,thaty was total ignorance & unGodliness I agree. But we have some on this thread, if you read above, who think that we should go back to when restaurant owners can be allowed to deny service to anyone on the basis of skin color/ethnicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted October 11, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: So do you think it is constitutional for restaurants to say that African-Americans cannot eat, or work there? Should we go back to the days when they had to use separate bathrooms and drinking fountains? Should we revert back to the 50's when African Americans were allowed to be treated that way? What in the Constitution gives the government the right to force people to serve someone that they do not want to serve? I personally do not think we would revert to those days. I do not know a single person that would give their business to a company that would make such choices. The marketplace would work it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravindran Posted October 11, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 496 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 398 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/18/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2017 16 hours ago, Butero said: I believe we should have the right to discriminate. Discrimination based on gender, caste, ethnicity - I am pretty sure these are not okay However, I do see the point that it would be legal. The 14th amendment is there to avoid discrimination between government and the people. I don't think it adequately addresses what happens between people. But if government does not interfere in the other forms of discrimination, who else would control? How else we can be assured that we don't go back to practices of centuries old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted October 11, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,817 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2017 Quote I agree. But we have some on this thread, if you read above, who think that we should go back to when restaurant owners can be allowed to deny service to anyone on the basis of skin color/ethnicity. Glad to know we are on the same page,I thought it would be so if I explained better what I was trying to say......I did look back as you suggested & I did get the same impression,that is sad God Bless,Kwik 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Running Gator said: What in the Constitution gives the government the right to force people to serve someone that they do not want to serve? I personally do not think we would revert to those days. I do not know a single person that would give their business to a company that would make such choices. The marketplace would work it out. But what you're saying is that laws preventing people from imposing their bigotry on others is unreasonable and unconstitutional. That is your opinion and we will ignore it treat it what is it worth (which is nothing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts