Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
They are a business and as such should be regulated by the same laws as every other business.

I also find it hilarious that a "Conservative Christian" "church" makes a profit out of selling one of the sacred sacraments... I could have sworn that I read something in the bible about Jesus opening a can of whoopass on people just like that.

Selling the blessing of God for profit = good conservative Christians, apparently.

Where are they "sellling the blessings of God?"

They aren't, at all.

Thats at the self help place calling itself a church at the former basketball stadium just down the road.

 Talizvar wrote:

I was just thinking back of all the hoops we had to jump through for getting our kids baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.

Marriage is one thing, being threatened with eternal damnation to your children is another...

What hoops were those?

Beside being an active member of the parish?

 KingCracker wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


An Asian owned restaurant refuses a white couple service merely for the couple being white. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

A female owned hair salon refuses to serve a male client on the grounds that he is male. Are legal consequences for the business ridiculous?

I'd simply find a business willing to take my money. I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

This in a nutshell. Yes.

I'm responding to both of you (Cincy and King) but with all due respect bs. I understand your sentiment, as I wouldn't want to do business with a hostile entity either, but if you or a loved one were discriminated against for something as arbitrary as skin color, gender, or the gender/race of a partner, I am really skeptical that either of you would just shrug your shoulders and find somewhere else to go. More than likely you'd be pissed off. More than likely you'd make a fuss. More than likely you'd go out of your way to correct the wrong inflicted upon you or yours because what the business was doing is illegal. It is really easy to claim otherwise, especially if you haven't been discriminated against in this fashion, but people are breaking the law based on their own biases and the response the two of your are advocating is: "Oh well, go somewhere else?"

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

 cincydooley wrote:
I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

Because, as Whembly is so fond of saying, "You didn't build that".

Businesses in this country benefit enormously from the fruits of society. They enjoy a stable government, and a stable supply chain that brings. UPS brings their goods from wherever. The police protect the property and deter theft and vandalism, unless you're in Detroit. You have plumbing, and clean water, also not wholly applicable in Detroit. The fire department protects the property from fire, obviously. When they need to hire employees, the pool of employees to pick from will be relatively well educated and stable.

Those are the perks of a organized society that we all build together. But they come with some responsibilities, too. You have to pay your taxes, obviously, that's one. The other is there are a whole host of regulations that you have to abide by, that we, as a complete society, decided we wanted and had codified into law via our elected representatives. You have to provide a safe workplace. You have to pay into worker's comp, in case someone gets injured. You have to post advertisements that are honest and goods that are accurately labelled. And yes, you are not allowed to discriminate against some members of the public, because those members of the public are also tax-paying members of the same society that gave you the benefits you enjoy.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand as a grown adult.

I am really worried that the guys/gals getting married may have no way to buy a wedding cake with the nazi bakers in the US and all.
Everyone should be able to buy gak cake with gak icing once in their life....or in the modern world...2 or 3 times.
or if frazzled or cincy never, because their wedding cakes were good

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

This is fairly bigoted and inflammatory and has been flagged as such.

But if want to have the ability to legally wed people, then you should have to legally wed anybody they can legally get married.

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

And this is where I'll mostly agree and say that they should all be two person civil unions and that any "marriage ceremony" should have nothing to do with the government.

I'm all for that idea as well.

You go to the Priest/Shaman/Vicar/Rabbi.....and do your religious MARRIAGE ceremony.

Then, you go before a judge or Justice of the Peace (or some other person with the legal authority) and get your government sanctioned CIVIL UNION.

Religions won't have to marry non religious people or feel that they are condoning a lifestyle that they don't agree with.....but a civil union allows everyone to be treated the same under the eyes of the law.

Hmm...sounds a bit like "Separate but Equal"....doesn't it? However, I would hope, that in this instance, there would actually be equality.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

Because, as Whembly is so fond of saying, "You didn't build that".

Businesses in this country benefit enormously from the fruits of society. They enjoy a stable government, and a stable supply chain that brings. UPS brings their goods from wherever. The police protect the property and deter theft and vandalism, unless you're in Detroit. You have plumbing, and clean water, also not wholly applicable in Detroit. The fire department protects the property from fire, obviously. When they need to hire employees, the pool of employees to pick from will be relatively well educated and stable.

Those are the perks of a organized society that we all build together. But they come with some responsibilities, too. You have to pay your taxes, obviously, that's one. The other is there are a whole host of regulations that you have to abide by, that we, as a complete society, decided we wanted and had codified into law via our elected representatives. You have to provide a safe workplace. You have to pay into worker's comp, in case someone gets injured. You have to post advertisements that are honest and goods that are accurately labelled. And yes, you are not allowed to discriminate against some members of the public, because those members of the public are also tax-paying members of the same society that gave you the benefits you enjoy.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand as a grown adult.

whilst I agree with you in theory, I have barred people from the niche business I work in (mainly for being jackasses) . I do think (however different my practical opinion is from my theory opinion) that business reserves a right to refuse service on whatever grounds.This however may be otiose.

 d-usa wrote:

We have separation of church of state. If you want to be an agent of the state and officiate then your religion shouldn't matter. If your religion doesn't let you perform your job as an agent of the state, then don't apply for the ability to officiate.

This is pretty much how I feel. They have the right to be a moral/conscientious objector but they have to live with the consequences. Knowing that your state has legalized a form of public union that he/she does not agree with on moral grounds, they should shred refrain from performing in public commerce in that capacity or face the legal repercussions of your decision.

The bible says, "Thou shall not kill" but people were still jailed for refusing to join the army when drafted on that basis; only practicing ministers are exempt.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think any private business should be able to deny whomever they'd like. Why would I want to take my business someone to a place that didn't want me?

Because, as Whembly is so fond of saying, "You didn't build that".

Businesses in this country benefit enormously from the fruits of society. They enjoy a stable government, and a stable supply chain that brings. UPS brings their goods from wherever. The police protect the property and deter theft and vandalism, unless you're in Detroit. You have plumbing, and clean water, also not wholly applicable in Detroit. The fire department protects the property from fire, obviously. When they need to hire employees, the pool of employees to pick from will be relatively well educated and stable.

Those are the perks of a organized society that we all build together. But they come with some responsibilities, too. You have to pay your taxes, obviously, that's one. The other is there are a whole host of regulations that you have to abide by, that we, as a complete society, decided we wanted and had codified into law via our elected representatives. You have to provide a safe workplace. You have to pay into worker's comp, in case someone gets injured. You have to post advertisements that are honest and goods that are accurately labelled. And yes, you are not allowed to discriminate against some members of the public, because those members of the public are also tax-paying members of the same society that gave you the benefits you enjoy.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand as a grown adult.

Wheaton's Law and all that.

 TheMeanDM wrote:


Hmm...sounds a bit like "Separate but Equal"....doesn't it? However, I would hope, that in this instance, there would actually be equality.

Not really, though, if everyone has the same access to the one that has legal standing....

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

This is fairly bigoted and inflammatory and has been flagged as such.

It's not bigoted if you read what I actually post and think about it for longer than it takes to move the mouse over to the triangle of friendship.

I'm talking about viewing it from the eyes of the state. Since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state the state shouldn't care at all what kind of ceremony you are doing. The only thing that should matter to the state is that a state sanctioned officiant performs a wedding between two people that can legally marry. That's it. Everything else is private and meaningless. If a person doesn't want to do that they can do private meaningless ceremonies. If a religious person wants to officiate they can do private meaningless religious ceremonies.

They would not be meaningless because they are religious. They would be meaningless because they would be done by a person that doesn't have the authority to actually officiate over a wedding.

But please, continue the outrage.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

I just think when it comes to private businesses in 2014, people should be allowed to be dicks.

I'm of the belief that in 2014, in the United States, most of these businesses will go out of business or have their business severely impacted because of their asshattery.

You know why they call it "the invisible hand"? Because it doesn't actually exist.

 d-usa wrote:

They would not be meaningless because they are religious. They would be meaningless because they would be done by a person that doesn't have the authority to actually officiate over a wedding.

I should go all dogma here and say, "well you should have expressly said that in your initial post."

I'm not outraged. I just think private businesses should be allowed to do what they want.

I don't believe every private business should be considered a "public accommodation"

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

I just think when it comes to private businesses in 2014, people should be allowed to be dicks.

I just think when it comes to doing something that requires licensing by the state in 2014, people should be required to not be dicks.

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

I refuse to believe for one second that either of you would honestly do that or advocate that response from someone close to you. Granted, I know you will likely dig in and defend your stance to the death, so I am not looking for a public change of opinion here, but seriously...BS. If this was your wife or daughter, or grandson or nephew, you wouldn't be enraged that a business was refusing them service due to the business owner's own bigotry?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't. I'd teach them:

1. Why the person didn't want to serve them and why, to me, it's morally wrong.
2. I'd explain that while I think it's morally wrong, people are allowed to be bigots and donkey-caves.
3. I'd explain to her that we live in a country of boundless choices and options, so we're simply going to take our business elsewhere.

So you'd teach them that it was okay for people to arbitrarily break the law, but as long as there were other law abiding businesses to patronize the infraction should be ignored?

Seems like a bad message to instill on anyone you cared about. Passivity in these instances only breeds more bigotry.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They can still officiate private meaningless religious ceremonies

This is fairly bigoted and inflammatory and has been flagged as such.

It's not bigoted if you read what I actually post and think about it for longer than it takes to move the mouse over to the triangle of friendship.

I'm talking about viewing it from the eyes of the state. Since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state the state shouldn't care at all what kind of ceremony you are doing. The only thing that should matter to the state is that a state sanctioned officiant performs a wedding between two people that can legally marry. That's it. Everything else is private and meaningless. If a person doesn't want to do that they can do private meaningless ceremonies. If a religious person wants to officiate they can do private meaningless religious ceremonies.

They would not be meaningless because they are religious. They would be meaningless because they would be done by a person that doesn't have the authority to actually officiate over a wedding.

But please, continue the outrage.

Where does the cake inhabit in all of these legal ramifrications, it's the wedding cake that matters, with all of it's one inch marzipan shitness.

I've just realised I'm a wedding cake bigot.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They would not be meaningless because they are religious. They would be meaningless because they would be done by a person that doesn't have the authority to actually officiate over a wedding.

I should go all dogma here and say, "well you should have expressly said that in your initial post."

I think that it was quite clear in the context of everything else in that post.

I'm not outraged. I just think private businesses should be allowed to do what they want.

Within the law.

I don't believe every private business should be considered a "public accommodation"

State licensing would be a good test to see if it falls under "public accommodation" IMO.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

I just think when it comes to private businesses in 2014, people should be allowed to be dicks.

I just think when it comes to doing something that requires licensing by the state in 2014, people should be required to not be dicks.

No, no, I agree with you here. Which is why, like I said above, that I agree that anything dealing with the legal protection shouldn't even be done through any religious ceremony or by any non-state employed official.

 Bullockist wrote:
I've just realised I'm a wedding cake bigot.

It's not wedding cake racism when it's true. I've never had a good wedding cake, and I can say that as a portly gentleman who has both sampled many cakes, and has been to many weddings. Those Venn circles rarely overlap.

 cincydooley wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Wheaton's Law and all that.

I just think when it comes to private businesses in 2014, people should be allowed to be dicks.

I'm of the belief that in 2014, in the United States, most of these businesses will go out of business or have their business severely impacted because of their asshattery.

I disagree. When a government allows this to occur on a widespread basis, the obvious result is segregation. As for your comment on corporate darwinism; let's go back to Chick-fil-A CEO's now famous comments on same-sex marriage. At some point, a company can "be a dick" and still be in business because they're just that big.

within the law how can you ever prove refusal of service on any grounds?
All the business has to say is they did not like the customer. If your not refusing on anything other than general grounds there is no problem.
it's a non issue.
As ouze notes, the quality of wedding cake is the issue. In preference to wedding cake I'd seriously prefer a lamington...and that's saying something.

 d-usa wrote:
I just think when it comes to doing something that requires licensing by the state in 2014, people should be required to not be dicks.

"But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship"

 d-usa wrote:
It's their playground, it's their rules. Some of the rules might have good reasons and also stupid reasons.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/615664.page#7213171

 agnosto wrote:
At some point, a company can "be a dick" and still be in business because they're just that big.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at with my "invisible hand" comment: I'm not an economist but it seems to me once a company reaches a certain critical mass they essentially become immune from consequences.

 d-usa wrote:


State licensing would be a good test to see if it falls under "public accommodation" IMO.

Additionally, I think it'll be interesting to see how many business become "clubs" to better suit their desires in regards to patronage.

The Boy Scouts ruling in....2000? could support some of this.

Truth be told, I'm amazed that Abercrombie hasn't been forced to make size 24 jeans yet.

 Bullockist wrote:
I am really worried that the guys/gals getting married may have no way to buy a wedding cake with the nazi bakers in the US and all.
Everyone should be able to buy gak cake with gak icing once in their life....or in the modern world...2 or 3 times.
or if frazzled or cincy never, because their wedding cakes were good

My wedding cake was awesome. The caskes were the only thing I picked out, ok that and the reception being held in a barbeque joint.

Wife priorities: prenup, dress, moving, blah blah blah lah blah blah
Frazzled priority: food!
Not much has changed since then...

 Ouze wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
At some point, a company can "be a dick" and still be in business because they're just that big.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at with my "invisible hand" comment: I'm not an economist but it seems to me once a company reaches a certain critical mass they essentially become immune from consequences.

And that is how GW is still in business...

Ooh, is there some law like Godwin's about GW still being in business despite themselves?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

I got so zooted up on Sangria after my wedding I don't really remember either the food, or the latter half of the night.

 Ouze wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
At some point, a company can "be a dick" and still be in business because they're just that big.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at with my "invisible hand" comment: I'm not an economist but it seems to me once a company reaches a certain critical mass they essentially become immune from consequences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at that point aren't most of those businesses Public, not private?